Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::little green rosetta, I would consider myself one of the primary concerned, and someone who is actually doing some exploring as to what venue to take this to, including having a draft RfC started here at home. But I'm not sure if that is the right venue or not, and it hasn't been rushed since there is ongoing discussion here and interesting ideas coming out of it. But to be sure, I think you are very mistaken, as I already have a list of issues that have been raised, and that I have raised. Simply saying "there is no evidence" is folly, as the facts are spread all over this talk page. There are a number of problems, the project is clearly out of compliance, the only question is "what is the solution?". You are welcome to disagree but you will be disappointed if you can't recognize the problems. I won't rehash them, as they are outlined on this very page, again, starting with DGG's observations. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::little green rosetta, I would consider myself one of the primary concerned, and someone who is actually doing some exploring as to what venue to take this to, including having a draft RfC started here at home. But I'm not sure if that is the right venue or not, and it hasn't been rushed since there is ongoing discussion here and interesting ideas coming out of it. But to be sure, I think you are very mistaken, as I already have a list of issues that have been raised, and that I have raised. Simply saying "there is no evidence" is folly, as the facts are spread all over this talk page. There are a number of problems, the project is clearly out of compliance, the only question is "what is the solution?". You are welcome to disagree but you will be disappointed if you can't recognize the problems. I won't rehash them, as they are outlined on this very page, again, starting with DGG's observations. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 10:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Above, I and others pointed out how Misplaced Pages depends on the preponderance of reliable sourcing. It disappoints me how the subsequent discussion dances around the issue without really engaging with it. I realize that some editors may believe in good faith that they have seen pages where sources with one POV are accepted as reliable while sources with an opposing POV are resisted. But the solution to that is to follow existing procedures for resolving content conflicts, and for dispute resolution if need be. It isn't to form a project that is designed to focus only on one subset of source material. --] (]) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Above, I and others pointed out how Misplaced Pages depends on the preponderance of reliable sourcing. It disappoints me how the subsequent discussion dances around the issue without really engaging with it. I realize that some editors may believe in good faith that they have seen pages where sources with one POV are accepted as reliable while sources with an opposing POV are resisted. But the solution to that is to follow existing procedures for resolving content conflicts, and for dispute resolution if need be. It isn't to form a project that is designed to focus only on one subset of source material. --] (]) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
:]I got into reading this because Dennis pointed it out to me. I don't have much to say. I lean conservative I suppose (more Libertarian) but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of intentions here. I created a graph to explain when I think it is. I think the perceived intentions and the intended intentions (ha) are getting mixed up. I am not saying the project's ideas are correct, but I think this is what they see as correct.--v/r - ]] 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
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.
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.
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
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, EG07:12, 15 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, EG04:51, 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. ToaNidhiki0502:00, 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.
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)
I started doing some of the improvements suggested a while ago but decided to wait till after the election due to the edit warring/sys protecting etc etc which is present at present. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:50, 18 September 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. ToaNidhiki0503:15, 3 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. ToaNidhiki0500:44, 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. ToaNidhiki0501:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. KillerChihuahua11:41, 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. ToaNidhiki0514:45, 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 ToaNidhiki05 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. MastCell17:26, 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. ToaNidhiki0518:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
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. MastCell19:33, 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. ToaNidhiki0520:00, 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. MastCell20:56, 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, 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. ToaNidhiki0500:26, 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. ToaNidhiki0501:07, 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:
Self-described as "conservative",
Described as "conservative" by multiple reliable sources in the context of their nation of origin,
Are commonly-held to be "conservative" in their nation of origin,
Are otherwise closely connected to some form of conservatism.
While doing this, the project recognizes the diverse interpretations of what the appellation “conservative” may refer to.
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. ToaNidhiki0501:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
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'? ToaNidhiki0502:02, 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? ToaNidhiki0502:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Projects are not independent, but their actions are subject to the approval of the community. Projects define their scope, but we have never approved of projects trying to take over too broad a field. Indeed, since all of recent American (and Western European & possibly elsewhere) political life is divided according to the various flavors or liberalism and conservatism, the project could us a justification such as given above for labeling all articles on 1930_ American politics, economics, and and political history. Since some forms of conservatism (and liberalism) deal with all social and well as political issues, they could similarly label as their own all social issue, even the most general. This is a division of Misplaced Pages along ideological lines.
We do not counter liberal bias by introducing equal but opposite bias. NPOV does not mean we hold a debate between two positions--it means we write about every issue neutrally. Otherwise, this becomes not an encyclopedia but a debating society, or the sort of pro and con guides published for debaters. Some inherently partisan issue such as articles on election debates may divide in this fashion inevitably, but not most political topics. (I'm thinking here of some of the work on American history articles by editors whom I personally know to be very conservative, probably considerably beyond the majority of conservative editors at this project, but I only know that because I personally know them--I would not have been able to tell from their edits.) DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Minor points:
One WikiProject has more than one million articles currently tagged as being within its scope, and has never received a single complaint about that. There are about a dozen that have more than 100,000 articles that they support, and only one of them has ever had complaints about its scope being "too big" (and those complaints come only from tiny WikiProjects who thought their groups should be the only ones allowed to support "their" articles). This group, with a mere 4,600 articles is nowhere near that level. There really cannot be any serious complaint about them "trying to take over too broad a field" when they are supporting less than 0.5% of the articles supported by the WikiProject with the largest scope.
A WikiProject is a group of people, not a subject area. We have dozens or perhaps hundreds of WikiProjects that have no traditional subject area at all, like WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. The community welcomes their help, even though these groups could properly tag every single article in the entire encyclopedia as being within their scope (if, in fact, that's what they wanted to support). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
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 byMast 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)
a neutral wording on notice here indeed may not represent past practice here, but it represents proper WP practice. Consider the basic NPOV tag--it refers to the talk page to see the problems. Consider the standards for notifying editors about a debate. (I am not saying some other projects may never have done similarly, but most are extremely careful.) DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 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)
It does not matter who is the morebiased of the two. If either have a bias, they should not show it. Saying "X is less biased than Y "is not a defense of X, but an confirmation that X is in error as well as Y. This discussion is not or at least is not intended to be about individual editors. I mentioned no names, nor do I intend to. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That mentality is terribly misguided and seems to arise out of the common misconception that bias is a behavioral tendency when it is actually a cognitive impairment. Since complete objectivity is a rare trait, if it exists at all, few people on this site fail to show bias in their editing to some extent on certain issues and their editing almost always focuses on those issues, so it is really a question of severity. If objectivity were in any way common on Misplaced Pages then consensus on the talk page would be unnecessary. Misplaced Pages often only works because biased individuals accept that they will not get anything done without making concessions or because someone who has no stake in that dispute gets involved. The real problem is when bias towards a certain position also involves bias against those holding different positions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, you clearly demonstrate that you do not understand the way bias works. Having a strong opinion is not the same as having a bias. The key thing to understand about bias is that it involves an inability to accurately comprehend alternative views. As far as editing Misplaced Pages articles, what really matters when contributing to articles is bias regarding individuals. Productive contributions to Misplaced Pages require compromise, not objectivity. If you can tolerate the people on the other side enough to listen to their views you can compromise without being objective about their views. Opinions and beliefs are quite irrelevant as they do not speak to bias on their own.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not dismissing concerns about the project, but making sure we understand what we are talking about and suggest the right kind of action. Should admins start dismantling wikiprojects for alleged bias based solely on the desire of its members to counter a specific bias, and block or ban editors for making edits that are simply perceived to be biased then the result will be the heat death of the wikiverse. Most editors are biased and edit in a manner that reflects their bias. You cannot stop that as it would require a seachange in human psychology that is well beyond Misplaced Pages's ability to engineer.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the material DGG removed referring to this? That may have been a poor choice of words, but I fail to see how it is in any way "advocacy" of anything. Reform is always the preferred route, but some of the participants in recent discussions of the wikiproject clearly express a desire to dismantle it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, the issue isn't just the poor choice of words but the attitude exemplified by it and shown elsewhere. Specifically, this project sometimes seems to act as if it owns conservatism-related articles, such that edits by outsiders who are not conservative are seen as the opposition. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Except fixing liberal bias does not inherently entail injecting conservative bias and that appears to be what is being said by citing, in connection with this wikiproject, Lionel's userspace essay, which reads to me as discussing policy-compliant ways to address a specific bias Lionel sees evidenced at articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
We should expect political articles to accrue bias of all sorts, so a strange focus on one sort of bias is problematic. Also, while you're right in principle, this isn't what's happening in practice. As useful as it is to look at motives (or, at least, stated motives), actual results matter more. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ched, about looking at the Liberalism project, you and others may find it illuminating to look back at , , , and . Draw your own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, the Liberalism task force is rather toast. No “real” members, no activity at all. It may not be the best example. RGloucester (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Should an RfC result, how will the RfC be "advertised" to the wider Misplaced Pages Community which may not be aware of the potential for bias manipulation. I ask that because most editors are not aware of the important issues discussed at the various RfC's. Will there be specific mention in the Signpost, for instance? Will canvassing be permitted? I'm sure the members of this project will be advised but how will a wider "Protect the Encyclopedia" audience be made aware?```Buster Seven Talk12:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I personally think an RFC is necessary. My last experience of trying to “engage” with the project resulted in nothing but anxiety. I am seeing very similar, if not worse reactions here. I think this problem should be solved. Then the project can move forward, and continue to provide valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, without all the nonsense. RGloucester (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the election silly season started, I've noticed a 'ganging up' by some members of this wikiproject at politically sensitive articles. I think that the POV rhetoric encouraged by the wikiproject is worsening unconstructive behavior. This is bad. FurrySings (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
WADR...will editors please stop referring to this as "silly season". This is the most serious season in decades. And, as Furry notes, the rhetoric isn't silly. It endangers the encyclopedia.```Buster Seven Talk01:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to start an RFC, I think you need to spend sometime thinking about the question to ask and the answer you want to get. Most RFCs like this are best handled as a yes/no question, rather than an open-ended free-for-all in which people feel emboldened to say mean things about other people, usually based on their own pro- or anti-(whatever the subject is) bigotry.
