This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DaltonCastle (talk | contribs) at 04:55, 21 May 2015 (→Request assessment:: New section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:55, 21 May 2015 by DaltonCastle (talk | contribs) (→Request assessment:: New section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Main | Talk | Portal | Showcase | Assessment | Collaboration | Incubator | Guide | Newsroom | About Us | Commons |
| Skip to table of contents |
| WikiProject Conservatism talkpages (Dashboard) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project | |||||
| Interwiki | |||||
| Related | |||||
| |||||
| Welcome to the talk page for WikiProject Conservatism Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that in some way deal with conservatism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please do include it here. | Shortcut |
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, all WikiProject Conservatism talk pages redirect here, except for The Right Stuff. |
 | Although it is very appropriate to post messages here asking for editing help or to inform about discussions concerning pages within the scope of this project, please note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project, and may be regarded as a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline. |
 | This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This article was nominated for deletion review on 10 October 2014. The result of the discussion was Endorsement of Keep Closure for the (references page). |
 | This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
|
|
 | Conservatism Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Request assessment: New Labour, New Danger
It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:
Page: New Labour, New Danger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: user:The C of E
Comments:
Request help with Southern Strategy page
Recently I have tried to add some descending views to the Southern Strategy article. I feel like the editors who are watching the article are very quick to try to tear down articles which refute the general thrust of the article but very tolerant of poorly referenced claims or articles that support the racist GOP plan hypothesis. I can understand that the editors with a particular bias (we all have biases so that is not meant as an attack) would be more likely to tend articles of interest to them. That said, I would appreciate any help that can be offered as I'm sure I'm not as good at navigating the world of wikipedia when compared to the other editors. This article was previously cited as being of concern and the article talk page makes that history clear. ] --Getoverpops (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton
Interested project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative project dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages articles related to HRC. Joining the project is in no way an endorsement of her or her political positions; in fact, it would be great to have people with a variety of political ideologies participating for the sake of NPOV. There are many articles to work on, and certainly she will be in the news for the foreseeable future, so thank you for your consideration. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Bandy ball
I am curious – this is funny – about why bandy ball was listed as a new article relevant to this project. :-) Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
RfD notification: Conservative news
Conservative news has been nominated at RfD. Your input at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Conservative news would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Request re-assessment for article, Carly Fiorina
I've been working on the article regarding Carly Fiorina over the last month, as well as making a few changes and improvements; but, I've also realized that this article is still marked as "low importance in the WikiProject Conservatism. It also has no such rating for WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers. Yet, I've realized that as of April 2015 (especially) it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, although it does not seem to be officially confirmed; meanwhile, the page currently says that she "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. Despite criticism and many past failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility by some people's standards, as well as having a career as a conservative pundit. It is my belief that Fiorina should have a higher ranking than "low." In most of these Misplaced Pages projects, I believe she should at least be at the next level, "Mid-importance." Ca.papavero (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Request assessment: ]
It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:
Page: Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: ]
Comments:
- Re-confirm my request from the section above. A few things have since happened; but, altogether not yet resolved. Especially for this project on Conservatism. Thanks! Ca.papavero (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
May 2015
Greetings all! I am new here so its unlikely I know any editors active here, but I do come before you now with an issue I believe needs addressing. Before I proceed, I should point out I am familiar with canvassing policies and am not attempting to recruit editors to push a POV. However, I believe a User:HughD has been making a long string of edits that need to be addressed on this board. I do not doubt that this user is acting in good faith, but they appear to be pushing a major POV with undue coverage. The main issue I see is that this user's edits push information about global warming denial as the most notable and important cause these organizations donated to, as well as other edits possibly deliberately made to be critical. The pages in question are:
As well as likely several more. The issues pushed in an undue fashion are not only global warming, although this is chief among them. In general, these edits push critical details as if they were the most notable items on the page. He pushed this POV tone even in the leads of some pages. For example, on The Heartland Institute:
The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Chicago. The Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial. It regularly rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet and that human activity is driving it, and claims that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy. The Institute also conducts advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
And on Americans for Prosperity:
Americans for Prosperity (AFP), founded in 2004, is one of the most influential conservative political advocacy groups in the United States. It was established by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch and is their primary political operation. After the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama, AFP helped transform the Tea Party movement into a political force. It organized significant opposition to Obama administration initiatives such as global warming regulation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Medicaid and economic stimulus. It helped turn back "cap and trade," the major environmental proposal of Obama's first term. AFP advocated for limits on the collective bargaining rights of public-sector trade unions and for right-to-work laws, and it opposed raising the federal minimum wage. AFP played an active role in the achievement of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 2010 and in the Senate in 2014.
This is undue weight that has not been noticed by the greater Misplaced Pages community or any administrators. The organizations would not state that their mission is to "deny global warming, oppose Obama, and resist collective bargaining". Doesnt it follow suit then that the most weight should be given to what the organizations' actual goals are and criticisms should be lower on the page?
As I am not all that active on conservative pages, I was hoping someone could take up the gauntlet here. Im sure HughD is doing what he thinks right, but in this instant I believe those intentions do not create a better Misplaced Pages. I'd be happy to offer assistance to any editors who are more experienced on these kind of pages if someone were to get the ball rolling. Again, I am really trying to avoid canvassing. I just don't think what is happening on these pages currently is ideal for anyone. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: