Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RIGHT)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Talk   Portal   Showcase   Assessment   Collaboration   Incubator   Guide   Newsroom   About Us   Commons  


Shortcuts:

WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism. You can learn more about us here. If you would like to help, please join the project, inquire on the talk page and see the to-do list below. Guidelines and other useful information can be found here.


Tasks

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
vieweditdiscusshistorywatch

Conservatism articles

Conservatism article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Daily log of status changes
Current Statistics
Index · Statistics · Log · Update


See also


Reports

Dashboard

Alerts

Articles for deletion
Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Peer reviews

Assessment log

July 29, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Cuckservative (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

July 28, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Henry Angest (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

July 26, 2015

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

July 25, 2015

Assessed

July 22, 2015

Assessed

  • Centrism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Thomas W. Beasley (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

July 21, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

July 20, 2015

Reassessed

Removed

July 19, 2015

Reassessed

July 17, 2015

Assessed

July 15, 2015

Assessed

July 12, 2015

Assessed

  • Jon Hammes (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

July 11, 2015

Assessed

July 5, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Boris Yeltsin (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

July 4, 2015

Assessed

July 3, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

July 2, 2015

Reassessed

  • American Majority (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Bharatiya Janata Party (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to GA-Class (rev · t).
  • CatholicVote.org (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Paul Ryan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Robert Menzies (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • Sarah Palin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Wayne Ross (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

June 17, 2015

Reassessed

June 15, 2015

Assessed

Removed

June 12, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

June 9, 2015

Removed

  • Joseph Stalin (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

June 4, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

June 3, 2015

Reassessed

  • Americans for Prosperity (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • Lurita Doan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

June 1, 2015

Assessed

May 31, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

  • Terry Nelson (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

May 29, 2015

Reassessed

  • Jessica Gavora (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

May 27, 2015

Assessed

May 26, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

May 25, 2015

Reassessed

May 23, 2015

Assessed

May 22, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

May 21, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

May 20, 2015

Reassessed

  • Ion Mihai Pacepa (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Metapedia (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

May 19, 2015

Reassessed

  • Kate Obenshain (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Mona Charen (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

May 18, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

May 17, 2015

Reassessed

  • Michael Ashcroft (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

May 16, 2015

Reassessed

  • Theodore Beale (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Removed

May 15, 2015

Reassessed

  • Lemuel Boulware (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

May 13, 2015

Reassessed

  • Oliver North (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Zionism (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

  • James Gattuso (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

May 12, 2015

Assessed

May 11, 2015

Reassessed

May 10, 2015

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Michael Ashcroft (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Steve Laffey (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

Removed

Requests for Comment


Talk:United States

Should the article include these statements:
  1. 47% of Americans said they either would not be able to cover a $400 emergency expense, or would have to borrow money or sell something to do so. [1]
  2. 31% of Americans said they could not afford medical care in the past year.[2]
  3. White households had 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times in 2010.[3]
  4. In 2010, the median wealth of American single black women was five dollars.[4]

? 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat

Which of two versions of the lede section and the Proletarian Government subsection within the Lenin section of the article should be used? The two versions are listed below as Current Version and Prior Version. Provide your opinions in the Survey. Do not edit the two draft versions. Threaded discussion may take place in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights opposition

The debate has lasted for several months now and has, at its core, been based around whether the distinct definition of Bigotry (not bigot) can allow for WP:NPOV or if the term is in violation. @Lincean has argued, through various policies, that Bigotry cannot be NPOV due to its derivation from the word bigot. Various others users, myself included, have argued that Bigotry be included as a reason due to its inherent beliefs and sources have been found to support the claim.

At the moment, the article contains Bigotry as a reason due to the ongoing discussion, but little in-article discussion revolves around bigotry.

Please leave a comment on whether Bigotry can be NPOV or if it should be taken down or found in-quote/attributed. See discussion here, for the full debate.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Antikyra

Anticyra isn't another name for a different time or different period. It's simply the exact same Greek name of the exact same location of a Greek settlement romanized two ways: the traditional Latinized form and the modern treatment. The current situation is not even a POV fork: it's simply a false one: the modern town is sometimes romanized as Anticyra (albeit unofficially now that Greece standardized things) and the ruins are increasingly romanized the modern way. Most of the content of the two pages should be merged here to a single treatment of the ancient and modern settlements at this site, although the treatment of the 1½ unrelated "Anticyras"/"Antikyras" should go to Antikyra (disambiguation) with a hatnote mention here. — LlywelynII 11:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Should article continue to use infobox country? G8j!qKb (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cuban Thaw

Title is bad because if we find one person who writes that the event is "The Cuba Sell-out", the we have to change the Wikipedia article to that. Yuck what did I step on (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Sandra Bland

There is disagreement on whether or not a section about Waller County's history and racial tensions should be included in this article. Please see this diff to see the content under discussion. Should this background information about Waller County be included in the article about the death of Sandra Bland? 03:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Same-sex marriage is considered a standard neutral term over alternatives such as 'equal marriage', 'gay marriage', 'homosexual marriage', or other words to that effect. Exceptions may be appropriate for some articles solely where sufficient reliable sources use a different terminology to address the subject, the matter has been discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus has been reached. For example, an article on equal rights may discuss 'marriage equality' in the context of a political rights campaign that commonly uses those words in reliable sources, and the editors have come to an agreement that it is suitable to use that term. Rapid mass changes should be avoided, as an article's sources must be checked that they support the chosen terminology. Bringing articles in line with this proposal is permitted immediately after the discussion has ended.

Please see discussion above for a background of why this proposal is needed and options already discussed. -- (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Does calling a killing "murder" on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are "murderer(s)", contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME? 16:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Park Yeon-mi

Greetings! Was wondering if someone could determine if these refs from The Diplomat are considered reliable in this regard. [1][2]

References

  1. ^ Jolley, Mary Ann (10 December 2014). "The Strange Tale of Yeonmi Park". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 May 2015. A 59-year-old woman from Hyesan who escaped in 2009 laughed when asked was anyone ever executed for watching an American movie 
  2. ^ Power, John (29 Oct 2014). "North Korea: Defectors and Their Skeptics". The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 May 2015. 

comments

My concern is that they publish corrections at the end of each article here effectively negating most of the claims made in the article. As such, I am wondering if so much weight should be given to these article. Thank you for your consideration and time. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:UK Independence Party

Several weeks ago a statement was added into the lede of this article which (in its current form) states that "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)." This is then cited to an article from The Guardian newspaper. There was never any consensus obtained to add this information into the lede, and many editors have objected to it, resulting in edit wars and administrative blocks on editing the entire page. Concerns have been raised that its inclusion in the lede constitutes undue weight and that as such it compromises the NPOV nature of the article by seeking to over-emphasize the links between UKIP and a more extreme party. Those who support its inclusion dispute this viewpoint, deeming it to be due weight. A debate was held at Talk:UK Independence Party#Suggested removal of BNP comparison in the lede but it appears to have gone stale with no consensus so I was hoping that opening it up to other editors in an RfC would help bring us to a solution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jeb Bush

Which of the following two images would be better at the top?
Image A
Taken May 2015.
Image B
Taken June 2015.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greek government-debt crisis

The section about debt-to-GDP ratios had been tagged as inadequately referenced and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_government-debt_crisis&type=revision&diff=670325464&oldid=670325386

then completely removed]. If reinsertion is favoured, then how do we improve the section? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greek government-debt crisis

The subsection about Greek rescue analysis, part of "Commentary" section, had been tagged as more partisan. The whole "Commentary" section was then removed completely. If reinsertion is favoured, then how do we improve the section? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Greek government-debt crisis

The subsection and its sub-subsections about Germany's role in Greek debt crisis, part of "Commentary" section, had been tagged as more partisan and undue. Then the whole "Commentary" section was completely removed. If reinsertion is favoured, then how do we improve the section? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Americans for Prosperity

Should the following content be added to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity:

Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, more than $44M came from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.

