Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

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


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.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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




Articles for deletion
Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Good article nominees
Requests for comments

Assessment log

February 12, 2016


  • Angry white male (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Michael Ramirez (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • One America News Network (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Low-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).



February 10, 2016


February 9, 2016


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

February 8, 2016


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

February 5, 2016


February 3, 2016



January 30, 2016



January 29, 2016


January 26, 2016



January 24, 2016




January 23, 2016


January 22, 2016



January 21, 2016


  • Reason (magazine) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).



January 19, 2016


January 13, 2016


January 11, 2016


January 10, 2016


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

January 9, 2016


January 8, 2016


January 5, 2016



January 4, 2016


January 3, 2016




January 1, 2016



December 31, 2015


  • James G. Watt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

December 29, 2015


  • Our America Initiative (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

December 28, 2015


  • Bob Dornan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Charles Koch (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Doug LaMalfa (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Henry de Lesquen (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • James B. Utt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Phil Crane (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • William E. Dannemeyer (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).


December 27, 2015


December 26, 2015


December 25, 2015


  • Economic Freedom Fund (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • The Centurion (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

December 23, 2015


December 22, 2015


  • Gary Sinise (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).


December 21, 2015


December 20, 2015



December 19, 2015


  • James N. Rowe (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).



December 17, 2015


  • John Rarick (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
  • Robert Bauman (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

December 13, 2015


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



December 10, 2015



  • Girondins (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Robert Bluey (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).


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

Requests for Comment

Talk:Cold War II

Sources like Newsweek, ZDNet, and Live Trading News say that the new "Cold War" may also refer to tensions between China and the United States. Now that the article is very small (previously referred to just Russia–U.S. relations), shall we add such information into the article with sources? Is any of those sources reliable? --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

Shall we....
  • A) Keep the status quo?
  • B) Change the entry criteria to sovereign state assumption of office date & give Elizabeth II & her realms (4 original states, together & the 12 others in required sections) different entries in the article?
  • C) Maintain current entry criteria that allows assumption of office date pre-sovereign state & change Elizabeth II's entry to United Kingdom and Flag with footnote for her 15 other states?
  • D) Redirect the article to another article?
  • E) Maintain current entry criteria that allows the assumption of an office before a state's independence and add allowance of the assumption of an office created upon a state attaining independence. For Elizabeth II: UK, Canada, Australia, NZ stay as now; remaining 12 realms redistributed throughout whole list according to date of independence/creation of office of head of state.
  • F) Sorry to add lately an option: with dates added in the list for each new independent state for Elizabeth II instead of footnotes. Wykx (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

For the past several weeks an edit war has been going on over the infobox on this page. A faction of editors are attempting to change the infobox from the country/geopolitical organization infobox to the warfaction one. The relevant discussion regarding this was obscured by taking place in a thread with an irrelevant title here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#The_DPR_is_comparable_to_ISIS_now, in which it is apparent no consensus was reached. In an effort to began dispute resolution i am requesting comment from previously uninvolved editors. Do you belive the country/geopolitical faction infobox should be used for this article (as it is on pages of other territorial administrations like Rojava, Somaliland, and France, or do you think the warfaction infobox should be used as it is on pages such as Real IRA and Al Nusra Front?XavierGreen (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


As both Israel and Palestine are partially recognized states, should the opening sentence in the lead of:
  1. both Israel and Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
  2. neither Israel nor Palestine (and State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
  3. just Israel but not Palestine (nor State of Palestine) say partially recognized state?
  4. just Palestine (and State of Palestine) but not Israel say partially recognized state?

I think those are all the possible options. Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rafik Yousef

Should the following categories be included in this BIO article? Category:Stabbing attacks in 2015

Oppose inclusion I do not believe these categories are appropriate for a biography in any conceivable way. For example WP:COPDEF states "Categorise by characteristics of the person, not characteristics of the article: The most common mistake of this type is adding an article to Category:Biography. That category may legitimately contain articles about biographical films or biographical books, but should not contain articles about individual people. The article is a biography; the person is not" - Yousef was a terrorist. He was not a terrorist incident. He was not a crime. Other guidelines at WP:COP also seem relevant AusLondonder (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


some users are opposing the addition of "alternative territories were considered and rejected" on undue basis, or is it?Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016

Should Palestine be included as a stand alone state or a sub state of Israel like this:


  1. ^ The Palestinian Authority renamed itself as State of Palestine in 2013—a move unrecognised by Israel.[citation needed] It is not to be confused with the proclaimed State of Palestine in 1988—by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Algeria—which remains a putative state, in-fact ineffective[according to whom?], despite partial international recognition.[citation needed]

Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ontario Civil Liberties Association

CafeHellion has substantively changed the article, as explained in the Talk section immediately above. Is this justified? And, should his changes be reverted until this is settled? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli lira

Israeli liraIsraeli pound – Per WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs.
There was a previous vote that was rather one-sided:
pound: User:Epson291, User:AjaxSmack
lira: User:Dove1950, User:Chochopk, User:Number 57, User:Nightstallion, User:Valley2city, User:Jayjg

but may have been the result of an unrepresentative sample since the lira contingent ignored Epson's solid arguments and data, referred to each other as colleagues, and relied on anecdotal evidence and a misconception that WPCOIN's guidelines trumped WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs.

This is the English wiki and the common English name of this currency is the Israel or Israeli pound; lira was the Hebrew name but that was always aside the point. Pound is over twice as common as lira even at Google Scholar; much more common in historical sources (and this is a historical article); and, more importantly, continues to be the formal translation of the currency used by the Bank of Israel, who presumably know the Hebrew name and when and where to use it.

Even at the time, the editors above should have ignored the policy they were citing ("use the local name even where there is an English alternative") since it's a lousy one. The editor just above them even pointed that out, along with its lack of authority, which they ignored. Since then, the policy itself has been corrected. It now reads

Use the term for the currency that is most commonly used by standard English language sources. Such sources include encyclopedias, media of record, academic literature, government publications, and numismatic catalogues. English language descriptions of the currency by the issuing authority, as well as usage of English names on the currency itself, should also be considered.

which means it's now in favor of a move as well. Let's fix this. — LlywelynII 06:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:First Anglo-Maratha War

I believe that it is well sourced that the outcome of this war was indecisive and not a "Maratha Victory" as claimed here [1]. This claim of an indecisive outcome is proven by a variety of academic sources, including the following [1][2]. I think that attempts to try and portray this war as a "Maratha Victory" is indicative of a bias, which violates WP:NPOV. Even the main painting of a British soldier allegedly submitting to the Marathas is unsourced and does not appear to have a historical basis. I would like additional involvement from other users in regards to this matter. Xtremedood (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mary Katharine Ham

Which of these three photos gives the best image to the reader of the article subject and is the most complimentary? -- WV 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Should the information regarding powell receiving 2 classified emails, and Rice's aides receiving 10 emails to their personal accounts be placed in the lead of this article

powell/rice Survey

  • no The actions of aides are not the actions of rice, and 2 emails is not at all equivalent to 1000+. This information is WP:UNDUE for the lead at this time. further, this article is about clinton, not rice and powell. Put it in the comparisons section where it is appropriate and can be fleshed out for the appropriate context. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Comedy of the commons

There is some disagreement over what this article should be about just the phrase 'Comedy of the Commons', or if it should generally be about the concept 'successful commons' - which is referred to by some as 'Comedy of the Commons'. Also, see Tragedy of the commons a phrase that refers to the concept of a 'unsuccessful commons'. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes

Notices will be/have been placed on WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject History, the Neutral POV Noticeboard, and Jimbo's talkpage (for the watchers - there are a lot, and this would create a community consensus)
Should military units active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany-era use in their infoboxes for "Country";
  1.  Germany – says Germany, links to Nazi Germany
  2.  Nazi Germany – says and links to Nazi Germany
  3.  Third Reich – says Third Reich, links to Nazi Germany

This will affect articles in Category:Military units and formations of the Luftwaffe, Category:Military units and formations of the Kriegsmarine, Category:Military units and formations of the German Army in World War II, Category:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS and other related articles that may not be listed in these categories.

  • This RfC seeks to create a broader and more consolidated consensus for reasons of consistency across articles. Please !vote by bolding the preferred number, or word, choice as your !vote with your reasoning for such a selection.
    E.g. (#) because WP:POLICY, WP:GUIDELINE and I think this and that. ~~~~



Remember to be civil and focus on the content, not other editors

  • Germany (Option 1) is neutral and obvious. Not sure what the evidence is that the existing consensus has "faded into obscurity", rather lack of volatility might make it simply a "settled" consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Child abuse

There is dispute over whether to use this or this definition for the WP:Lead sentence of the Child abuse article. The latter version is the broader definition. One concern is that since reliable sources say that the definition of child abuse is not always clear, the lead should use the broader wording, especially if it establishes what the words abuse and maltreatment mean according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The other concern is that the broader definition is less commonly used, since unintentional harm of a child is often not termed child abuse; because of this, it is therefore misleading to state "any" or "all forms" of harm to a child, especially for things like "neglect" or "exploitation"; the Child neglect article, for example, makes it very clear that child neglect is commonly difficult to define.

