Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Gary Stein

I am curious as to what the opinion of others editors are regarding the potential notability of discharged Marine Sergeant Gary Stein. His discharge, due to his connection to the Tea Party movement was widely covered in multiple reliable sources, including the Huffington Post, Fox News, OC Weekly, San Diego Union Tribune, and elsewhere. Is the subject notable enough to warrant his own BLP, or would a redirect and mention in the Tea Party movement article be sufficient?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He probably comes under Subjects notable only for one event. Even then the event itself is not notable. He was dismissed for political activism while in the military, not specifically for criticizing the president. Even that received minimal coverage. It may be that the case will set a legal precedent, or that his radio show or activism may become notable, but in the meantime I do not think there are sufficient sources. It is difficult to write a neutral, informative article with so few sources. Even basic information, place and date of birth, education, military career, etc. may not be available. TFD (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I do not agree that there are too few sources, as subject received coverage from such mainstream sources as the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, CNN, and CBS News. Most of the coverage was on his OTH Discharge, which he has said he would appeal, and was the subject of a PSA (second source). So I can see WP:BLP1E applicable.

That being said is the event of his discharge notable? As the links show the event received significant coverage as defined by WP:GNG, but I am wary whether it is notable enough to pass WP:PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it appears that he was the subject of a potential run for an office that does not meet notability per WP:POLITICIAN, in Murrieta, California. Although patch.com is questionable in regards to reliable source criteria, it appears that the attempt was foiled. Either way, this is only local coverage, but something to be considered in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suppose this soldier had been dismissed for some other transgression for which he was ashamed and which had been picked up by the national press at the time. Would it be fair to write an article when the only reliable sources covered only what could be an isolated incident in his life? A similar case came up in an article about a (Conservative) alderman of the City of London who worked for the mayor of London and was charged and acquited with possession of gay pornography. Although his career had been spent as a successful barrister and magistrate, it had received little if any news coverage, and his political roles were too obscure to have received news coverage. TFD (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The individual in London appears to fall under WP:NPF & WP:BLPCRIME; the potential subject here is well known due to the national coverage of the event, but WP:BLPCRIME may apply (as the discharge is under appeal).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say hold off, for now. Light-jet pilot (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

I need help in the editing discussion about Steven Crowder. I feel I am being fair but that other editors are determined to express a POV. I am not canvassing, but in the "building a consensus guide", it is recommended to have a 3rd party take a look and try to offer an objective opinion that might help lead to a consensus when a discussion has become deadlocked. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! JohnKAndersen (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Try WP:BLPN. Also, when you post requests for outside input, you should notify other editors on the talk page. TFD (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

While the New Black Panther Party is far right, could you please provide sources that it is also conservative. TFD (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks like canvassing to round up sympathetic editors. The topic is not related to conservatism; it is actually about radical politics. Project member RightCowLeftCoast added the project to the article's talk page way back in September but I don't see any valid connection. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bink, it only looks like canvassing because you failed to notice that RCLC notified 4 different projects.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, however, false assumption leads to wrong conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Better take a rope down that rabbit hole.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic relates to conservatism because it was an incident that was heavily covered by conservatives. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Going by that logic then Apple pie, 4th of July and Pledge of Allegiance should be under the Project's purview. The Project will be awash with responsibilities to tangential (and worse) topics if this path is followed. It is already far less active since the disappearance of Lionelt, so I don't see how adding more responsibilities will improve anything. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

American =/ conservative related. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Black Panther scandal would know that it was primarily pushed by conservative/GOP congresspeople, the conservative media, and conservative bloggers - in other words, the conservative movement. That makes it a conservative-related topic. We all know you'd rather this project not exist anyway, so let's not pretend you really have some set criteria as to what should be tagged here. Toa Nidhiki05 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on your own logic, then the article should be tagged as part of the U.S. politics projects and this project should be folded into the scope of those projects accordingly. So, you yourself have argued that this project should not exist. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice straw man there; that's not my argument, but yours. You and a group of other editors have this obnoxious schtick where you argue any article tagged under this project is improperly tagged (a false argument because we can tag whatever the hell we want). Even a neutrally-worded notice on all applicable projects, in accordance with policy, is bad because WP:CONSERVATISM is evil an shouldn't tag articles that you don't like. Quite frankly this selective outrage is ridiculous - why aren't you complaining about the Obama and Feminism WikiProjects tagging War on Women? The truth is you will try and find a problem where none exists because you want this project deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I want the scope defined, as I've said all along. This project and its members are unable to define its scope based on your logic up above. In other words, "if Fox News and the conservative blogosphere report it" then we tag it, doesn't a project scope make. WikiProjects are used to help write articles, not promote bias and POV. The project should be redirected to the wider scope of a U.S. politics project which takes all political POV into account and works from the basis of a NPOV. This project has shown over and over again that it cannot work within the framework of Wikipedia and exists solely to disrupt and alter that framework to support its POV. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The scope is defined, right up at the top of the page - it just isn't defined the way you want it to be defined. We operate exactly the same as other WikiProjects, but the selective outraged shown here every two months or so is ridiculous. For the longest time you all argued notifications were too partisan and only applied here. Well, lo and behold we place a banner saying that notices should be neutral and to all tagged projects, and as soon as someone gives a neutral notice of a discussion on a tagged article (and gives it to all other projects tagging it) you come on here and complain about canvassing. It seems like because you don't think we should exist, we're damned if we do anything and damned if we don't do anything, and I'm sick of you accusing everyone here of working to disrupt this WikiProject and push a political view. Take a look at my contributions - notice any political articles? Nope. The real disruption isn't from this project, but the baseless and repetitive efforts to accuse everyone here of POV pushing. If you have a case against members of this project, start an RfC and prove it - but judging by the facts and the previous attempt to do so I seriously doubt anything will come of it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Articles that deal with conservatism in some way" isn't a defined scope at all. There is no working scope for this project other than "Fox News said it and conservative activists report it", and that is not acceptable. If you need to to break out the scholarly articles and books to discover what an encyclopedic coverage of conservatism entails, then spend some time in your library or talk to a political science professor. But, as it currently stands, this project is not being used to develop topics about conservatism. Rather, it is being used to promote political and religious beliefs held by a minority of fringe activists. That can't be allowed to continue. I'm all for the scholarly analysis of conservatism and the creation of such articles. I am, however, against the repeated hijacking of Wikipedia and its principles. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Our scope is not that, it is "conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism". The scope is defined, the fact of the matter is that you happen to not like it because it isn't what you want it to be. I will not allow you to baselessly accuse people of severe and heinous acts against Wikipedia, and I demand you stop making them immediately. You have no evidence, have never presented any evidence, and have never shown any intent to label evidence, and I will not "give you a break" when you are attacking 83 people for no reason.

There is absolutely nothing here that is out of the ordinary - a perfectly neutral message was applied to all tagging WikiProjects (including this one) about a discussion. Rather than go and comment, you instead call it canvassing - even though nobody has responded to the request aside from, ironically, the people such as yourself who have long-standing opposition to the existence of this project. Clearly, if this project is attempting to canvass we aren't doing a very good job of it. The outrage you are mustering is entirely false because you are not targeting other WikiProjects that tag articles of similar nature (what does War on Women, a political neologism used as an attack word, have to do with Barack Obama, Feminism, and Discrimination aside from political usage?) - it is very clear the reason you are here isn't that the actions are bad, it is that you don't like this project.Toa Nidhiki05 05:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not a scope, it's merely "articles that deal with conservatism in some way". That is neither helpful nor informative and this lack of scope is responsible for 60% of the ongoing conflicts related to this project and its members. The other 40% of disputes are due to edit warring, sock puppetry, and other disruptive tactics. A scope is a specific range of topics that defines the topic area and provides examples. It isn't that I don't like your scope, it's that you don't have a scope, as many, many other editors have told you and your project over and over again. How many more conflicts and disputes must we continue to deal with because of your refusal to define an actual scope? Do I need to list the incredible number of conflicts, disputes, blocks, edit wars, and other time sinks directly traceable to this project and its lack of scope? That's a hell of a lot of evidence that you say doesn't exist, but you better start opening your eyes and stop with the denial as it isn't getting you anywhere. An incredible amount of evidence has been presented many times, and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell like a child "la, la, la, I can't hear you!" For starters have a look at your membership page, where editors have expressed the wrong reason for participating in this project, and hence have discredited its very purpose: "There is a verified view that there is a liberal bias on WikiPedia...The Wikipedia is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back. Remember - WP:NOTTRUTH....Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes....[Interested in] clearing up policially correct and leftist-dominated claims and analyses... I am interested in working on the right wing politics article, as I believe it is biased from a left wing perspective...To boldly uncover leftist bias that no man has done before...I am interested in promoting liberty...The leftist bias of many Wikipedia articles concerns me...I am interested in adding a conservative balance to Wikipedia..." Do you get the idea? The honesty of these editors betrays the true purpose of this WikiProject, which is to interject bias and POV. That's not what WikiProjects are for. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Our scope is perfectly fine and comparable to long-standing projects like WP:ATHEISM, WP:ISLAM, and WP:ALTERNATIVEVIEWS... Why are you not out there attacking those projects? Really, the issue here is that you do like this project and think that you can delete it because of that. Per WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN, not only does this WikiProject have "the exclusive right to define the scope of [our] project... if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article". So in other words, you're complaints are all violations of policy. You are complaining about a normal scope and saying we can't tag articles when you really aren't entitled to either.

If you think you have a case against this WikiProject, by all means start an RfC. The last attempt to do so didn't work that well, however, so I can see why you might not want to do that - it is much easier to post the same complaints here for the umpteenth time and hope that maybe this time beating the dead horse will work. Most, if not all, of the disputes here are editors like you complaining about stuff that frankly they aren't entitled to complain about - the scope or tagged articles. Frankly, we can tag whatever the hell we want. Do we? No, but you sure make it sound that way. So please, I reiterate - if you are so certain this project is doing such horrible things and that the evidence is abundant, please start an RfC instead of baselessly attacking 83 people and accuse them of extreme policy violations without any sort of evidence. Toa Nidhiki05 13:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a scope, which is why you cannot explain how an article like New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is tagged by this project. And, complaints cannot be in violation of policy. You haven't answered or addressed any of the points I've raised except to ignore the issues, change the subject and point over there. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a scope - it is almost identical in nature to ones used by other established WikiProjects. Your repeated insistence on denying this is quite silly, and either shows you are intentionally ignorant of the facts or, as I have suggested before, you just don't like it and thus pretend it doesn't exist. Also, I did explain why it is tagged, you just ignored or forgot it. I have responded to your "points", and if I haven't they have likely been responded to in one of the other bazillion threads you have made them in. Toa Nidhiki05 01:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't once responded to any of my points. How does the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case meet the scope of this project? What is the scope of this project? Articles that deal with conservatism in some way" is not a scope. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is likely tagged due to reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread, ones you responded to and clearly noticed. The scope of this project is defined in the FAQ, which you have seen and been pointed to numerous times. To refresh your memory, here it is:

'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.

Now, compare this to two WikiProjects that have been around for over half a decade:

• We will strive to improve all Atheism-related articles to Featured Article status, while still retaining a neutral point of view. We will also help prevent religion-based censorship throughout Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to participate, regardless of one's beliefs or disbeliefs.

• The scope of this WikiProject is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Islam available on Wikipedia

If you still insist we don't have a scope (which is silly considering we do), please go alert the wonderful editors at WP:ATHEISM and WP:ISLAM that they don't have a scope. Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't defined what types of articles meet the scope of this project, therefore you don't and never had a scope. This is because this project was never intended to have one—it was intended to act as a magnet for POV pushers to insert bias and fight "battles" against mythical liberals and their mythological "bias". This is why you can't answer the question "how does the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case meet the scope of this project"? "Articles that deal with conservatism" is not a scope. Any article can deal with conservatism, so long as a project member says it does. That's not a scope, that's a form of uncritical, totalitarianism, the very opposite of "conservatism". Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The talk page listed the article to fall within the scope of this project. I made a notification per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification that I would notify all wikiprojects which the article falls under. The assumption that I am seeking only "sympathetic editors" is not assuming good faith of myself, and can be seen as being a battlefield mindset, and is not condusive for civility. If others would like, I can post the diffs of all the notifications that I created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism, so once again we see the lack of a valid project scope being used to justify advocacy and bias by using this project as a vehicle for political persuasion rather than encyclopedic content building. It looks like we need to reopen or reboot a discussion on the future role and purpose of this project. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is freaking tagged by this project. The notice was neutrally worded and sent to all tagged WikiProjects. What the hell did he do wrong? Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion, because I myself have been accused of "forum shopping" by posting a reference here seeking attention to an article I have been working on concerning a very conservative political financier. I am not sure what to do about this kind of accusation. Might I ask RCLC what other forums he or she used for posting? Maybe the posting notice itself should specify which they are. Also, thanks to RCLC for the link to WP:BATTLE, which I had not seen before. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. Put up or shut up.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

First let me say that I do not post off Wikipedia of my Wikipedia activities, therefore I am not violating CANVASS. Furthermore, per the Appropriate notification section of CANVASS, I notified all relevant WikiProjects using Template:Please see (as I stated previously). Here are the diffs for the concerned:WP Bio, WP Law, WP Discrimination, WP Politics, WP US, WP Conservatism, and WP Bio Politics and government Task Force. These were all the WikiProjects which the article had been tagged with; if other WikiProjects had tagged this article I would have notified them as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My point was that you were the one who initially tagged the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case article as being of interest to this Project. I think the connection is ridiculous, as the topic is of interest to any politically minded person in the US—liberal, centrist, conservative, radical, whatever. The Politics Project is the most apt. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I’d like to make it clear that the same roundabout blame game is not worthwhile. In fact, it is absolutely pointless. Everyone blames everyone else of something. That’s all that ever happens here, isn’t it? Can people lay off the swords for little while? As far as my opinion on the matter itself, I’m not really sure. I don’t really know what can be done about the situation, as it has all been done before. RGloucester (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

{{conservatism footer}}

Hi all, an RM at Template talk:Conservatism footer has been languishing in the backlog for a while now. There are no longer any mainspace uses of {{conservatism}}, so the move is technically possible if desired. Votes or bold action would be helpful. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Which editor(s) have removed the sidebar? Why? Is the a reason to prefer the footer over the sidebar? Are other political ideology sidebars being treated the same way as the conservatism sidebar?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's been removing it. The sidebar was renamed from {{conservatism}} to {{conservatism sidebar}}. Its transclusions were updated from the redirect, and an editor now proposes renaming {{conservatism footer}} to just plain {{conservatism}}. It does seem that when a topic has both a footer and sidebar form, only the latter has its form specified. But this really seemed like more of an internal matter. --BDD (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well for consistency sake, we should use one or the other, IMHO. Question is, which one?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Traditonal marriage RFC

There is an RFC discussion for a subject that is under the scope of this project at Talk:Traditional marriage#RFC I admit I forgot to mention this here when I mentioned it at the LGBT project the other day.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Tea Party Evidence

Since Viriditas has decided to re-make his RfC to get evidence for an Arbcom case and has failed to inform this project that he is targeting it at Arbcom, I will do so myself. You can find the page here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Request assessment: Maafa 21

It is requested that a member assess the quality and/or importance of the following article:

Page: Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requester: Beleg Strongbow

Comments:
This article is very active. Because the subject matter is abortion, discussions on the Talk page are usually passionate and often heated. We've seen a lot of positive progess over the past few months (i.e. Jan. through Mar. of 2013). -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I assessed it as low importance and start class. The poor sources are part of the problem with the class level. If there was a source telling about the film's development, release, reception and arguments, then the article could be written in a way that was better for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

While I have no complaints against Binksternet's assessment per se, could someone uninvolved with the current condition of the article please give an assessment? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a WikiProject member, and I assessed the article objectively. Any other project member may make another assessment, but this one is valid. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have assessed as Start, Low. The quality content is well formed, however there are words to watch used which may effect the neutrality of the article and may effect the quality of the article, so that it becomes a positive advert, or attack page against, the subject. Additionally, I share the concerns of Brinksternet (yes sometimes we can agree :P ) regarding the quality of the sources used. As for the importance, I have rated it low, within the entire field of Conservatism this single film doesn't rate as high as say 2016: Obama's America or say the The Conscience of a Conservative, each which are far more widely known than the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet and RightCow! You both gave very useful feedback. RightCow, if you would like to make specific suggestions for improvement on the article, please join us on the Talk page. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Editors Invited to Laissez Faire article

There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Mugwump

The page Neo-Mugwump, which currently redirects to Republican in Name Only (an article about the United States Republican Party), has been nominated for deletion. Your views would be welcome in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 22#Neo-Mugwump. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun owner map

The article for Number of guns per capita by country includes a map at the top with a color scheme that seems biased against gun ownership. An editor has suggested on the file's talk page to adopt a more neutral color scheme using shades of blue or a similar color that does not carry POV implications. I am not familiar with svg or I would introduce a more neutral color scheme myself, but if anyone here knows how I would ask they upload a more neutral version to Commons.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty bloody map, eh? Yes, the colors are really obvious. I support Mr. or Ms. Advocate. I suggest that he or she politely take the request to the originator of the map (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elekhh) and explain the difficulty, asking for a re-do. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked and the editor seems uninterested in my concern about the overall color scheme.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Next step: WP:3O. It is time-consuming, but will show good faith. The venue for the talk should be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership.svg, not here.GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm color blind. What's the problem?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not the venue to answer that question. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a need for going through DR, since I imagine it won't be a big deal if the color scheme is changed to a more neutral one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Somehow, it seems utterly unsurprising that this WikiProject has devolved into hunting out liberal bias in SVG color schemes. In any case, the uploader already changed the color scheme in response to your complaints, so it's unfair (and sort of obnoxious) to claim that he's ignoring you. Also, the countries with the highest gun ownership appear purple, at least on my monitor. I've been outside the thought bubble of this WikiProject for awhile, so maybe someone could remind me how purple conveys a liberal bias in this context? MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Red states v. Blue states

I see it as burgundy on my monitor, but not sure why using yellow -> red is "bias" to begin with. I noticed the text under the image went into unnecessary detail, but "red == blood" seems a bit of a stretch. Keep in mind, I'm ex-military, a multi-gun owner and a former FFL licensed gun dealer yet I don't see how using this common, high contrast, color gradient automatically makes it POV. Seems a bit PC to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I can hardly imagine how any objective person could not understand the POV implications of having high gun-ownership = red, but no matter. All I want is for someone to give the image a more neutral color scheme. Unless you two think there would be some serious detriment to the image, article, or project, by adopting a different color scheme then I really fail to see what you doing complaining here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't complaining, it is opining that not everyone sees the current color scheme as biased. I don't care what color scheme is used, but I do think that changing it simply because "red = bad" is flawed reasoning. In political maps of the states, we use Blue for democrats and red for Republicans, does that make Republicans "bloody"? Is it ironic that "red states" have more guns and freedom when it comes to gun ownership? I'm just saying you are putting too much stock into the idea that someone used color to present a bias. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Context is what matters and the context of coloring in states that voted for a specific party based on the official colors of said political parties is entirely different. If you don't care about the color scheme then there is no reason for you to continue arguing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the principle: you're making work for someone else because of a concern which I think that most editors outside this WikiProject are going to find far-fetched. I think Dennis and I are saying (Dennis more politely than I) that you're being over-sensitive about "liberal bias" here. It's unhelpful, because it contributes to a polarized environment where literally every editorial decision is immediately viewed through a partisan political lens. And you're making work for other people, whom you then disparage for not changing the map to the exact color scheme you had in mind.

Finally, you're setting a bad precedent: someone could argue, with just as much "logic", that the map is now biased in favor of gun owners because it displays less heavily armed countries in yellow, a color typically associated with cowardice. This is the Wikipedia that you're creating. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one being oversensitive. All I am asking is for someone to give it a different color scheme to assuage concerns about bias. Many editors contribute with a partisan bias so it is helpful to point out where that bias may impact our content. As to your argument, yellow is not commonly associated with cowardice, while red is commonly associated with danger or harm and in this context yellow would be more readily associated with caution. This is basic and bickering about it actually does more to create the polarizing environment you talk about then simply respecting the concerns of other editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is definitely you that is being "oversensitive". It's a patently absurd claim that the colors of that image show some sort of bias. And it's a sad state of affairs that one would come to this "Project" and ask for members to flock together to stop an imaginary liberal coloring plot. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• And I don't see anyone getting upset except you TDA. I've only offered my opinion, along with enough context to understand that I'm not exactly "anti-gun" by any stretch of the imagination, thus it isn't the typical perspective around Wikipedia. I don't remember demanding change, or demanding something not change. Why you would get so bent out of shape simply because someone disagrees with you, and presents relevant evidence to support the ideas, well that is beyond me. I'm used to being able to have an actual discussion on the merits of an idea without someone calling it "bickering" or going into a tizzy. You brought the idea here, surely it wasn't just to canvass your ideas, but to discuss them, right? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see what this has to do with conservatism. The map shows the U.S. ties with Yemen for gun ownership, followed by Canada, Germany, France, the Scandinavia, Iraq and others. Are these countries supposed to be conservative? TFD (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Would a member or any other sympathetic editor please make the desirable change as soon as possible? The sooner I can get away from the bullying attitudes of this wikiproject's opponents the better.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion since it was started, and waiting for the blow-up here to happen. If my memory serves, at the start of the discussion, the map showed high gun ownership in red and low ownership in green. I wasn't particularly impressed that this was in any way POV, but I was also willing to go along with concerns of other editors that it was red = bloody&stop, and green = natural&go. It looks like now the editor who created the file changed it to go through various shades of red → orange → yellow, and that seems to me to be less of a problem than before. It's more like the more intense the color, the higher the number. I suppose one can still interpret red as implying blood and danger, but I question whether one would think that if one hadn't seen the earlier version. And to answer TFD's (possibly rhetorical) question: in the US, pro-gun positions are often associated with conservative politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish speaks good sense. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another long-standing opponent of this WikiProject chimes in to argue the point rather than taking action to resolve the concern. Color me a whole lot of not fucking surprised. Obviously, this was a waste of time as I should know better than to expect that people can set aside their petty differences on Wikipedia. WP:HERE failures all around for the lot of you.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on where you made that unfortunate comment, I have to conclude that you were characterizing me as that "opponent". You are incorrect. I'm an opponent of POV-pushing, but not an enemy of this Project, nor of any of its editors. But you aren't going to win any friends talking like that, for sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are not satisfied with even the revised color scheme, what scheme would you prefer? It doesn't seem wise to cause drama in such a fashion over something of this sort, though I do appreciate your pun in "Color me a whole of not fucking surprised". Very subtle. RGloucester (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because I had spare time, and because I'd rather this go away amicably, I made an alternative coloration of the map. If it satisfies you and others, you can go ahead and replace the other one. Look to the right! RGloucester (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope these colors are neutral enough!

• • In the spirit of teaching a person to fish rather than handing them fish sticks, in the future you can just use Inkscape or another .svg editor and change the colors yourself. That way, others won't have to guess which colors carry partisan biases in your view. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I knew it. The Smurfs are a bunch of pacifist pussies.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This humor deserves an award of some kind.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Gloucester. I think the color for less than 5 should be switched with the one for 5-10 since the latter color is lighter than the former and would better signify lower gun-ownership.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Like the original version prior to the changes that took out the green, the extremes are meant to have a high level of contrast. The green tint in the "lowest" group makes it very separate from the rest, just as the sheer deepness of the blue for the highest group does. If you really think it needs to be changed, you can do what dear old MastCell suggested above. RGloucester (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am not exactly keen in devoting more time to this than I have already. It is definitely better than the previous color scheme so I went ahead and added it. Thank you again.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

the shades of blue version is very hard to read particularly as to the individual gradations at the lower end. What about nice grayscale in fewer steps, 3 or 4? SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Do what you like. Avoiding red and green seems to be the "key" here. I personally can read them fine, and I'm not too keen on grey. RGloucester (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I felt compelled to try and address your complaints, and tried to make it easier...what do you think? RGloucester (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, think it looks very good, thank you! (Unless someone is going to take offense at the US being shown in black...) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't black, but a very deep blue! Midnight blue, I believe, is the name! It isn't easy to have six different variables that get gradually darker, without it looking odd. RGloucester (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good! Thanks again for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't black the color for death? duck! Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was leaning toward purple, but I didn't think that'd be appreciated either. *cough* semiotics *cough* RGloucester (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we see how shades of pink would go over? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)

Hi, there is an RM/RfC here that may be of interest to this project. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Religious right#Islamism

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Religious right#Islamism. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with Jim DeMint's article

Hi, I've posted here before, though it's been a while. I work for The Heritage Foundation and from time to time reach out on Wikipedia to get help improving article's of interest to Heritage. Recently I've been working to improve Jim DeMint's article and I'm hoping someone here is interested in helping. I've written a new section for the article's U.S. Representative section, which is actually currently blank. Because of my connection to DeMint — he is now the president of Heritage — I won't make the change myself. I've left a more detailed request on the talk page, so please take a look at that if you want to help. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Request Featured article candidate: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

It is requested that members participate in the review of the following Featured article candidate:

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator: Jack Bornholm

Comments:
Now the dust have long settled on the republican primary race of 2012 I think it is time to give this article the finishing touch. For those few of us that have worked on this article all along it would be a proud moment if we could bring the article all the way to featured article status. But what do we need to do. I think that the article look pretty nice already, better than the B status it got with an evalution during the primaries anyway. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

David R. Craig

Could someone please take a look at the David R. Craig article? There have been recent changes by User:Liberty444 who appears to be involved in his run for governor of Maryland. I've worked with him, but there are some WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. There have also been comparisons made to the page for Lt. Gov Anthony G. Brown's page (who has declared on the Democratic side). I'd like to get someone involved who can remain NPOV, but that might be able to assure him that actions like restoring the prior election tables isn't being done based on my Non-NPOV (I'm a Maryland Democrat). I know that there is no guarantee that anyone on this project actually *is* more conservative than I am, but it's a good guess. :) 14:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing the direction of the American culture

FYI: There is a new direction to work with the people in addition to the politic.

• A new movie/film studio began recently: EchoLight Studios (family-valued movies.)
• It was announced in June, 2013, that Rick Santorum is the new CEO.
• I updated the website of Rick Santorum but we need a page EchoLight Studios
• I went on the website http://echolight.com/contact/ and mentioned progress
• Specifically, I asked if someone there wanted to assist with their new WP page
• Since it is the 4th of July today, we'll probably hear back tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I could use some assistance to think about it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If the subject satisfies WP:N, it's fine to create a page about them, but the purpose should be to present the subject encyclopedicly, not to write a page that changes anybody's direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I understand. I just don't know if I have the time/interest of others Conservatives here. We'll see. I'm putting a note over on the Rick Santorum page. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure from the section header whether you understood or not, and I felt it was important to make sure. (By the way, even editors who are not conservative might be able to help improve a page.) Good luck with the new article. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North RfC

Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. User:Carolmooredc 18:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Randy Neugebauer

Some extra eyes on the Randy Neugebauer might be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just visiting

Hello Members!

I was in the neighborhood and thought I'd stop by and holla! I am so pleased to see Conservatism editors working hard to improve articles within our scope. Hands down this is the best Wikiproject in this place. Keep up the great work!

– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 01:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD on White Terror

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror. – S. Rich (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with update to The Heritage Foundation

Hello, every so often I post messages here asking help with The Heritage Foundation or related articles. I am an employee of Heritage and because of this COI don't directly edit articles about my employer. I'm currently looking for help with a recent request I left on the Heritage talk page.

Last week I proposed a rewritten section for the Funding section of the Heritage article, but it doesn't look like anyone is active on that page right now. My proposed revision is very similar to what is on the page right now. I'm just looking to provide sources for unsourced information and add in some overview information about how Heritage is funded, since this isn't covered.

I am hoping someone here is willing to take a look and, if it looks ok, add it to the article. You can see my rewritten section on the article's talk page. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thurmant: Done. Thanks for considering Wikipedia for your encyclopedic needs. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! Thurmant (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas controversy Norway and Sweden

There is a talk page discussion about whether controversy in Norway and Sweden about whether public schools should attend Advent/Christmas masses in Church belongs in the article. As we are currently only two disputans, any input from other users would be appreciated. Regards Iselilja (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Justice

I recently updated the article on the Institute for Justice. This is the public interest law firm that represented Kelo in Kelo v. City of New London and won four other economic liberty cases at the Supreme Court. The article is not currently in WikiProject Conservatism, but co-founder Clint Bolick is. Would this page be a good addition to your project? This is only the 3rd article that I've made significant contributions to, so I would appreciate any comments or ideas. Thanks & have a great New Year - James Cage (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Sharon Presley

After an AfD, there is now an Request for Comment on sourcing and content at Talk:Sharon Presley. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR

Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas J. Anderson

Much appreciated if someone wanted to improve this article now, especially by inserting references at the end of sentences. I will try to work on it, but I have several projects and can't work on everything. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

David K. Wilson

Hello. I have created David K. Wilson's page. Former chief executive of a publicly traded corporation, major donor, and Republican activist...It would be really great if some of you could help me find out more about his Republican activities actually. Let me know if you are interested/can help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Just found this, but there is no page number.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Also this. I will try to work out the context later today if I can. Anyone interested in helping me out?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Hey, Z. Nice work on the article. I did a few searches using the Proquest database. I got access to this database through my local library - this may be something that you would be interested in. Unfortunately, not every article in Proquest is available online. They are still useful as references - information does not have to be online to be referenced in a Wikipedia article.

It appears that Wilson's family was the top donor to Alexander's '96 presidential run, donating $83,750:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19960112&id=TIpXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y_EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6796,452377

The above link doesn't mention it, but the Proquest database has this information about the caption to a graphic distributed with the article and run in the Washington Post:

The Contenders' Top `Career Patrons' For "The Buying of the President," the Center for Public Integrity combed election documents to find the top donors to each potential candidate for the 1996 presidential nomination. The numbers reflect donations during each man's entire political career. Lamar Alexander (R) 1.David K. Wilson family, real estate/banking, Nashville, $83,750.

Here is the reference info for the Washington Post article:

Book Looks at Who Supports Candidates Financially -- and Why: [FINAL Edition]

Marcus, RuthView Profile. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Washington, D.C] 12 Jan 1996: A.13.

A table citing a different source was in the LA Times, which is available online:

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-01-12/news/mn-23922_1_presidential-candidates

Also, Wilson served briefly as the chairman of Genesco, but resigned to resolve a potential conflict of interest. He was on the board of a bank that loaned Gensco money. This is mentioned online here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/11/business/new-chairman-at-genesco.html

There are a few more details in the WSJ, but this article does not appear to be free online:

Genesco's Chairman, Two Directors Resign Over Possible Conflict

Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 03 Apr 1986: 1.

In '96 (2 years before the election) he donated $25k to Gov. Don Sundquist's re-election campaign. He was not the top donor. Did not find an online source for this, but here is the information about the article: Governor packs $2.9 million in war chest Hefty donations flow in before new law: [Final Edition]

Richard Locker The Commercial Appeal Nashville Bureau Chief. The Commercial Appeal [Memphis, Tenn] 27 Jan 1996: B.1.

Hope this is useful - James Cage (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to add all this to the 'Republican politics' subsection in his article, as long as you add a reference at the end of each sentence? I could always re-edit it later.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it. Have a good weekend James Cage (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Only for some of it. Do feel free to add the one that are not online. Also, his father-in-law might be of interest to you. Have a good weekend too.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Z - I haven't forgotten this - will do later this week. James James Cage (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notice of RfC on Investigative Project on Terrorism

Is here:Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Leaflet For Wikiproject Conservatism At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ron Manners for AFD

Ron Manners was suggested for deletion. I thought it was vandalism, so I reverted it, but when I asked an admnistrator to block their IP (an unregistered account), they refused and added it again. He is the head of a free market think tank, member of the Mont Pelerin Society, Board member of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, also mining investor. Plus the article is fully referenced. But the administrator knows nothing about the subject to their own admittance (see the AFD page) and it may get deleted. Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Manners. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Reince Priebus--removing the neutrality tag? Please repond on his talkpage

Hello. I am considering removing the neutrality tag on Reince Priebus's page, as it looks neutral to me. Please respond to this to make sure everyone agrees. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested review of proposed revision for Heritage Action

Hi, I'm looking for editors to review a proposed article revision I have prepared for the Heritage Action article. I would like to first acknowledge my conflict of interest with this topic as I have prepared the revision on the organization's behalf. Due to my relationship with the subject, I am requesting that editors review the draft I have prepared and provide feedback so I can improve my draft.

I've left a more detailed message at Talk:Heritage Action but have yet to receive a response from editors there. I hope that editors interested in this WikiProject might be interested in helping me improve this article. Thanks! Morzabeth (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this Talk page is more active so I wanted to leave a comment here to let editors know I'm still looking for help with this review. If you are unable to help but know of an editor who might be interested in assisting me here please let me know and I'll reach out to them directly. Thanks! Morzabeth (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s/Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution

Hello. I have created in a userpage, User:Zigzig20s/Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, co-written by Jeb Bush. I will move it to proper article status shortly, and I was wondering if you guys thought it looked good. I think it could pass as a C. How do you think I could improve it further? Does anybody know how to add a copyright-free picture of the cover btw? I have asked the person who did it for Hard Choices if they could do it for this book too. Please don't edit my userpage, but just let me know what you think here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• You can cut out the sentence "Its publication was announced for publication in 2012." Not needed, and it is clunky.
• You can cut out "a 'post-script'" from the last sentence in the "Content" section, as it the idea of a postscript is contained in the title of the postscript.
• Remove "both" in the formulation "both mixed".
• I think you misrepresented the Huffington Post source. You drew only from the "Update" found at the bottom, which is from an unnamed Romney adviser. You did not summarize the journalist's viewpoint that the book signals a change in stance for Bush, that the book says illegal immigrants cannot become citizens if they choose to stay in the country. You should also write that the review was written after the journalist read a copy of the book prior to its public release, rather than the current wording which might suggest the journalist was imagining what would be in the book.
• You wrote, "Reihan Salam suggested Bush's idea came from Peter Skerry" but Salam actually says that the Bolick/Bush idea "bears close resemblance" to Skerry's idea. You miss the important point that Salam lays out, that illegal immigrants who entered the country at age 17 or less could become citizens if they met some qualifications. You also miss the critical point Salam discusses which is that Bolick/Bush would make the illegal immigrant adult pay a fine or perform community service to account for the crime of having lived illegally in the US.
• You are guilty of original research when you write that "Roig-Franzia may be biased against Bush", using Roig-Franzia as the cited source.
• I think this draft of yours should provide more of the details of the Bolick/Bush proposal for immigration in the US. It should say in the "Content" section what they propose for adults, and what they propose for children, and what they propose for families.
• It might be helpful to have a final section called something like "Bush's immigration positions". This section would briefly say what have been Bush's various positions on immigration, including any post-book changes obtained from statements and writings. The WSJ opinion piece would be shifted down into this section. It would also contain any assessment that Bush has since softened the stance he and Bolick laid out in the book. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

When complete, please link your article to the article on Clint Bolick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Bolick#Writings Thanks James Cage (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick answer (I'll give a lengthier answer later). Re: content. I feel like it could lead to original research if I summarized exactly what's in the book. Don't you think? Btw, has anyone else here read the book?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I personally don't think Jeb Bush flipflopped. I don't want to write that because that would be original research, but to add a last section saying he changed his mind, would be unfair on him I think. We already have critics saying he did in the "critical reception" section. We have to be very careful here because he may become the next President, so it can't be a totally negative page (and as it stands, I don't think it is glowing at all either).Zigzig20s (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Its publication was announced for publication in 2012." should be removed. Why do you think it should be precisely?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed/fixed some of the areas of concern. I think it would be easier if you looked at the new changes and let me know what you think. Again, I think a lengthier content section could lead to original research (unless perhaps we take some ideas explained in the reviews...), and I think we should focus on the book, not Bush's supposedly new ideas. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is a bit of a confused answer compared to your structured reply btw. I hope it's OK. And yes, I will wikilink it from Bolick's page once it's been created.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I still think that the reader will be coming to this new article to find out what is the immigration solution proposed by Bush (the reader is less likely to know about Bolick.) If the article does not lay out plainly what the book proposes for immigration, then it fails to serve the reader.

There is no dedicated discussion on Wikipedia of Jeb Bush's immigration policy, so I see an opportunity for someone to create a new section in his biography. Other politicians have such sections: see Chris Christie#Illegal immigration and undocumented residents, Raúl Grijalva#Immigration, Art Martinez de Vara#Immigration policy, Michele Bachmann#Immigration policy and Tom Tancredo#Immigration. Presidential candidates often have more text dedicated to their positions: see Political positions of Newt Gingrich#Immigration, Political positions of Mitt Romney#Immigration and Economic policy of Barack Obama#Immigration. By comparison, the Jeb Bush biography has only a couple of sentences within a larger section about his politics and business activities. When Bush officially becomes a presidential candidate, someone should write the page Political positions of Jeb Bush.

I disagree with your statement that "we have to be very careful here because he may become the next President, so it can't be a totally negative page". Rather, I think we have to be careful to accurately represent Bush's position on immigration, and that we have to be careful to represent the published reviews in proper balance, per WP:NPOV. Certainly it won't be "totally negative", but it should be accurate. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite the concerns I've raised, I think the draft is good enough for mainspace right now. Once in mainspace it can (and will) be tweaked or expanded further. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. I hope we can find a way to add a "fair use" cover and that the page won't be completely mangled...Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Just dropping a line to say hi. Been a while.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families#Neutrality

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families#Neutrality. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD notification

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RSN: Are Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity sources independent of the Lucy Burns Institute?

Please consider contributing to this RSN discussion (permanent link here), which concerns the Lucy Burns Institute (publisher of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia) and the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity (publisher of Watchdog.org and related news sites). Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Per a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? wider input is sought in that discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with Heritage Action

Recently, my colleague Morzabeth posted here asking for editors who'd be interested to review a draft for the Heritage Action article. However, she had trouble finding editors to continue a conversation past the first reply, and I am now stepping in to see if I can help move it forward.

As noted there, we are working on a consulting basis with Heritage Action, and so we will avoid making direct edits to the article, considering our paid COI. Our aim is to make this article more encyclopedic, improve sourcing, give a clearer overview of the organization and its activities. As Morzabeth explained on the Heritage Action Talk page, the current article has much room for improvement.

The proposed draft in in Morzabeth's user space. She has made changes to it based on feedback, and I am willing to make other changes as needed. On the Heritage Action Talk page you can see the discussion since she first posted the request in July; unfortunately it consists of one comment each from three editors, without any follow-up.

I am looking for an editor who is interested in helping to review the current draft and work with me until they are satisfied it is deserving of moving into the mainspace. Thanks in advance, and I hope to see you back on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea by Paul Ryan

Hello. I would appreciate it if some of you could expand The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea, Paul Ryan's 2014 book. I did what I could for a start status with the reviews I found online. It would be nice to add a copyright-free picture of the cover inside the infobox. Also more relevant quotations from reviews and an expanded summary would be good. It's looking poorly in comparison to Hard Choices, so I hope you can help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would hope this isn't about comparing the page about a book by an author from one party with the page about a book by an author of the other party. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am adding more conservative content to Wikipedia because I tend to be more interested in conservatism (isn't that the point of this WP?), although I also happen to have read Hillary's book (I haven't read Ryan's yet, though I intend to). I think Ryan's page should be at least as long as Hillary's.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. It's just the way that you said it, it sounded like you were framing it as a competition. It's the difference between improving a page in its own right versus improving a page because it isn't as "good" as a page about a different POV. If instead you had compared it to No Apology, I wouldn't have said anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that was a fun read too. Yes, I only brought up Hillary's book because it is very recent. Anyway, this is getting off topic. I hope some of you can help expand the page. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

American Principles Project

The article American Principles Project (about the conservative 501c non-profit group founded by Professor Robert Geroge of Princton University) needs some attn from editors interested and knowledgable about the subject. Article has recently had over 8000bytes of text removed and tagged for notability. Appears to be a notable org (gets 128 hits in google news in 0.22 seconds [1], but I don't have the time to put the work in article it needs. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC at Cambodian genocide denial

I have started an rfc about whether the depiction of Chomsky's views and statements in relation to the Cambodian genocide is neutral. Please participate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Political designations in blp infoboxes; or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"

The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Prager University

You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with conservative radio host Dennis Prager. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion has not reached a close I have started an RfC. You are more than welcome to participate if you have not already done so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Help on Reince Priebus

Hi everyone, I'm hoping to find editors who can help on the article for Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, since the article is covered by this WikiProject. Briefly, the article needs some updating to add in details about his career, particularly his political career prior to becoming chair of the RNC, and information on his tenure as chair. A key example: the article does not mention of his former role as chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

On the article's Talk page, I've proposed a few updates and corrections. Some of these have been made in the article, however, editors who assisted have not returned to look at the suggestions for the Career section. To be fully transparent, I'm working as a consultant to the RNC and due to that financial conflict of interest I will not make any direct edits to the article. Instead, I am proposing updates for editors to review and make the changes they feel appropriate. Is anyone from this WikiProject able to help? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, just a quick ping here to note that while the details about Priebus's previous political roles have been added, I do have a few remaining edits I'm requesting for the Career section of the article. I have also just added some new suggestions for the RNC chairman section. If you can take a look, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Removal of an RS

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Removal of an RS. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the New Black Panther Party is a conservative group. I do recognize from reading the page that the case has received more news coverage from conservative outlets than from neutral or liberal ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Foundation for Excellence in Education

Hello. I've restored Foundation for Excellence in Education from PROD, and started adding referenced info. Please feel free to help and expand the page. A section about the history of the organization and another about the policies suggested would be a good place to start.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Help on Tom Graves?

Hello, I'm looking for help with some updates to the Rep. Tom Graves article and I wonder if anyone active on this project might be willing to help. At present, some of the article sections are lacking in detail or WP:RS citations, or both. I also see a few areas where the wording does not conform to the cited source and / or is not encyclopedic. I'm seeking to address these issues. Worth noting, I am working as a consultant on behalf of Rep. Graves and, considering my financial COI, I won't make any direct edits to the article. What I have done instead is to propose suggested updates on the Talk page here. If anyone is able to review and make the changes as they feel are appropriate, I'd be very grateful. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Secular-progressive"

A discussion about the redirect Secular-progressive and its variants have stalled. One points to Culture Warrior and two to Progressivism. Maybe this is inviting the foxes into the henhouse, but could you chime in at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18#Secular-progressive? --BDD (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)