Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:05, 11 September 2012

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all WikiProject Conservatism talk pages redirect here, except for The Right Stuff.

This page was nominated for deletion on 7 October 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: An article was erroneously tagged by a member of this project. A: Do not remove the banner. Ask the member why they tagged it, or post a message at the project talk page (below). Note: the banner does not imply that the subject has a conservative or right-wing ideology, has no relevance to neutral POV, nor that WikiProject Conservatism owns the article. Q: I'm a member and the banner I added to an article talk page was removed. A: From PROGGUIDE: You may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. This warning {{WPRYT Uw-banner}} can be used to notify an editor of the guideline. Q: Can non-members tag articles? A: Yes, but if a member removes the banner do not replace it. Q: The quality or importance rating of an article is incorrect. A: Anyone can change the rating. Make sure to consult the assessment scale here. Ratings are subjective, importance ratings in particular can be controversial. Disputes will be resolved by project members at the project talk page (below). Q: What is the scope of this WikiProject? A: As stated on the main page of this project, we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism. ^ WikiProject Council/Guide WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject

To-do list for WP:WikiProject Conservatism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-09-19 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Articles needing immediate attention : 23 articles needing attention Articles needing expert attention : 0 articles needing attention Alerts : monitor Article alerts Disputes : help resolve NPOV disputes (Feature defunct) Viewpoints : review Viewpoints needed (Feature defunct) Vandalism : monitor the Vandalism Watchlist and fight vandalism! New articles : check the New articles listing and nominate for DYK Assess : add quality and importance ratings Unassessed articles report

Conservatism Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Conservatism and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"How right-wingers took over Misplaced Pages"

Contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the members of this wikiproject, it is the right wingers who are running this sanitarium, according to Marc McDonald. He writes, "Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Misplaced Pages’s political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin" and explains "the right-wing “contributors” are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force." For evidence he offers the "sanitized" George Bush and what he describes as extremely unflattering Bill Clinton article. IMO Mr. McDonald should be blocked for fostering a WP:Battleground mentality. McDonald's ridiculous and irrational "analysis" makes fascinating reading. But the piece de resistance comes by way of the first post in the Reader Comments section (emph. mine):

You don't know the half of it. The editors at WikiProject Conservatism have teamed up with the exiles and wikihaters at Wikipediocracy to oust administrators they think are too liberal. There's an ongoing effort to purge Misplaced Pages of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes. This, along with off-site coordination of editors paid through advocacy groups like the Susan B. Anthony List has been steadily eroding Misplaced Pages's ability to remain an impartial resource. --Scarb

My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that. Maybe he should've interviewed LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, or NYYankees, or Haymaker, or any of the dozen other editors banned in the Abortion arbom case. Ironic to be sure. I'll paraphrase our VP and leave you with this 3-letter word: LMFAO. – Lionel 08:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: WTF is "Wikipediocracy?"

Liberals tend to have a real talent for projection. This is a stunning example. Oh, and I found this: Wikipediocracy Belchfire (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For the second time, please stop referring to critics as "liberals" as if that word was a pejorative. This isn't a battleground. Marc McDonald is absolutely correct, and given our demographic in engineering and science, our active editors are overwhelmingly conservative, with liberals in the minority. Howver, many of these so-called conservatives refer to themselves as "libertarians". The idea that "there's an ongoing effort to purge Misplaced Pages of liberal editors and entrap them in time consuming arbitration processes" has been true since I got here in 2004. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, that's something of an understatement. It's not just that there's an effort to purge liberals, but that Lionelt is leading it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of liberals controlling WP must be restricted to the political pages. "conservatives" editing pages on math or chemistry are not in the scope of the problem at hand of radical liberals controlling all political pages.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What they are doing is freaking out that these full-time liberal propaganda editors are getting called out for who they are. Unfortunately, there are many lined up behind them to act as the judge, jury and executioner to support them through arbitration, which will ultimately be decided by yet another group of liberal WP lifers. Thus is the story of the WP socialist propaganda machine.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

500,000 jobs lost under Bush administration?

Can anyone confirm that the US lost 500,000 private sector jobs under Bush? Should this be added to the encyclopedia article on the Bush admin? Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, we lost 3.5 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration alone. And another 3.4 million in the first 6 months of the Obama Administration (whether this was a result of Obama's immediate implementation of "job-killing" policies or a continuation of the economic catastrophe that was the Bush Administration depends on your perspective, I suppose). The economy began adding jobs in October 2010, and has steadily added jobs since (source). MastCell  06:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The content best belongs to the event 2007–2009 recession in the United States. If one president is mentioned, both should be mentioned, as well as a mention of continued over 8% unemployment (U-3) since, and the wider (and larger) U-6 rate (closer to the traditional way of figuring unemployment); sources: CNBC, WSJ, & BLS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The unemployment rate is 8.3%. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, if the source(s) links it to Bush, only Bush should be mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do they? Do they not also say, as mentioned above, of the increased job loss at the beginning of the Obama administration, and the continued high unemployment during the present administration? These are both factual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan needs our help!!!

Just when you thought there was nothing for WPRight members to do this election season, David Axelrod says that Ryan is a "certifiable right-wing ideologue." LOL. Colleagues, the 2012 campaign has taken a decidedly sharp turn to the right and it's time for us to get off of our asses. Did you know that Obama's article is FA? And Biden and Mitt are GA? Guess what Paul's article is... C!!! Yikes. Who wants to plaster a shiny green plus on their userpages? It's time for a collaboration!!!– Sir Lionel, EG 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sign here for Paul Ryan GA Team

1. – Sir Lionel, EG 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
3. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Never tried to improve a BLP to GA-status but hopefully I can help out. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to extend a warm welcome to all of our Team Ryan GA members and a special welcome to Toa. Toa has bagged 33 Good Articles and a couple Featured Lists: his experience will be an asset. I cannot overemphasize there is nothing more important than promoting Paul Ryan to Good Article. In order to accomplish this we'll have to leave our personal differences at the proverbial door. This will be only the 2nd collaboration of WikiProject Conservatism, and I can't think of a better topic nor a better time. Please review the GA criteria WP:GA? at your convenience. I for one am eager to get this party started! In accordance with our wikiproject nomination requirement I officially certify the Paul Ryan WikiProject Conservatism Collaboration!– Sir Lionel, EG 04:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest as the first order of business that we check each citation - that way we can identify questionable ones as well as fix errors. From what I've seen the citations are a mess, using different date formats - in my experience, consistency in citation formatting is a major issue for GA reviewers. We need to have a uniform system of dating for all citations. Making sure publisher and work fields are chosen correctly is important, as well as linking all applicable pages. Barelink URLs should be replaced with citations templates as well. Misplaced Pages:What the Good article criteria are not is an excellent resource as to the bare minimum of what is required. I'd volunteer to check all the citations and note any errors, and hopefully we can work on them from there. Toa Nidhiki05 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• When a certain editor signed up I initially had my reservations, but I decided to put the pedia first and ask everyone to "leave our personal differences at the proverbial door." Well a recent series of confrontations with the certain editor make it impossible for this team to proceed as assembled.

  I am therefore forced to reluctantly withdraw from this effort. Good luck to Toa and IRWolfie.– Sir Lionel, EG 04:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just noting for those looking to improve this article I have provided an initial review with a list of suggestions for meeting up to the GA standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the coming days I'll try to work through the suggestions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper understanding of "help"

Improving the page is an excellent goal, and I don't mean to find fault with that. However, what David Axelrod said has nothing to do with it, nor is any implied intention to argue against what Axelrod said. In fact, depending upon how the sourcing lines up, it might even be appropriate to quote and cite Axelrod's statement, so long as it isn't given undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editing of Paul Ryan reported in the media

• "Paul Ryan, 'Brown Noser'? The Misplaced Pages Edit Wars Begin for Romney's Running Mate", August 11, The Atlantic
• "The Paul Ryan Misplaced Pages edits begin", August 11, Politico

Both of these stories mention this diff by User:Ccchhhrrriiisss with the summary "Removed unnecessary statement from Early Life about prom king or '"Brown Noser.' This is not needed in article is not common in such brief survey". Interesting stuff. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Members List

Where can I find the members list? Thanks in advance, ```Buster Seven Talk 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You can find it in the about us tab or simply click here be sure to scroll down to find the list it is right under the Right stuff newspaper, I hope this means your joining we love new members John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Planned RfC being made by User:StillStanding-247

You can find it here; evidently this user decided he wanted to file an RfC about this Project. He must have neglected to read the 'Before requesting comment' section of the Requests for Comment page, where it notes:

Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved".