15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics

We have a debate on how to describe a proposed political party in the United States, the Transhumanist Party, or whether it should be on Wikipedia at all. On one hand, some editors are claiming it is a real political party and should be described as such. On the other hand, some editors are claiming the party does not exist and the only mention of it should be on founder Zoltan Istvan's page. We all agree the party is recognized as a non-qualified party under the state of California based on this memo from the Elections Division,[5] but we can't agree further. We also can't agree on whether the Transhumanist Party in the United Kingdom is a real thing or not. What makes this difficult is that the founder of the party Zoltan Istvan is also a professional journalist and has been using his articles to puff up notability of the party, so separating real notability from puffery has been difficult. Another difficulty is that according to the official website the party is a non-profit but managed by the Transhumanist National Committee LLC., and LLC's are for profit. The problem is that non-profit political parties are not traditionally managed by for-profit companies, so in a best-case scenario the Transhumanist Party may actually be a for-profit election committee doing grassroots lobbying for the development of a non-profit party or in a worst-case scenario a fake non-existent party, basically a scam. There have been advocacy investigations on both sides related to this topic, including on myself, so neutral outside opinions would help. Thank you. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States

Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes above and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States.
Amended lede sentence in the introduction.
"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]
"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. There are eleven smaller island areas without permanent populations: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016. -- US Legislation or regulation varies in definitions of the “United States” in four ways, preponderantly including the five major territories as a) 50 states, DC, five territories and possessions, see Homeland PL 107-296.Definitions (16)(a), b) 50 states, DC, five territories without possessions, see FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions(26), c) 50 states, DC and four territories without American Samoa, see Immigration 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), d) 50 states and DC alone, see IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9). Viewed July 5, 2016.
Infobox.
add to existing area a note
3,531,905.43 sq mi [note]
Note: U.S. Census Bureau reports in its “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates” of August, 2010, “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. It does not include minor outlying islands.’'

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the above a) lede and note and b) info box area footnote. Comments and questions are welcome in the section below. The RfC discussion will be moderated by Keithbob and me from the Mediation Committee. Sunray (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush

For each subsection of this article, should the present position be summarized before discussing how it evolved?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road

This RfC concerns the Critical response section of the article. See the Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015 discussion above on the talk page for further detail. One view is that the material "absolutely violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and should be removed immediately. This kind of criticism is rooted in misogyny and sexism and represents the opinion of a very, very small group of men who object to the fact that a woman is the lead in an action movie. [...] There's no need to address the opinions of a few misogynists marketing themselves as 'men's rights activists' who criticized the movie." The other view is that "Whether we call them sexist, misguided fanboys, or whatever else, sources are noting this with regard to a cultural divide; and, again, it is something this article should cover. [...] We should be noting the feminist praise, why some men are against the film, and that some sources have called them sexist and/or misogynistic. But again, not all of the male criticism has come from men's rights activists. Some of these articles [..] simply note men being threatened by or otherwise upset by Furiosa (meaning without tying them to a men's rights mindset)."

Some sources showing the feminist, sexist, misogynistic and/or anti-feminist commentary are the following:

I will alert the WikiProjects associated with this talk page to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre

Should "The attack" section contain the following? According to Alain Menargues, on 15 September, an Israeli special operations group of Sayeret Matkal entered the camp to liquidate a number of Palestinian cadres, and left the same day. It was followed the next day, by killers from the Sa'ad Haddad's South Lebanon Army, before the the Lebanese Forces units of Elie Hobeika entered the camps. [1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Traboulsi, Fawwaz (2007). A History of Modern Lebanon. Pluto Press. p. 218. Retrieved 4 July 2015. On Wednesday 15th, units of the elite Israeli army ‘reconnaissance’ force, the Sayeret Mat`kal, which had already carried out the assassination of the three PLO leaders in Beirut, entered the camps with a mission to liquidate a selected number of Palestinian cadres. The next day, two units of killers were introduced into the camps, troops from Sa`d Haddad’s Army of South Lebanon, attached to the Israeli forces in Beirut, and the LF security units of Elie Hobeika known as the Apaches, led by Marun Mash`alani, Michel Zuwayn and Georges Melko. 
  2. ^ Alain Menargues, Secrets de la Guerre du Liban, 2004, pp469-70
  3. ^ Dominique Avon; Anaïs-Trissa Khatchadourian; Jane Marie Todd (2012). Hezbollah: A History of the "Party of God". Harvard University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-674-07031-8. That triggered the massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila camps in three waves, according to Alain Menargues, first at the hands of special Israeli units, whose troops reoccupied West Beirut; then by the groups in the SLA; and finally by men from the Jihaz al-Amn, a Lebanese forces special group led by Elie Hobeika. 
Kingsindian  22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1982 Lebanon War

Should the casualties section include this statement?

In 1984, Lebanese Brig. Gen. Mohamad El Haj stated that "about 1,000 Lebanese died as a result of the Israeli invasion.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Lebanon Demands Payment". The Los Angeles Times. November 16, 1984. 
  2. ^ Walsh, Edward (November 16, 1984). "Lebanon, Israel Resume Talks on Troop Pullout". The Washington Post. 

22:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania, Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, Recognition of same-sex unions in South America and Recognition of same-sex unions in North America articles includes the tables listing jurisdictions legally recognising same-sex relationships. Each article has the different version of the table. Perhaps we should adopt one version for all of them. PS: If I did something wrongly in making this request, then I'm sorry. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States

Should the Wall Street Journal graphic at [6] be adapted for inclusion in the article? 02:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Rfc/testcases

Template:Rfc/testcases


For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.

