Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

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

Contents

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
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Requested moves

Assessment log

July 24, 2016

Assessed

Removed

July 23, 2016

Reassessed

Removed

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

July 22, 2016

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

July 20, 2016

Reassessed

  • Bo Derek (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Removed

  • Ed McAteer (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Low-Class (rev · t).

July 19, 2016

Reassessed

  • Scott Baio (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

July 18, 2016

Reassessed

  • H. L. Hunt (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

July 16, 2016

Reassessed

July 15, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

July 14, 2016

Reassessed

Removed

July 13, 2016

Assessed

  • Bob Jones Sr. (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

Removed

July 12, 2016

Reassessed

  • A. L. Zissu (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t).
  • Joe Hockey (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Little Green Footballs (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

  • May ministry (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Mid-Class (rev · t).

Removed

July 11, 2016

Reassessed

July 10, 2016

Reassessed

July 9, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

July 8, 2016

Assessed

Removed

July 6, 2016

Reassessed

  • Ben Stein (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

July 5, 2016

Renamed

Assessed

Removed

July 3, 2016

Reassessed

July 1, 2016

Assessed

Removed

June 30, 2016

Assessed

Removed

June 29, 2016

Removed

June 28, 2016

Reassessed

  • TruthRevolt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

June 27, 2016

Reassessed

Removed

June 25, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

June 24, 2016

Reassessed

  • School prayer (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • TruthRevolt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

Removed

June 21, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

June 19, 2016

Reassessed

June 18, 2016

Assessed

June 15, 2016

Assessed

June 14, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

June 12, 2016

Assessed

Removed

June 8, 2016

Assessed

June 7, 2016

Reassessed

Assessed

Removed

Requests for Comment


Talk:Singapore

I am requesting comments about the lead section of this article as it has too much content. Concerns have been previously raised that it is too promotional and possibly gives undue weight to certain rankings (see concerns here [1], [2], [3], [4]). For reference, the lead of this article can be compared to the leads in Australia, Canada (both FAs), New Zealand and United States (both GAs). I tried to summarise some of the content, but I was reverted citing BRD. I would request the community to have a look and see if concerns about undue weight, NPOV and promotion are justified. In particular I have the following proposal:
  • Propose removal of content about individual rankings, it can be summarised. (basically I propose a revert of this edit)
  • Propose additional trimming of the lead.

Any other comments about how to improve the lead are welcome. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq War

After the end of foreign combat operations in Iraq, there were numerous discussions on this talk page as to whether the article should reflect the "conclusion" of the "Iraq War" or whether it should treat the conflict as "ongoing" past that point. The prevailing viewpoint was that, according to reliable sources, the terminology "Iraq War" referred to the 2003-2011 multinational, US-led military conflict within Iraq. In other words, while various conflicts continue to this day, "the Iraq War" had ended.

Recently, a handful of editors reached a questionable local "consensus" to fundamentally change the subject of the article; Iraq War would now be an umbrella article for all conflict in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. I've done some research and have come to the conclusion that the reliable sources still do not reflect the notion that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, and thus the article should not do so. Sources discussing the ongoing conflict no longer use the terminology "Iraq War", and sources that do use the term are specifically referring to the concluded multinational conflict of 2003-2011. I can't find anything that indicates that "Iraq War" should refer to all conflict since 2003, nor do I think the input in the last discussion was remotely enough to change the fundamental subject of a prominent and controversial article. It should require a stronger consensus, with more input, and hard evidence, to make such a drastic change.

We should change it back to the previous stance, based on the fact that it was supported by reliable sources, or we should have a stronger consensus to the contrary. Swarm 22:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Dilling

A range of properly referenced changes and additions to the article have been proposed; a core contributor disagrees with their value and argues against their inclusion. A list of the proposed changes has been provided here for further discussion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Stormfront (website)

Should this article be added to the category Far-right politics in the United States? That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Philippines v. China

These two sections need to be checked. They have to give an equal coverage for other claimants otherwise it has to be removed. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Theresa May

Left: May in 2015. Right: May in 2010

Which portrait should be used for the WP:LEADIMAGE? Firebrace (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

Is there sufficient evidence supported by reliable sources to add Ethnic hatred or Race hatred (both link to the same article) to the Motive section of the Info Box? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The lead of the article contained this sentence:

Trump's most polarizing and widely reported statements have been about issues of immigration and border security, especially his proposed deportation of all illegal immigrants, the proposed construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border at Mexican expense, a temporary ban on alien Muslims entering the U.S.,[1] and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."[2][3]

References

References

  1. ^ "Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration" (Press Release). donaldjtrump.com. December 7, 2015. 
  2. ^ "Donald Trump takes on Clinton, Bush and the Pope". CNN. Retrieved January 27, 2016. 
  3. ^ See:

An editor removed: "and his characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.""