Accordingly, I doubt this will be taken seriously, but project members may be interested in watching it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have notified StillStanding on their user talk page of this discussion, as you should have done yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where I am obligated to do so - the user is planning to file an RfC and hasn't notified the project or its members. I decided to notify the project here so that the members of this project can watch it, as a WikiProject is a group of members and, as such, and an RfC on this WikiProject is an RfC on the 81 members of this project. It directly concerns each and every member of this project, as it is a motion being filed against them. They have the right to read the charges they are being accused of, as well as the evidence. Posting it here, on the main page, is less time-exhaustive than informing the 80 other members individually, on their own talk pages. This is not a discussion, per say, but a notification about the planned RfC. What's the issue? Toa Nidhiki05 00:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with giving the RfC author a heads-up, but seriously... was it really necessary? If he isn't already watching this page, how can he claim to know what's going on in this WikiProject? It seems to me that simple due diligence would require that he already have this Talk page watchlisted. Belchfire-TALK 00:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe that, prior to actually filing the RFC, we should talk about it here to see if the filing can be avoided. However, we're still putting it together, so we don't have anything concrete to talk about. I do want to say that, contrary to what Toa suggests, this is an RFC about this organization, not its members. It is not our goal to shut down the project or to penalize its members. Rather, we would like the project to comply with the greater goals of Misplaced Pages through organization changes. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject is nothing but a group of members. WikiProjects can't edit pages, insert references, reply to comments, or do really anything on their own. The editors do everything and it is they that an RfC would be targeting. By definition, it affects the members of the project and what they can do. I'll point out you never once discussed anything here, which is a bit suspicious as it is almost required for an RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I did notice the hatting. It's not exactly nice of you. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you are wrong. As the RFC states, we have discussed this for six-years with no change in behavior by this project. Furthermore, it was recommended on ANI in February that the next step is an RFC. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This page was created in 2011. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. This page is only the latest iteration. It has ample precedent and discussion as the Conservative notice board.. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that Misplaced Pages:Conservative notice board, which was deleted as a vote stacking page now redirects here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually the page you note now (which was created as a redirect, and not as anything else) was not the same in content as the one deleted in the past, nor has this redirect been deemed a "vote-stacking page" at any place in Misplaced Pages. Two pages with the same name != the same page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Collect, WP and NB are not the same thing and to say so is a ridiculous stretch. The WikiProject was founded in 2011 and the NB was deleted in 2006, which is 5 years of separation. Also, Viriditas, I was heavily involved in that discussion and there was no sort of consensus at all about the project. If anything, most editors agreed WikiProject Conservatism, as with all WikiProjects, can define its scope and can tag whatever articles it wants. The closing user didn't recommend anything, he pointed out the options available. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this WikiProject is a continuation, both in intent and action, of the noticeboard. That's why there's a redirect. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The word for bovine excrement leaps to mind when someone asserts that something ended five years before this project was started is the same thing as this project! Such a hiatus is remarkable indeed for you to make that assertion with a striaght face. Collect (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that. I trust you'll forgive me for remaining unpersuaded, even in the face of thinly-concealed vulgarities and other equally sound arguments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet you haven't shared any sort of evidence that we are a secret cabal that was originally the Conservative Notice Board. The overwhelming evidence rejects that hypothesis. The CNB was deleted five years before WikiProject Conservatism was created. Interestingly, the discussion on the NB rejects the idea that it was a WikiProject emphatically.

I will repeat that the RfC has no merit and the fact that you never discussed anything here proves your intent is not to hold a disussion on this Project, but rather to have it removed. You failed to follow the process and this will hurt your case in the end, and your case is already extremely weak as is. Just a cursory look at the talk page shows most of your 'evidence' consists of unfounded allegations, misrepresentation of pages and their intent, and ad homenim attacks on scope and tagging, which have already been debated at least a dozen times and the idea that either need to change rejected in all of them. Most of the comments are veiled attacks on particular editor with no diffs or sources, while other sections appear to invent quotes, positions, and ideas the Project supposedly holds. If any of it were true, you could easily back each sentence up with a source. Instead, it is the opinion of a couple of editors, who themselves have had issues with canvassing and edit warring. Just to go in-depth here, let's take this wonderful line:

Furthermore, the project has actively added project tags to articles for the purposes of inserting a conservative talking point, reaction, or POV. According to the project, conceivably every article on Misplaced Pages could be tagged under the aegis of WikiProject Conservatism provided that at least one conservative somewhere on planet Earth has an opinion about it.

There are no diffs to prove anything in this, and the last sentence is an invented argument and thus a straw man fallacy, attempting to frame the Project's position and then attack it on that created position. The second and third arguments there are just as silly, with the second making the idea that we should work to improve all articles to featured class seem evil. The last is by far the worst, attributing an essay written solely by Lionelt to the project (thus creating an association fallacy) as well as calling the conservative reference list a list of 'recommended' references when it is really a list of sources that are 'available for use', in a similar manner to the WikiProject Shared Resources, which incidentally lists articles by topic as well. The whole RfC seems to me to be a bunch of rhetoric combined with basic logical fallacies, while it fails to assume good faith by essentially accusing the Project (and by extent all members) of "disrupting articles under their project scope to push a conservative POV". I don't expect this to go anywhere and I don't see this as anymore than yet another attempt to forcibly change the scope of the Project despite the fact that Projects have the exclusive right to define their scope. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about it right now, yet we aren't agreeing on much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Holly cow! I Just read this WikiProject_Conservatism#.22How_right-wingers_took_over_Wikipedia.22 and I am shocked at the animosity. Can't people just get along? Or is it that real world conflicts are not different in Misplaced Pages? Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it false? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC needs input

Input is needed at an RfC regarding tea party: Talk:List_of_Tea_Party_politicians#RfC:_What_is_criterion_for_inclusion_in_this_list.3F. --Noleander (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel

In light of this discussion, I'd like anyone who knows anything about the existence of this alleged WikiProject Conservatism IRC channel to share it publicly. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it looks far more like you are interested in stalking the people who are members of this project than anything else. In facg, to this ooutside observer, it looks a great deal like you are using improper means to defame other editors - which is likely against the Five Pillars from the get-go. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you're violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and a few other basic policies in an attempt to spin my question into something it's not. Cheers. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read and reread your post. My opinion thereon is well-founded, and your instant desire to label everyone you meet as "uncivil" etc. or "not assuming good faith" is wearisome now - you have used the same litany in so many places. As for whether my opinion about your post is correct or not - I suggest you see what others say. Robbie Burns comes to mind with his observation on seeing ourselves as others see us. Cheers and have a nice day. Collect (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as an outside observer, I should point out there is no need to declare IRC channels, just as there is no need to declare emails or skype conversations or any other fora. IRC is a mode of communication which is not policed by Misplaced Pages, or editors on Misplaced Pages. I don't condone the alleged behaviour, but nor do I condone all these accusations. Focussing on on-Wiki activity, which can be dealt with on-wiki. Worm(talk) 10:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be part of a smear campaign against specific groups of this WikiProject and the WikiProject as a whole. Is there somewhere where we can take these concerns?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As another outside, but very interested, comment, I don't think you need to be concerned that it has, yet, grown to the proportions of being a campaign. It's just an IP starting a talk thread on Still Standing's user talk page, and another editor unconnected with Still Standing raising a concern about supposed outing at AN. Still asked here if anyone wants to inform him about any existing IRC. If someone wants to inform him of anything they can. If anyone else does not want to, or if the IRC does not exist, no one has to say anything. Beyond that, Worm is correct that what matters is what happens on site. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it appears that the IP making the accusations was SkepticAnonymous and that the claims were false. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And your posts stand on their own - still. Seeking to defame other editors in such a manner is the height of ill-faith, and a suggest a full apology on your part is called for. Especially since others had pointed this out before your post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Being so willing to destroy an entire WikiProject and its editors that you are willing to even entertain the proposal of an IP sockpuppet of a blocked user, perhaps. I wouldn't call it defamation (due to the legal usage of the term), but it is certainly not good faith editing. An apology is warranted - you were wrong, so admit it and move on. Toa Nidhiki05 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in destroying the project. I do want to stop the vote-banking, though. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Hi folks, someone should write an article about Mark DeMoss, "Mitt Romney’s evangelical ambassador". There was an interesting profile of the guy on CNN.com yesterday. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding removal of verified content, change in scope, NPOV