Deletion discussions


Conservatism

Cuckservative

Cuckservative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cuckservative" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, as it is little more than a Twitter hashtag. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not of any importance. Eclipsoid (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A Twitter hashtag referenced by media including the Washington Post '''tAD''' (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Other hashtags, like #YesAllWomen have been kept. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:UNENCYC, and WP:JNN, you can't just say "little more than a Twitter hashtag", as that doesn't refer to any real reason to delete or keep the article. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not even yet an ounce of notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:Not notable, saying "no notability" is not a good AfD argument. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Not remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:Not notable, just saying that something isn't notable is bad practice at AfD. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not when the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, it isn't. Hectoring contributors who's posts you don't like on the other hand is definitely not good practice at an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:VAGUEWAVE, you can't point at a policy, you need to show how the policy applies. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable enough. Coderzombie (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:JNN, stating that something is "not notable" with no extra input is a useless tautology, you're stating that this article is not notable because you said it isn't. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't denote a real political phenomenon, concept, or movement, so you're left with the insult, which belongs in a dictionary if anywhere. Unless you think Conservatives who other conservatives dislike is a topic worthy of an article. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Illustrates a civil war between neo- and paleoconservatism that will be taught in schools in 50 years time '''tAD''' (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Even if that dispute would be written about 50 years from now (pretty conjectural), that doesn't mean that therefore this term, whose illustrative value remains to be seen, is therefore notable. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This has received media coverage in specialised political circles, the same as Feminist Hulk, another thing on the Internet that 99.99999999999999999% of the Earth's population have never heard of, received media coverage in specialised feminist circles. And that article survives AfD like a Sacred Cow. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It has been getting a lot of attention recently, including many mentions in mainstream press outlets.I would think Wikipedia would like to be on top of this.--Cartamandua (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, recently covered in the Washington Post, so not at all confined to minor web sources. FitzhughIII (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There is now a Washington Post source, one that Feminist Hulk never had... '''tAD''' (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Washington Post describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new: "'Cuckservative' is a frame that might be bigger than its founders intended". Smetanahue (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. It's a week old, wrapped up in a bunch of other far-right political concepts, and shows no indication of lasting significant coverage of the term. It may be worth noting that the Washington Post connects this to Gamergate, which means we might see more SPAs (already two above). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Notability is not temporary, and the newness of a concept is no reason to delete it. We have a section called, "In The News", for starters. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Notability is not temporary - I do not think this means what you think it means. WP:NTEMP is more or less an explanation of why we require lasting coverage, not a justification to keep something based on coverage over a short time. Indeed, that section not only references the general notability guideline, which requires persistent coverage, but also ends with a line about Wikipedia being a "lagging indicator of notability" and explaining "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Washington Post describes it as a larger phenomenon, even if the word itself is new. DemitreusFrontwest (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Wait, DemitreusFrontwest and Smetanahue, so one single article makes for encyclopedic notability? That's easy. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It started being noticed at more specified sites like The Daily Beast, The New Republic (liberal) and Hot Air (conservative), now it is in a mainstream source '''tAD''' (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • describes it as a larger phenomenon - If by this you mean it's saying that it's used in multiple kinds of ways and ties in with multiple agendas, groups, and identities, then yes. What that means is it's a poorly defined term that references concepts for which we already have articles. For example, Identitarian movement is one the Post connects it to. What it isn't saying is that "cuckservative" is itself a larger phenomenon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now... it may be too early to tell whether or not the term will "catch", but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did. BGManofID (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That is an argument for deletion, not for keeping. We don't create articles because we think that the topic might become notable later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Strange sense of logic, there. I know you are voting for deletion, but if the term does take off, the article will have to be re-made. BGManofID (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • One of the world's leading think tanks is now writing about the word '''tAD''' (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDIC. There simply isn't enough material out there about this neologism to justify an encyclopedia article. There's no evidence that this word has any staying power. gobonobo + c 01:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep 'Cuckservative' has received significant coverage in a variety of mainstream notable sources across the political spectrum. The Washington Post, Daily Beast, Daily Caller, Breitbart, and New Republic have all written on the term. Right now, 'cuckservative' is substantially more notable and better sourced than many other Wikipedia articles, and its quality and notability are very likely to improve given that the page is barely 24 hours old. The article itself is well-written and Wikipedia should continue to serve its role as a third party review of reliable sources. Denarivs (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that's nonsense. Breitbart is not a source for anything except for filth; the others, that's chatty election coverage. The Cato blog post doesn't even discuss the term. And if we are to accept a blog like Hot Air, let's really accept them--"The pejorative du jour on social media these days is “cuckservative.”" We shouldn't be doing mots du jour. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • This 'objection' boils down to "I don't think conservative media sources are valid" and "these sources that you never mentioned aren't very good". TNR and the Washington Post are objectively mainstream reliable sources and provide a higher level of notability than many other Wikipedia articles enjoy. 'Cuckservative' is a clearly notable word and should be included in Wikipedia. Denarivs (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as BuzzFeed now considers it to "the GamerGate of the conservative internet". Also, it is on the "cusp of the mainstream political conversation." "Not notable enough" is a useless argument, see WP:JNN. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Political positions of Ann Coulter

Political positions of Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Political positions of Ann Coulter" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I think this article can be merged into Ann Coulter biography. It doesn't warrant a separate article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • delete and merge to her biography Totally agree, her views are not notable enough for a separate article from her biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge. No need for the extra article. Andrew327 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not sufficiently notable for a second article. It doesn't help that someone using Ann Coulter's initials is responsible for most of the content... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. You can't delete an article and then merge the content elsewhere. You would need to merge the content and then redirect it to preserve attribution. Also, AfD is not the place to propose merges - it should be done on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The content that was in the bio before it was moved here and more than tripled in size was replaced to her bio on July 16, see Ann_Coulter#Political activities and commentary, so there is nothing to merge back as it seems clear that this amount of commentary on her opinions politically is excessive. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As pointed out above, "delete and merge" is not a valid course of action here. Relisting as it's not clear which option is preferred; deletion or redirect/merge. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Lankiveil - It has already been re-merged back - have a look yourself - this is where wikipedia falls on its face, after over ten days, with no support to keep , some anon user (Lankiveil) comes along and extends the worthless discussion for another ten days and then it is finally removed from web searches. - Create a redirect if you want, just delete this unduly promotional content asap and move on Govindaharihari (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Justin Haskins