Should Trump's characterizations of illegal immigrants traveling over the Mexican border into the U.S. as "criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc." be restored? - MrX 19:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

Should the lead describe the shooter as Black, African-American, or neither?- MrX 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

MOS:KOREA currently says:

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea and topics about Korea before the division. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea.

Should this be replaced with

In general, use the Revised Romanization system for articles with topics about South Korea. Use McCune–Reischauer (not the DPRK's official variant) for topics about North Korea and topics about Korea before the division.

?
06:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:McCarthyism

The article has been extensively rewritten without discussion on the talk page. I have concerns about summary style and excessive detail. The versions in question are:

A) The preexisting version.[5]

B) The article as rewritten.[6] Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy {{rfcquote|text= Should the following content be included in this article:

In late June 2016, it was reported that Bill Clinton met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her private plane on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Officials indicated that the 30 minute meeting took place when Clinton became aware that Lynch's plane was on the same tarmac at the airport. When the meeting became public, Lynch stated that it was "primarily social" and "there was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body". Lynch was criticized for her involvement in the meeting and was called on by some critics to recuse herself from involvement in the FBI's investigation of the email case. In response, she stated "The F.B.I. is investigating whether Mrs. Clinton, her aides or anyone else broke the law by setting up a private email server for her to use as secretary of state," but "the case will be resolved by the same team that has been working on it from the beginning" and "I will be accepting their recommendations."[1][2][3]CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Accompong

@Maroon Master and Leutha: I haven't been able to find many reliable sources for Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong and Timothy Elisha McPherson Jr.. McPherson is apparently the Minister of Finance for Accompong and was involved in setting up the bank.

Sources supporting the bank and McPherson:

Sources questioning the intention of the bank:

Deadlinks removed from article:

The questions are: is the Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong real, if it is has it been involved in any fraudulent activity? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:TOOSOON, no compelling reason for this article to exist so prematurely. The 2020 primaries have not even been scheduled yet. The page currently consists entirely of listings of speculative candidates, lists that will become effectively obsolete in the event that Trump is elected (given the likely scenario that he will seek re-election in 2020). Given that there is not yet significant information/coverage of the actual primary elections, this is (at the present time) a WP:GNG fail. Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

James Allsup

James Allsup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James Allsup" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Precedent from WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that the subject doesn't seem notable for their political action. The other coverage doesn't seem to confer notability to Allsup himself than it does the greater movements that he is complicit in (eg the wall at UW being the focus of several of the sources, with the subject offering short comments in them). To elaborate:

  • [7] Students For Trump is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
  • [8] The Daily Evergreen is a vehicle through which Washington State University's Office of Student Media is dedicated to providing students a public forum. It has limited value as an independent source in establishing notability, as it is natural for the university's media organ to report on events involving the university itself. Allsup is featured in this article through three quotes, alongside other quotes by students involved with Students For Trump; the article itself concerns the movement, not Allsup.
  • [9] Allsup is featured in this article as a passing mention as campaign manager for Roemer, who is the subject of the article. Roemer is not yet elected to the Washington House of Representatives; WP:NPOL states that an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability barring other coverage. Allsup does not have coverage in independent, reliable sources in the context of being Roemer's campaign manager.
  • [10] KOMO appears to be a reliable source, but Allsup makes only a brief appearance with two short comments in this article that is about a larger-scale reaction against a school's policy on Twitter, not about Allsup.
  • [11] Students For Trump is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
  • [12] the gathering was organized by the WSU College Republicans, of which Allsup is president; it is a trivial passing mention that does not establish notability for Allsup.
  • [13] Vance said James Allsup, president of WSU College Republicans, invited him to WSU to speak; it is a trivial passing mention that does not establish notability for Allsup.
  • [14] Though the use of search engines and the like is noted as a litmus test for significance, Twitter is not a reliable source that establishes notability.
  • [15] Routine documentation of election data does not contribute to notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES says Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted.
  • [16] The Seattle Times is a reliable source that would establish notability if the subject of it was the subject of this Wikipedia article. However, it provides more evidence of notability for Trump's Wall and the Trump movement in general than it does for Allsup himself.
  • [17] Similarly to the Seattle Times article, this source is about Trump, not Allsup.
  • [18] Similarly to the Seattle Times article, this source is about Trump, not Allsup.
  • [19] This article by the Seattle Weekly, which appears to be a reliable source, is titled The UW Trump Movement Is a Perfect Microcosm of the Donald’s Ridiculous Campaign and describes an analysis of the Trump movement on US university campuses. The article, ultimately being about the Trump movement, attributes two quotes to Allsup, which constitutes a passing mention.
  • [20] A registration form is not a reliable source that establishes notability.