The potential questions that occur to me after reading all this are unhelpful, e.g., "Should we all behave in a way that permits us to pretend that members of a group that works on articles related to a political viewpoint aren't likely to hold that viewpoint to some extent?" or "Shall we all pretend that if an article is reported here as having an inappropriate political bias, but with a strictly neutral, information-free message, that nobody here will be able to guess which way the article is biased?" or "Shall we refuse to let people work together in a group, unless they hold the Right political views?"
So since those are lousy questions, and I can't think of a good one, perhaps those of you who think an RFC would be at all useful should spend a while thinking about what you want to get out of it, and therefore what kind of a question to ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If RfC is to be held should it discuss all political philosophy wikiprojects, as was mentioned earlier by ChedZILLA? For instance there is WP:SOCIALISM, just one of several such wikiprojects (including this one). As the issue is can political philosophy wikiprojects be used to further a bias, and since it has been stated earlier that the concern is that since there is a potential in such projects to be used in the manor, shouldn't the RfC be regarding all WikiProjects within that scope? Additionally, as there are perceived existing biases, and as there appears to be differences on how NPOV is viewed in balancing or removing those biases, should that be discussed as well?—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There really is no Liberalism task force (the project became a task force of WP:Politics to avoid the very issue that we are talking about here). It has no members, and no activity at all. It might as well be marked as dead. The Socialism project is basically inactive as well, though it tags a few more articles. But it has few members, and little purpose. The Libertarianism project is ever so slightly more active, but still very small in comparison to WP:Conservatism. Herein lies some of the problem….this Project is huge. I’m not necessarily saying that that is a problem, but it does pose some questions about how deal with this situation. Also, none of the other projects have had the issues we talk about here. If they did, they would’ve been called out on it. And anyway, as I said, they really are somewhat non-entities on Misplaced Pages in comparison to the Conservatism project. Even so, anything we decided in an RfC would most likely apply to any future political philosophy projects, or any of the previous projects if they are revived.RGloucester (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm one of the listed members of this project, like I am pretty much one of the listed members of a lot of projects around here. I can and do see that there may well be some reasonable claim to say that there may be a bit of a liberal bias in some media, although, clearly, not all, and, yes, there is certainly a conservative bias in some other media as well. New ideas tend to often be "sexier" than older ideas, and get more attention, and, honestly, conservatism is, more or less, about old ideas. It also, however, tends to be perhaps a bit more clearly written about in reliable sources, for pretty much the same reasons, which might itself make such a group a bit more active. Having said that, I too have reservations about any WikiProject trying to "promote" a viewpoint, although, clearly, most of the religion projects, sometimes I think deservedly, and some projects related to some form of philosophy, could also be accused of potentially doing the same thing. My own personal choice, if it mattered much, would be for pretty much every political philosophy group to be active, and, preferably, to have a rather clearly defined idea of what are the primary articles to its topic. I'm not entirely sure that any groups related to political theory do that. I can't fault a group from working on, effectively, promoting the philosophy of its core topic, because I think they all probably do that, but I might like to see maybe a bit more focus in them on developing articles directly related to topics of greatest importance to their subject rather than, maybe, creating a large number of comparatively poor articles. Maybe merging the project into a broader political WikiProject might be the best way to go, but I also think that I would be very happy to see Lionel, and maybe a few of the other more active editors of this project, chime in and maybe indicate any ways they can think of to address the problems this group is perceived as having. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This project is not going to be absorbed into a Project. The membership here has debated that and rejected it due to the loss of project resources. Further, such a discussion would have to be among the Project itself (ie. no non-member !votes) as it directly affects the scope of the project.
I'm open to improvements or suggestions, but forcing a merge is not going to do anything constructive - personally, I'd like to see concrete examples of problem areas rather than vague assertions. ToaNidhiki0519:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
For any editors who might not be aware of it, the draft of a possible RfC has been moved to here, and that might be the place to give input into what should or should not be part of the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC) That page has now been deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
@Toa Nidkhiki05: Please indicate to me where, exactly, there would be problems arising from having the project merged. In general, that entails, basically, just using a single banner for all groups, which would still allow for separate assessment for each group, and that's about all, actually. I cannot see how there would be any real loss from doing so, and I honestly cannot see how there would be any potential "loss of resources." If anything, I think the incorporation into a larger topic might make it more likely that there would be an increase in the resources, and possibly increased activity, rather than any to my eyes unsupported assertions of "loss of resources." John Carter (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it entails it becoming a task force or sub project and losing any independence, becoming completely subservient to the 'main project' and its demands. The WikiProject Guide itself suggests that absorbing is best done when a new, large project is created and is not appropriate if it is not desired:
If your scope was too large, but you're still keen, you'll probably want, instead, to identify potential child WikiProjects, and try to help them co-ordinate; this doesn't require a WikiProject in itself. Talk to the potential child WikiProjects about co-ordination, and see what sort of response you get. Be careful not to try to dictate to them; they could be sensitive about you appearing out of nowhere and wanting to assimilate them. If this is the format you choose, the rest of this document, while good background reading, is not essential (although it may help you not to look like an idiot).
Simply put, this is an established project with over 80 members and a good deal of general activity. We have never wanted or asked to be assimilated or forcibly split. Now, I'll reiterate - I am open to logical suggestions as to how to resolve issues, as would most reasonable members. But I need concrete reasons, not vague assertions - simply put, give some example as to what the behavior is, why it is bad, examples of when it is happening, and what can be done to resolve it. ToaNidhiki0521:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
A few points. One, you appear to be taking to yourself, and, so far as I can tell, only yourself, speaking for the entire project. On what authority do you, as an individual, do that? Are you sure you can speak for everybody, or do you simply assume that everyone will, necessarily, follow your own opinion? So far as I can see, regrettably, it seems to be more the latter than the former. If it isn't asking too much of you, do you think you might allow other members to express their own opinions, rather than having you, rather presumptuously, speak for them? Also, honestly, I would very much welcome you actually responding to the points I made, which you have not in any way done. So far as I can see, there is perhaps good reason to think that one person seems to be attempting to assuming that everyone agrees with him. That raises serious questions regarding WP:OWN and that individual. I was speaking as someone who has been involved in the creation of around have the projects out there, so I think I have some knowledge of the topic. I have very real concerns that the primary motivation here may be that what might be happening here is one individual editor with very strong opinions is, perhaps rather presumptuously, attempting to dictate to the entire project. Such behavior can be seen as very problematic. Would certain editors have any objections to letting others speak for themselves, rather than him trying to speak for them? John Carter (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no group, actually. The only person who seems to be indicating that he wants "independence" (something[REDACTED] clearly says no WikiProject has, by the way) is you. So far as I can see, this is, at present, a one person commentary, more or less exclusively by you, about how you want to be free of what you consider to be "left-wing" bias. Unfortunately,[REDACTED] doesn't work that way. I see very serious reasons to think that, perhaps, there might be sufficient grounds perhaps not for the project to be deleted, perhaps, but very possibly reasons to believe that one person, who seeks his much valued and frankly by policy and guidelines nonexistent "independence" of others might be perhaps found to be not so much here to build an encyclopedia, which is a collaborative effort, but seeking to do an end-around play around collaboration, based on a rather amusing POV that virtually everyone else in wikipedia, but not certain individuals tied to this pboject, are somehow "biased" in a way those editors are not. WikiProjects do not exist to promote a POV, and several of the comments I have seen on this page rather clearly indicate that this project, or at least a certain editor, is. That is extremely serious cause for concern. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2
I agree with Toa, that integration of this project into another project is not only impossible, but unwise. This project is simply too large for that to really work, and it obviously won’t be very enticing to the members. As far as what the issues are, I will attempt to provide a brief overview:
Political philosophy projects have an inherent issue: they can potentially serve as platforms for promotion of one variety of opinion, hampering NPOV.
This particular project is very large, and its scope allows it to tag more articles than it probably should.