If receiving this message from the RfC page, see Talk:Child abuse#Lead section: WHO definition of child maltreatment for more discussion on how to define the lead. Also, WP:Med and WP:Law will be alerted to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders

Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016

Should the tables in the "Candidates" section contain state images and logos, or just text? Techgeekxp (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox

In the context of WP:WEIGHT, under what circumstances should a person's religion be highlighted in infoboxes? Should default inclusion be allowed, if known or if it can be deduced? If not, what threshold should there be for inclusion?


  • The "religion=" parameter should be left empty by default. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV which is policy rather than a guideline.
Infoboxes are not mandatory and editors frequently keep them off biography articles. When included, they draw attention to fundamental facts about a person. When sources make clear that religion is a prominent and fundamental aspect of a person, a body would expect the religion to appear along with the subject's birthdate, offices held, etc. Infoboxes should not place undue weight on that religion when it plays a small rôle in a person's biography (this applies to all parameters). If there is any question about a person's faith, or if that person's beliefs are nuanced, it should be handled in the body of the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


I have debated beforehand that Muhammad is quite far from being 'widely considered' the founder of Islam, at least not by Muslims authors and society in general (which represent 1.6 billion people in the world). There are only a handful Muslims, mostly authors from the UK and Pakistan (non scholars of Islam) who consider him the 'founder of Islam' and I urge you to prove it otherwise; of all the sources found, most are from encyclopedias and books on terrorism, and a few from Christian authors. This induces a Christian POV into the text. I suggest removing the phrase, for the sake of the article itself. Note: Jesus is never considered the founder of Christianity, for example, since these people are considered prophets of religion and not founders, and whoever says otherwise is inadvertently adding a point of view which doesn't fit with the style of the text. --92slim (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2015

Cook Islands

Shall we use:

  • A) Queen's Representative - status quo, actual title of position
  • B) Viceroy - a suo jure gender-nuanced term
  • C) Monarch's Representative - gender-neutralising the first word of status quo


  • Viceroy, would be my choice, as it's gender-neutral & compact. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Housing in the United Kingdom

One particular editor has put an enormous amount of work into this article and it is both informative and highly referenced. He/she has accepted it is not neutral POV and is doing further work on this. However, I do have concerns that the way the source material has been assembled appears to be taking a moral/ethical stance on the inequality/unfairness of the current state of the UK housing situation and is presenting a case for change. Tomintoul (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Frampton

# Are there any reasons to include a summary of the mule honeypot ruse conviction in the article's introduction?
  1. Are there any reasons that the header of the section describing it should be called "Drug smuggling conviction" instead of "Personal life"?
  2. Are there any reasons that the Argentine court's ruling should be given greater weight than the US appeals court's or Frampton's point of view? 08:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Freedom Caucus

Should the article say that the Freedom Caucus is a "far-right" organization? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

Does it comply with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to include material accusing the committee (in particular Trey Gowdy) of misdeeds [2] without including a response from Gowdy/the committee. [3] 15:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Should we adopt or restore or (replace file) this flag with 7 February 2011 version of the flag Dannis243 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Edmonson County High School

Should the dress-code controversy information that keeps getting deleted be included in the article?HabandMan (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

This RfC asks if this article should or should not be within category "Scientific Racism"?


  • Support. Rushton's research is described as falling within "Scientific Racism" in dozens of reliable sources. It would be hard to imagine a source on the topic of "scientific racism" that does not include prominent mention of Rushton. There is no valid reason to exclude his biography article from the category.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi

Which of the sources should be kept and which should be removed? A detailed analysis of sources and the concerns about them is found one section above. Given below is a short summary of each source and the concern raised.
  1. The first source "The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century" is by Adnan Oktar who is a conspiracy theorist. WP:FRINGE is violated here.
  2. There are two references to the Quran. the article is about [Hadith]. Including the references to Quran is WP:COATRACK.
  3. Source four is Sahih Bukhari, one quote is enough more than that and WP:QUOTEFARM.
  4. Source five is a hate book written by Akhtar Rizvi. The proof that this book is a hate book is that it uses the hate word "Qadiani". A simple analogy is that a book which uses the word "Dirty niggers" throughout the book "will not" be used as a scholarly source in African American Articles. Same is the case with books using "Kike" not being used as scholarly sources in "Semitic" articles.
  5. Sources six and Seven are once again Primary sources from which information has been cherry picked through WP:OR.
  6. Source number eight is "Nuzool Isa Ibn Maryam Akhir al-Zaman" written by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. It is un available on the internet in any form. When we try to search for this book in google books, to see if "any OTHER scholar" has quoted Suyuti's opinion, we come up empty handed. Only "Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000" and "THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE ELITE LIVES OF THE SCHOLARS, IMAMS & HADITH MASTERS: Biographies of The Imams & Scholars" have the name of this book in their index, and both of them refrain from giving any quotes etc. So even though this "may well" be a reliable book, up till now I am having trouble ascertaining whether it is even a real book or not.
  7. Source number ten is "Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah", which discusses how a marriage was arranged and discusses Ahl-al-Bayat, and nothing is said about Jesus.
  8. Source number 11 is "Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43". Imam Mahdi and Jesus have not been mentioned by this source. So again, source misrepresentation, or something like that.
  9. Source 12 is again the same dubious book by Suyuti under a different name. Already discussed.
  10. The last source is a "Shi'ite encyclopedia"; a HUGE book and no reference has been given.

Those who comment here can format their comments into two options if they like. They can use a bullet list to make two sentences like this

  • "source 1,2,3, bad and should be removed"
  • "source 5,6,7, good and should be kept"

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Communist Manifesto

These simple and short ten phrases / measures succinctly summarize the aim of the manifesto's effort ( they are listed in the above section ). They speak volumes in addressing the changes Marx and Engels wrote about ( the rest of the manifesto ). The general public would best be served if allowed to read and identify these ten measures. This would assist the reader in understanding what Marx and Engel's aims / demands were. Since the Wikipedia effort is providing an encyclopedia where the common person can find decent citations and concise information when conducting research for school, work, or the like, not having these ten measures included in the article would be a disservice to those searching Wikipedia for highlighted and summarized information. When has any manifesto not been known to have a list of demands? Not having the list of demands of the Communist Manifesto in this wiki entry neuters the article.

Regarding the manner in which this objection is being voiced:

I've found the manner in which I've been treated quite discouraging in furthering the wiki effort. Two individuals are calling "consensus" when only three ( myself and them two ) have opined recently on this particular matter and article. Not sure if one of them is a WP:SOCK, but further discussion may make this entire matter clearer and show motive in obstructing the simple addition of the ten measures. I expressed my concern when my edit was removed several months ago when one of these individuals took it upon themselves to conduct an entire rewrite of the article. I didn't object and let them continue without issue. That effort did affect the statistics of readership of the article. I applaud the effort of this person in editing, but again, not including what is so simple and concise as those ten measures is like not including water when trying to make soup. They initially desired to assist in including the ten measures, then chose against them, which I found quite odd. One could review the editing history and the dialogue at my talk page for clarity and the dubiousness of the editor who rewrote the entire article and now acts as the article's co-manager. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bernie Sanders

I think there needs to be a discussion of Sanders' Party affiliation/s - BOTH in the infobox AND in its own section on the page. For my entire life I have known one thing about Sanders - that he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican. It was like knowing that Buchanan was a bachelor, or that Andy Jackson served a giant cheese. It made them unique. Except, the Jackson cheese was not as trivial as it sounds. His administration truly did mark a transition from a government by "gentlemen of property and standing", to a more egalitarian government. We need to address this extremely distinctive and meaningful fact about Sanders: That was and is famous for being neither elephant nor donkey. The page needs to put the facts about his unique attitude towards Party in a subsection and on the infobox. What was he and when? And why? The people want to know!E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire

Based on the arguments above and the sources provided, should the term "superpower" be mentioned regarding the British Empire in the 20th century? Should a brief statement be made in the lead regarding the British Empire's position during and after WWII before the Suez Crisis of 1956? (map included here:[4]). [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. N0n3up (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders

What is the optimum (and most accurate) way to format the line in the list for Elizabeth II? 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Should one of the very first sentences of the article which now reads:

"Muslim jurists required adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community to pay the jizya while exempting women, children, elders, handicapped, monks, hermits, the poor, the ill, the insane, slaves,[3][4][5][6] and musta'mins (non-Muslim foreigners who only temporarily reside in Muslim lands).[7][8][9]"
Be Changed to "Muslim jurists required able-bodied, sane, adult, male, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law (monks and hermits excepted) to pay the jizya" ... as suggested by BoogaLouie? 22:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Rubio