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:You didn't build that#Removed verified content. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Notice

Due to continued attacks upon myself, both personal, and claims against my conduct, I have stopped watching the article which I created 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. I ask others to attempt to keep the article neutral, per WP:NPOV, if if others believe that NPOV means creating an article that is anti-Romney. My regards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article in wikiproject conservatism? What does the article have to do with conservatism? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that only "conservative" articles can be listed here that I know of. In fact the LGBT project lists a number of people who are not LGBT as an interest of that project, etc. All that matters is that some member think the article is of interest -- as I am not a member here, I do not try to tell the members what to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But I think it's a good question. The page, apparently, is specifically about a speech by Barack Obama, who clearly is not regarded by mainstream sources as a conservative. It's really less a matter of whether or not the page is included in the WikiProject, but rather, why the Project's talk page, as opposed to for example WP:NPOVN, would be an appropriate place to seek editors to address a POV dispute. There is an appearance that the intent is to attract editors with a particular political POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd presume it is tagged because of how conservatives have turned it into a campaign argument and how it has become a major talking point. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see the page name is now "You didn't build that". That explains the tagging as part of the Project, but not the use of the Project to attract more editors for a POV issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see no one has responded to his request, so what is the issue? I don't have the page watched and really have no intentions to. Toa Nidhiki05 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that looks a lot like vote-banking. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV edit requests

A listing for an article to be checked for NPOV should not indicate in what direction the article is considered biased--doing it here amounts to lobbying. It is better to ask for attention, and let the editor judge for themselves when they see the article and the discussions. The place for specific concerns is not this project, but the individual article talk page. I have changed the listings according. This is a place to improve articles on conservatism, not to correct perceived liberal bias more generally. As Vargas is not by any account a conservative, I have removed his article from the list. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would also note that I have been watching as well, and would remind participants that the goal of any project is to improve articles, not to insure any article has a particular perspective in them. I am forced to do a full review in the near future as I am concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Add my name to the growing list of admins who are becoming concerned. It appears as though some members of this project have lost sight of the fact that the goal of Misplaced Pages is to report neutrally on subjects, not promote them. As such, your goals should be to ensure Conservative articles are accurate, NPOV, well sourced, and well written - not that they are written from the conservative viewpoint. I appreciate that to everyone, their view seems neutral and correct, but try a little more writing from the sources, and writing for the enemy and a little less writing from the Conservative POV. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 11:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Just adding my name to that list. Just a month or so ago, I thoroughly reviewed the founder of this project and raised significant issues with the worst of his editing habits. I know that one editor does not make a project and having reviewed other editors, I've not found the same issues in all members, but as a whole I do see problems with POV pushing and lobbying. Think very carefully about what the goal and scope of this project is, if you want it to remain in the future. Worm(talk) 11:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  It isn't the position of this project to give any particular POV to articles - our stated goal is to identify and improve articles related to Conservatism (broadly defined), ultimately with the goal of creating articles with a proper balance and neutral point of view and improving them to FA status. While such a goal is lofty, from a practical standpoint, such a classification would be impossible if articles were slanted to a conservative point of view, as FAC is an extremely strict and difficult process. Similarly, achieving GA and FL status for biased articles would be difficult barriers as well due to their criteria. Ultimately, members should strive to represent views in proportion and to create articles which lack a political slant in any direction, and I feel the vast majority of the members of this project comply with that. Toa Nidhiki05 14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think a problem is that there are articles that are written not with a neutral POV, but with a POV that is biased towards certain POVs (more often than not, not conservative). Therefore, to highlight this,not to advance a conservative POV, but to provide a more balanced and thus neutral POV is important. Others may see this as advancing a conservative POV, but that is not the case. If articles are written with a non-neutral POV that should be highlighted.