Σσς(Sigma) 07:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


I'll try to get to as many of your points as I can.

1: The students4trump.com site is the web domain that acts as the hub for the Students for Trump organization and its social media presence- over 55k followers on Instagram, 29k followers on Twitter, etc. The source is as reliable as can be expected for a political organization.

2: Due to the nature of where Washington State University is located, and the notability of Washington State University as a top 10 journalism school in the United States, The Daily Evergreen is the most widely distributed newspaper in the Moscow/Pullman metropolitan area of the United States. While it is a student paper, it serves as a primary source of news for many of the area's non-student residents, and has qualified for and won many national journalism awards including the College Media Association Apple Awards, Society of Professional Journalists Mark of Excellence Awards, Columbia Scholastic Press Association Gold Crown Award, and others. A full list is available here: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/site/awards.html

3: Per point 2, the Daily Evergreen should be considered a reliable source. Reliability of Allsup being Roemer's campaign manager will be addressed in point 14.

4: Allsup is featured prominently in the video posted accompanying the article. Allsup was also the one to create the Change.org petition as featured in the article which was the catalyst for the chain of events.

5: See 1

6: This article alone is not justification for the article, but speaks to the variety and volume of Allsup's work in political organization within the state of Washington.

7: See 6

8: The page linked contains no mention of Twitter, as such, a Twitter search seems like it should be compliant- I may be misinterpreting you however. I could edit the sourcing of the article to include individual Tweets that identify Allsup as the catalyst for the movement if you prefer.

9: See 6

10-13: The source(s) is/are about an event which Allsup directly organized. Speaks to the same points as point 6.

14: The registration form in question is a legal document sourced directly from a .gov domain. This C1 form fits all definitions of a source as outlined in sections 1.1-1.4 of the RS page. Not seeing your objection here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsmedia (talkcontribs) 09:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm a bit short on time so I can't respond as well as I'd like, but when I say that they're "not reliable" I don't mean that the information they contain is suspect, I mean that they don't demonstrate that Allsup himself is the one who should merit the article; see the notability page for details. My concern over the Daily Evergreen is that it's already closely involved with the things that happen an WSU and Allsup himself is already closely involved with the things that happeen at WSU, so it's not exactly independent; due to its close affinity with Allsup it's not much more than WP:SELFPUB, as Jergling noted below. But anyway I help that cleared something up. Σσς(Sigma) 16:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Mostly local coverage except passing mentions from the national org for which he works. At least one spamblog ref (IBT) mixed in there. Most of the sources are effectively WP:SELFPUB due to their relationship with Allsup and his organization. Irrelevant DotGov links thrown in to obfuscate the poor sourcing. Looks like someone trying to game the system, and now we have a WP:ISU/WP:ORGNAME account commenting to defend the article. Jergling (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Where are the reliable sources giving the "significant coverage" to Allsup that the GNG requires? Not to the organization he doesn't actually lead, not to quotes he's given (it's well established that quotes from a subject cannot be used to establish notability of the subject), not to a candidate that doesn't herself qualify for an article, not to a school club to which he belongs, to Allsup himself? They aren't there. Ravenswing 07:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Meredith McIver