The article contains the following passage: Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming . . . The article points two two sources [16][17]. A third source, not currently linked in the article, also discusses Rubio's remarks: [18]. Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article? CometEncke (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Should ALL attacks by any organization labelled as a terrorist Organization and present in List of designated terrorist groups be called as "Terrorist" attacks as per the essay at WP:BLUE or should we bind editors to cite reliable sources for each attack. The arguments against this are that as per WP:BLUE essay we do not need to cite the obvious as they have been labelled as terrorist every attack made by them should be called terrorism. While the arguments against are that WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are both policies and compliance with them is not optional and that these organizations attack a plethora of targets from other terrorists to common civilians, so we should wait until an RS calls something a terrorist attack before including it. The two options being given through this RFC are
  1. Every Incident included here should be sourced to a WP:RS which calls it a terrorist incident. There is a strong need to cite WP:RS which uses the word terrorist incident or its synonyms. e-g An attack by Taliban anywhere in the world will be included only when a reliable source calls it a terrorist attack. TLDR both "Islamist" and "terrorist" must be explicitly cited in RS as motivations for the attack to be included on the list
  2. Any terrorist attack by an organization labelled as a terrorist organization should be included. There is no need to cite any reliable source which labels this as a terrorist attack as these organizations have already been labelled terrorists by WP:RS the essay allowing this is WP:BLUE. e.g Taliban are terrorists, therefore any attack by them, whether in Afghanistan to capture new bases from another terrorist organization, or on civilians in Pakistan, is terrorism and should be included here as per WP:BLUE. TLDR any attack described in RS by a designated terrorist group adhering to Islamist ideology should be included on this list

Please vote with Option one(1) or Option(2) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

There is a suggestion to clarify the way privy counsellors are identified in opening sentences and infoboxes. Currently the most common method is to add the "Rt Hon" prefix for people who are not peers, and the "Rt Hon" prefix and "PC" suffix for peers who are privy counsellors. Peers who are not privy counsellors are given the title "Rt Hon" only. There are various suggestions for how these prefixes and suffixes should be used. Frinton100 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault

I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, my and others' arguments are below on the talk page. The RfC concerns whether or not to add WP:In-text attribution to the "majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement" aspect of the article and/or additional information for further context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)



Talk:Aam Aadmi Sena

Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States

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


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: 2016-02-13 20:42 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

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. ^ M. R. Kantak, The First Anglo-Maratha War, 1774-1783: A Military Study of Major Battles, quote: "Inspite of British superiority in the military science, the British troops could not force a decisive win over the Maratha troops in the First Anglo-Maratha War. The ultimate result of the War showed that the two sides remained evenly balanced.", p. 226 
  2. ^ John Bowman, Columbia Chronologies of Asian History and Culture, quote: "First Anglo-Maratha War...The war ends inconclusively.", Columbia University Press, p. 290 
  3. ^ Yaser Ellethy (2014), Islam, Context, Pluralism and Democracy: Classical and Modern Interpretations (Islamic Studies Series), p. 181. Routledge. ISBN 1138800309.
  4. ^ 'Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, quoted in Norman Stillman (1979)., pp. 159–161
  5. ^ Alshech, Eli. "Islamic Law, Practice, and Legal Doctrine: Exempting the Poor from the Jizya under the Ayyubids (1171-1250)". Islamic Law and Society 10 (3). ...jurists divided the dhimma community into two major groups. The first group consists of all adult, free, sane males among the dhimma community, while the second includes all other dhimmas (i.e., women, slaves, minors, and the insane). Jurists generally agree that members of the second group are to be granted a "blanket" exemption from jizya payment. 
  6. ^ Rispler-Chaim, Vardit (2007). Disability in Islamic law. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. p. 44. ISBN 1402050526. The Hanbali position is that boys, women, the mentally insane, the zamin, and the blind are exempt from paying jizya. This view is supposedly shared by the Hanafis, Shafi'is, and Malikis 
  7. ^ Parolin, Gianluca P. (2009). Citizenship in the Arab world : kin, religion and nation-state. [Amsterdam]: Amsterdam University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9089640452. 
  8. ^ Wael, B. Hallaq (2009). Sharī'a: Theory, Practice and Transformations. Cambridge University Press. pp. 332–3. ISBN 978-0-521-86147-2. 
  9. ^ Mirza, editor, Gerhard Bowering ; associate editors, Patricia Crone ... [et al.] ; assistant editor, Mahan (2013). The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 283. ISBN 0691134847. Free adult males who were not afflicted by any physical or mental illness were required to pay the jizya. Women, children, handicapped, the mentally ill, the elderly, and slaves were exempt, as were all travelers and foreigners who did not settle in Muslim lands. [...] As Islam spread, previous structures of taxation were replaced by the Islamic system, but Muslim leaders often adopted practices of the previous regimes in the application and collection of taxes.