Moreover, as Toa Nidhiki05 has said, like other Wikiprojects goals of this wikiproject are also to improve articles that fall under its scope and increase the quality, as well as create articles that fall under its scope.

The comments that this Wikiproject is here to advance a POV is not the case, IMHO, and this accusation needs to be buried.

Imagine if we were to say this about other Wikiprojects such as the Barack Obama Wikiproject or any others, it would be laughed at and not taken seriously and brushed off on its face; yet here it is taken seriously?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually matters very little whether the project members are coordinating to combat what they perceive as a "liberal bias", or simply coordinating to push a right-wing POV. The practical result is the same: this project organizes editors along specific ideological grounds, and coordinates their efforts to advance that ideology. A WikiProject which explicitly organizes editors by partisan political ideology, while not categorically forbidden, has an immense potential for abuse. Not only have project members failed to address that potential constructively and proactively, but they've consistently and stridently refused to believe that any such potential for abuse exists.

The more Wikipedians observe this project in action, the more expressions of concern (like those above) you're going to receive - because the way this project currently functions is inimical to Misplaced Pages's policies and best practices, and there appears to be zero desire on the part of active project members to grapple with good-faith concerns. Instead, in keeping with the general battleground mentality embodied in this project, the response has been to bunker down, circle the wagons, and hit back aggressively at any concerns that are voiced. MastCell  17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I could not have said it better. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mast, I'm not sure why you decided to respond like that - I responded civilly and respectfully to the admin claims, which were made respectfully and by editors in good standing. You have been involved here before, all the way back to when we had an MfD filed against us (that was soundly rejected), and I'm not sure what exactly you add to this discussion by making the claims you are making. In contrast to the straw-man you set up, (at least) I have acknowledged some editors are problematic and might try to make articles slanted - however, I noted that such articles would not pass FA or even GA, which rely entirely on outside examination. I'd prefer you discuss the issues in a way that isn't accusing us of being evil, horrible editors trying to disrupt Misplaced Pages - because that is essentially what an active, willful violation of policy is.

Part of the reason why our project is skeptical of outside probes is the repeated attempts to destroy or forcibly change it (particularly scope-changing discussions often launched by non-members in violation of WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN). Almost all were launched by the same group of 4-6 editors and all of them rejected by the Project - most of these attempts were either to delete, rename, change the scope, or split the Project. Essentially, the demand was we either cut out all the American articles or all the non-American articles.

Since those attempts to change the scope and limit the project to national varieties of conservatism ended quite a while back, the project has instead been accused od 'vote-stacking', 'POV-pushing', and other major violations. Instead of focusing on the editors that might actually be doing these, outside editors have utilized their membership in this project to collectively accuse our 80+ editors of major charges without any diffs. The fact is, the vast majority of our editors have done nothing to deserve being leveled with charges of that magnitude. We are more than open to suggestions and constructive advice - however, we are not going to just sit down and let people kick us. Give us solid advice, or maybe join and try to help out - if you have good ideas, they may well be accepted. We aren't unreasonable people, and good faith advice is always welcome. But don't accuse innocent editors of violations. The way you present your claims are key - I'd rather have a discussion, not a battle. Toa Nidhiki05 18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. You mentioned my involvement in the MfD, so I went back and looked - and I expressed the same concerns back then as now (so at least I'm consistent, I guess; and I remember failing to be reassured by your argument that "WikiProjects are essentially places for people of a similar bias to join together on that common bias.")