Meredith McIver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Meredith McIver" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Reason GoldenSHK (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Seems like this lady is an unknown ghost writer (by definition they're not supposed to be known anyway) and she happens to be trending right now due to Melania Trump's "speechgate" controversy. What are the chances she'll do anything notable again after this week or if this trending issue really is of longstanding importance?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. It can always be turned back into an article later. For now, there are serious risks of this just being a coatrack of criticism. I always tend to think that people read BLP1E too strictly, since the third criterion disqualifies a lot of BLPs that might otherwise meet the criteria. However, while the third criterion may be met in the current news cycle, it's unclear if it will remain so in the future. My guess is it actually will remain notable, and as the event and McIver's role are both covered more, that third criterion will ultimately be met. But for now, I think we ought to err on the side of caution. There's a much greater risk for harm in keeping this article than in provisionally redirecting it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect for BLP reasons. Completely agree with the above. I just didn't know that was the exact rule that I needed to reference. Thanks PinkAmpersand. 100% same thought. Should be redirected to the Melania Trump Speech Contreversy which funny enough even has a "Main article" tag on McIver's article. GoldenSHK (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy (assuming that article doesn't also get deleted) sounds like a good idea to me. Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a plausible search term, but a BLP1E case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. The most significant coverage I could find about her prior to the current event was this: [21]. While somewhat entertaining, it is not significant coverage about her, and her role in the current event is both WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT at this time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. A reliable source [22] has now connected her to two independent incidences, separated by a number of years, where she has been identified by the Trump Organization as the author of damaging mistakes. In combination with some preexisting coverage regarding her ghostwriting role on Trump's books this bio now satisfies WP:GNG and no longer fails WP:BLP1E in my estimation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect as a low-profile one-event BLP. Gee, this one is fast even for Wikipedia. Can we confirm that this staffer is real yet? • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think full deletion should be an option. McIver's name appears on my television screen as I write this sentence. People are and will be turning to Wikipedia for information. If people are searching for her by name, they should be directed to something. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
---Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources. Seems like we should give this article some time to develop, especially since outlets are creating profiles about her as we speak. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per BLP1E. The linked article above are about the plagiarism, not the individual, and other sources I've seen do not corroborate notability. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy--or, better yet, to 2016 Republican National Convention#Melania Trump's speech--per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E --Shadow (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per BLP1E - not enough info about this person to do a credible biography МандичкаYO 😜 02:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep If she exists as claimed - Trump's staff speechwriter and ghostwriter of several of his books - then surely she's notable enough, regardless of the plagiarism controversy. If she's in any way fictitious then the story of how that happened is also notable. Eric Blatant (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eric Blatant. If she authored or co-authored the four books as stated, then this isn't a BLP1E. Brianga (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • keep. As a ghostwriter she is notable. There is likely to come a number of news articles on her: "I just finished up the first of many interviews to come. Be on the lookout for it soon." [23]. — fnielsen (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure that's a fake Twitter account. This photo is clearly Photoshopped from this one (the latter is from this press release). Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the correction! I recalled that photo, actually. I am very confused now. Is Piers Morgan ironic? [24]. — fnielsen (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The other image is of course also photoshopped [25]. — fnielsen (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope this discussion continues for several more days, because new articles are revealing more details about McIver. Take this one fore example. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, for better or for worse - her role as to the plagiarism controversy and ghostwriting for the Trump organization makes her notable, if only slightly beating out BLP1E. I would second a redirect/merge with Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy if said article is in-depth. As of now, both articles should remain. Ellomate (questions? talk/consult my lawyer) 23:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep notable co-author of numerous best-selling books, despite rumors to the effect that she doesn't exist,[26] which are all the more reason for us to serve out our encyclopedic purpose here. -- Kendrick7talk 16:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Ahh! Ghostwriter. This explains why there are so many mistakes in Trump's tweets but not in books written by this ghostwriter in his behalf!--Alcoaariel (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Merger and Redirect to Melania Trump speech plagiarism controversy. I believe it falls under WP:Too Soon. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not redirect: Even if Melania Trump had not given a speech at all, McIver would merit notability as having ghostwritten several of Trump's books, given the events of the past year. The facts that a) there was controversy surrounding Melania's speech and b) there was a question raised as to whether McIver actually existed both make the existence of a McIver WP article important. KConWiki (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above discussion, notable aside from the Melania Trump speech (and that page no longer exists, was merged to the convention page) which actually is notable enough for this page's inclusion. Randy Kryn 16:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles

User:AlexNewArtBot/ConservatismSearchResult. Page length= 59179

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
  1. ^ "Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry, Official Says - NYT". NYT. July 1, 2016. 
  2. ^ "Attorney General Loretta Lynch Calls It 'Perfectly Reasonable' to Question Bill Clinton Meeting". ABC News. July 1, 2016. 
  3. ^ "Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton meeting raises eyebrows". USA Today. June 30, 2016.