Justin Haskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Justin Haskins" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I'm not convinced this columnist is notable. He has undoubtedly written a few columns for notable organisations, but all the citations are either to his writing or his potted bios on the websites of those organisations. I can find no substantial secondary coverage about the person himself. Note that the article has previously been deleted, but that was about a different person (a non-notable martial artist) of the same name. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Primary sourced verification of his existence is not what gets a blogger, conservative or liberal or otherwise, into Wikipedia — independent reliable source coverage of him in unaffiliated media is what it takes, but there's none of that here. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep Qualifies as notable journalist. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please explain how he qualifies. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I am the original author of the article. The entry is notable not only because Haskins has been published in numerous important publications, such as Fox News, the New York Post, etc., but also because he is a columnist at a leading conservative publication, Townhall.com, and the editor at a notable think tank, The Heartland Institute. Additionally, the argument that no unaffiliated sources are present is not accurate, especially now that additions have been made to the article to address this concern. Numerous unaffiliated sources exist, including from the Washington Post, Newsmax, and others. His controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank is also notable. Liberty Editor (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep I am the original author of the article. Significant updates have been made to this article to address the concerns presented here. Multiple additional unaffiliated sources have been added, including The Washington Post. I also added Haskins' notable controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank and added information that shows Haskins is a columnist at Townhall.com, a leading online conservative publication. Liberty Editor (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: There's really no substantial secondary coverage about the person. A few snarks at something he wrote, and gosh, he graduated from high school and won an award in college. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 14:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am the original author of the article. Your argument is absolutely untrue and completely without merit. As it is clearly displayed in the article, Haskins has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, the American Conservative Union, the Washington Post, writers at Breitbart.com and Newsmax, and others. Additionally, the argument that no unaffiliated sources are present is not accurate, especially now that additions have been made to the article to address this concern. Numerous unaffiliated sources exist, including from the Washington Post, Newsmax, and others. His controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank is also notable. LibertyEditor (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Being cited by other people doesn't boost a person's notability — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just namechecked in coverage of other things that aren't him. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    • If you take the time to read the Dana Milbank column published across the country, but originally in the Washington Post, you'll see he was clearly the subject of the column. Further, he was ALSO the subject of the story in the Newsmax story featured, as well as one of the subjects of the Breitbart.com-James Delingpole article cited. You're not even bothering to read the sources. Factually, it is undeniable he was the subject of those pieces. He was also clearly featured by Rush Limbaugh in a segment on Obamacare. Limbaugh appears to have discussed Haskins at length. This was also cited in the article. LibertyEditor (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Milbank story simply briefly quotes Haskins because he's talking about Heartland doing a volte face on climate change. There's nothing about Haskins himself. Similarly, the Limbaugh story comes about because Limbaugh read part of one of his columns out on his show. Again, there's nothing about him (except saying who he is "He's an editor for the Heartland Institute"). I did try to find sources about Haskins before I brought this AfD, but I'm still seeing nothing. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Milbank story does not simply "briefly quote" Haskins. A considerable part of the story discusses the article he wrote for Human Events. Obviously there is no biographical information about Haskins, but that's not the point of the citation. I have plenty of citations for that already. The Milbank article relies heavily on quotes from Haskins' writing. Additionally, your assertion Limbaugh quoted "part" of the Haskins story is factually untrue. He read essentially the whole thing on the air and introduced the article by saying who Haskins is. That means Limbaugh featured Haskins' piece, which, by the way, was published in the New York Post, a major publication. Your argument that there is nothing "about him" doesn't really hold much water, because again, the point is not to show people are listing biographical data about a person, but rather that the person is having an effect on the world of policy, news, media, etc. You say you tried to find sources about Haskins, but I have already listed numerous sources by unaffiliated parties talking about Haskins, who he is, and about his work. This is precisely what makes him notable. He's a writer whose articles have been read by millions of readers, he's a columnist at a well-known and highly read publication, and he works for a well-known public policy organization. His work has been cited and featured by influential people, publications, and organizations, such as Rush Limbaugh, the American Conservative Union, Newsmax, and Breitbart.com, among others. With all due respect, I just don't see how you can make the arguments you're making here, and I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself. LibertyEditor (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • UPDATE I added another citation, this time from an interview Haskins had with Rhode Island radio talk show host Buddy Cianci, who has one of the most popular talk radio shows in the state. This provides another example of an unaffiliated source mentioning Haskins.
  • Well, that would be a start, except that weblink doesn't mention anything about Haskins. Can you fix it? More to the point, you said "Your argument that there is nothing "about him" doesn't really hold much water...". But it does, because it's the only thing that matters here. WP:BIO is quite clear - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". There are two important words here. Firstly "they". This means the person must have been covered, not something that they've written. Secondly "significant". The coverage about that person needs to be in-depth, passing mentions are not relevant. The amount of coverage produced so far about Haskins himself in secondary sources is not only not significant, but is indeed negligible. We need articles about Haskins here, that's the whole point. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually the link clearly goes to the site where the podcast interview between Haskins and Cianci is listed. You just have to scroll down to see it. You can't link directly to the podcast on that site. I understand your concern, but as I stated previously numerous times, these sources do, in fact, link to articles that are both about Haskins and about what he is writing, which are in essence one and the same thing. Virtually any writer is going to have similar kinds of sources, and having looked at numerous other writers of all political persuasions, it's clear to me that the sources presented here are very similar to those approved articles of other writers that are included on Wikipedia. Haskins has, as I pointed out, received significant coverage. His works have been talked about in numerous publications, by media personalities, and by important organizations. I've linked to many of them here. The references are not "in passing" anymore than any other references are "in passing" on virtually every other Wikipedia page. Unless an article is SOLELY about one person or a book is solely about one person, there is no such thing as a source that meets your definition, which again, virtually no article on Wikipedia, especially related to authors, fits. You say we need articles "about Haskins," but you haven't even defined what that means! Short of providing sources that speak only about Haskins' job title, place of birth, etc., which I have provided, there aren't any sources that would be like that for ANY political writer or author. Your standards are not adhered to by virtually ALL of the other writers listed in Wikipedia, in my opinion. I'm sure we could go on and on, but at some point, an editor is just going to have to make a decision. LibertyEditor (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I re-read the article and make slight editing changes. The subject is an upwardly-mobile journalist on the political right. He has been widely published in major periodicals and it seems to me should qualify as a journalist for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are plenty of sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
On the Fence / Weak Keep: I think the subject has some growing notability and there are a couple of references outside of his own works. I think better sourcing of his notability from reliable third party sources (newspapers, news organizations, etc.) would help move me closer towards a keep. Merely listing that he has articles and has been read by other commentators really doesn't cut it. It's a mixed bag, but it's one that I think can be overcome. If anything, I say keep it and keep working on it. 5minutes (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

New articles

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2015-07-29 19:23 (UTC)















Other listings

Cleanup listing
Popular pages
Top edits watchlist
Hot Articles list (Top 20)

Related projects

WikiProject Conservatism is one of the Politics WikiProjects.

General Politics | Biography: Politics and government | Elections and Referendums | Law | Money and politics | Political parties | Voting Systems
Political culture Anarchism | Corporatism | Fascism | Oligarchy | Liberalism | Socialism
Social and political Conservatism | Capitalism | Libertarianism
Regional and national Australia | China | India | Japan | South Korea | New Zealand | Pakistan | United Kingdom | UK Parliament constituencies | US Congress | U.S. Supreme Court Cases

External links

  • This project on Commons Commons-logo.svg COM