In terms of concrete suggestions, I have a very simple one: this project needs to make an effort to police itself. That should be a pretty straightforward response if you recognize the potential for abuse embodied in an ideological WikiProject. And it's not hard to find places to start: one thread up there's a blatant example of a project member engaging in inappropriate canvassing. But the project response was: "As far as I can see no one has responded to his request, so what is the issue?" I think that if there were at least a token effort by project members to proactively address obvious abuses, the concern about painting all members with a broad brush would evaporate. That's my suggestion. MastCell  19:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely legitimate and reasonable request, but a major issue exists with refactoring or removing a talk page comment without the consent of the other person. A WikiProject is the proper area to alert project members of a discussion such as an RfC or deletion request, although the request did not come off as especially neutral. Perhaps a system can be made where such messages can be delivered in a neutral and non-partisan tone.

As a side note, the response (which was mine) was not on behalf of the Project - we have no real leadership so no response is 'official', per say. My other remark from a year ago was also ill-spoken - my intent was to say that a WikiProject is a place where people of similar interest can work on and collaborate to improve articles on that interest. I equated 'bias' with 'interest' and the wording was rather poor, IMO. Toa Nidhiki05 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to take your words from the MfD out of context, and I should have clarified that by "project response", I meant that you were the only project member to respond. I don't think it's a matter of removing or refactoring other peoples' talkpage posts. Just a simple response stating that the request was inappropriate would help delineate things. MastCell  20:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't really take them out of context, I just wanted to clarify the very poor wording. Its my fault the wording is poor, not yours. Aside from that, your proposal is fine - if nobody objects, I'll add a section to the FAQ that will read accordingly:

Q: I feel WikiProject Conservatism and its members should be alerted of something. Can I post it here?
A: Per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, it is perfectly acceptable to notify WikiProjects of major discussions (for instance, RfC, AfD, GAN, FAN, or FLC discussions) on articles within their scope. However, the intent of your post should be to improve, not slant, discussion, and your post should be "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". So as long as you follow those guidelines, it is acceptable to notify WikiProject Conservatism of discussions on articles within our scope.

Toa Nidhiki05 21:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Toa, I think that addition would indeed be helpful, with the understanding that the concerns raised here really focus on "neutrally worded with a neutral title", and not on "polite". If you (collectively) look at the corrections that DGG made to the listing, that's really what people here are talking about.

I'd like to say something more about "editing for NPOV" compared with "editing to correct a systemic POV". When I first started editing, I began to notice a systemic pro-animal-rights POV (and anti-medical-research POV, which is what initially caught my attention) in articles under the animal rights WikiProject. I became interested in editing those articles for NPOV, and encountered some very intense editorial disagreements. Because most of my edits, especially in the beginning, were attempting to correct what I believe were a POV, those edits could, and sometimes were, perceived as carrying a POV going the other way, and I got some pretty nasty things said to me. But I think, today, that my edits are seen as having been constructive, and most of those pages are a lot better than they used to be.

I did things differently than does this WikiProject, and there are two ways I can think of that are significant for this discussion. First, I worked as an individual editor rather than as part of a project, and nothing I did could ever be mistaken for canvassing. Second, it became apparent as time went on that I didn't simply edit from one POV. I've made plenty of edits sympathetic to animal rights, against criticisms of animal rights, when I felt those criticisms violated NPOV or BLP, etc. I think that there have times when some, not all, members of this project have manifestly not edited in those ways. My constructive advice to everyone in this project is to make every edit you make as though you were expecting ArbCom to be reviewing your edits. In fact, that might very well happen, but even if it doesn't, it's just a good editing habit to get into. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought that's a given? The advice the answer gives is to follow the guideline, which I condensed to a sentence that defines what such a post should represent. It needs to be short, concise, and neutrally worded. I've bolded the text for emphasis if that helps. Toa Nidhiki05 00:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would hope that what I said was a "given", or at least common sense. But if you look at what DGG had to correct, I think that it needed to be said. —Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I see very little has changed here since I last popped in. I tried to work very hard with you then to sort out potential issues. And they are just getting worse. I am not trying to antagonize the project at all, but that seems to be the way any suggestion given is taken. I think it is time that project understood that there is in fact a problem, and it has nothing to do with bias of other editors. Why should so many people see it, if it is not there? I am not saying the project is bad, wrong or otherwise. Just that these issues should be sorted, for the good of the encyclopedia. RGloucester (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize I just took a suggestion and accepted it, correct? Your previous attempts to move the project and change the scope were in clear violation of WikiProject Guidelines policy on scopes and was thus illegitimate - add that to the fact the scope issue had been discussed numerous times and that we clearly were not interested in moving the project it is no surprise we rejected your ideas. Such a move would have abandoned our editors interested in foreign varieties of conservatism and would have limited efforts to help or improve them, and a smaller scope results in less members. The key to keeping a project alive is a broad scope that invites activity from a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 01:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you will remember, and as the archives show, I accepted that you did not want to eliminate foreign conservatism. Instead I came up for a proposal for a broad, but more clearly defined scope that could help eliminate some of the problems that are discussed here. Taken from the archives, this was my final proposal, which was created after dialogue and debate with others:

• RGloucester's Modified Version of Will Beback's Version:
• Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political and social topics that are either:

1. Self-described as "conservative",
2. Described as "conservative" by multiple reliable sources in the context of their nation of origin,
3. Are commonly-held to be "conservative" in their nation of origin,
4. Are otherwise closely connected to some form of conservatism.
5. While doing this, the project recognizes the diverse interpretations of what the appellation “conservative” may refer to.

Taken from here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 5 RGloucester (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, why the heck did you tamper with my signature? There isn't any reason to do it. At all. Ever. Second, we had already discussed the scope far too many times. In the end, project members rejected your proposal. Why are you still sour about it? We didn't want your change, we liked the current scope and wanted to keep it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Toa, that's a very useful addition to the WikiProject guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. I simply said:

• 1) WikiProject Guidelines state is that the WikiProject has the exclusive right to define its scope. This automatically prevents scope and move-related discussions by non-members due to de facto change in scope.
  and
• 2) The scope had been discussed a ridiculous number of times, each of them rejected by the Project.
  Which of those is 'adding to guidelines'? Toa Nidhiki05 02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the signature bit. My computer automatically converts the typewriter quotation marks into the curly ones, without asking me, which screws up certain templates and things…it plagues me when editing, believe me. I don’t know how to shut it off. RGloucester (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, that's a bit odd; I knew a guy on another wiki who had a similar text-replacing issue, so I don't think it is unheard of. Have you tried using a different browser? Toa Nidhiki05 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary sub section break for clarity

It strikes me that DGG's comment does not really represent practice with regards to notifications regarding bias. When someone leaves a notification regarding suspected bias at a noticeboard I would hardly expect anyone to take the claim seriously unless there was some mention made of the potential bias that needs to be offset. The article in question seemed fairly balanced at the time it was created, though reactions were organized in a manner that might give one the impression it was biased because it reads in a sort of point/counter-point style with criticism from one side dominating the first part of a section followed by the other side's criticism in the next part of the section rather than mixing it together. Looking at the edits made by Mast and others, however, it is pretty obvious Right's concern about a specific slant was within reason. I saw maybe one edit by Mast that did not strongly favor a view critical of Romney in that article and the edit summaries were loaded with partisan snipes, so it makes perfect sense that Right would perceive some editors as actively attempting to slant the article towards a certain partisan outlook. I think Mast's conduct in this dispute is rather troubling and exemplifies the very conduct he assigns to this WikiProject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree 100% regarding MastCell. The linked diff follows the WP:LEAD guideline by expanding the lead section to summarize the main article points taken from independent sources. Before that, the lead section had only Romney and Obama reactions, not third party fact checkers. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding material about fact-checkers to the lede in itself was not the problem. The extent and form of material was a problem. Contrasted with Right's editing, it is pretty clear who is the more biased of the two.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• WikiProject Conservatism
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Project-Class Conservatism pages
• NA-importance Conservatism pages
• WikiProject Conservatism articles