The project “on the whole” appears to have an American view of what conservatism is, to the exclusion of other varieties. This is “generally”. And it certainly does not speak for the whole project.
The roster shows some very aggressive reasons for join this project, which do not appear to be in live with NPOV. Examples:
Already marked as a problematic user, RightCowLeftCoast (talk·contribs) states his reason for joining "There is a verified view that there is a liberal bias on WikiPedia. Per WP:NEU, this bias needs to be worked on. And not that it directly relates to my editing…” Where is this verified view? What is a liberal? What is a liberal bias? All of these things are potentially dangerous.
Project member JohnAlbertRigali states his reason for joining to be “Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes”. I think anyone would see why this problematic. What does “revealing leftists” mean? Does that sound like NPOV?
Another member, User:JohnChrysostom, states, “To boldly uncover leftist bias that no man has done before” - History of American Conservatism, Contemporary Conservatism (or lack thereof), Social Conservatism, Traditionalist Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and its offspring, Libertarianism. I’m a social conservative and a fiscal centrist, a Christian Democrat”.
These type of statements are worrying. In theory, it would seem good to “combat bias”. But I don’t think there is a consensus that Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias, first of all. And secondly, the rhetoric used in these statements is amazingly aggressive. Again, I’m not saying that this a problem with all members. I’m sure the project does make many good contributions to Misplaced Pages. But there is no way to tolerate this type of behaviour on a roster page. Quite frankly, it demonstrates one of the fundamental problems with this project: even if it has noble goals, it could very easily become a breeding ground for NPOV, or promotion. I think a lot of the users speaking on this page have noticed this, through various ways, and that’s why were here today. There have been plenty of examples provided. Now, I don’t have time to pull up more stuff right now, but I’m sure others can. Either way, as far as suggestions? Well, here’s what I’ve got:
Please, please, please, make a more clearly defined scope. You don’t necessarily have to “lessen” it, but it needs to be clearly, and coherent defined, to the letter.
When you members are making statements like those shown above on the members page, police them. Make sure they realize NPOV, and the goals of the project.
Conspiracy theories about leftist bias on Misplaced Pages do not help. When there genuinely is a bias, help out, sure. But do not err in the other direction.
Reduce the amount of articles the project tags. For an example, articles that would be better handled by another project, like, say WP:Politics, should be handled by them. As an example, why is Talk:First Thatcher ministry tagged with a Conservatism tag? It is simply a list of ministers in her government, that really has nothing to do with this project. These things are better handled by other projects, and should be considered outside the scope of the project.
Avoid antagonistic attitudes when dealing with outsiders. I understand it must feel bad to have outsiders coming in and trying to “dictate” things. But that isn’t really what is happening. Work with everyone. This applies to outsiders as well, they ought not be antagonistic. They should try and help, they shouldn’t try and destroy the project.
I think, above all, what needs to be done is that someone independent of the project leadership needs to be appointed to oversee the project, and police its member. Not to change the project itself, but to avoid incidents like those on the roster page. That way, we can be sure that these issues won’t arise.
*Political philosophy projects have an inherent issue: they can potentially serve as platforms for promotion of one variety of opinion, hampering NPOV.
Fair enough. The potential is there for any WikiProject, however.
*This particular project is very large, and its scope allows it to tag more articles than it probably should.
Disagree profusely. It has been explained above that there are effective WikiProjects with over a million articles tagged, and 4,634 articles is not large in comparison. Our counterpart, WikiProject Socialism, has almost a thousand more articles tagged, and therein lies the answer - our project covers all forms of conservatism, just as WikiProject Socialism covers all forms of socialism. We don't divide on nationality or school of thought.
*The project “on the whole” appears to have an American view of what conservatism is, to the exclusion of other varieties. This is “generally”. And it certainly does not speak for the whole project.
How do we have a view on conservatism? We cover all types. We don't discriminate on basis of type or nationality. The only reason we have more American articles tagged is conservatism is bigger in the US than almost any country. The US is also very large, which helps as well.
*The roster shows some very aggressive reasons for join this project, which do not appear to be in live with NPOV. Examples:
Already marked as a problematic user, RightCowLeftCoast (talk·contribs) states his reason for joining "There is a verified view that there is a liberal bias on WikiPedia. Per WP:NEU, this bias needs to be worked on. And not that it directly relates to my editing…” Where is this verified view? What is a liberal? What is a liberal bias? All of these things are potentially dangerous.
Project member JohnAlbertRigali states his reason for joining to be “Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes”. I think anyone would see why this problematic. What does “revealing leftists” mean? Does that sound like NPOV?
Another member, User:JohnChrysostom, states, “To boldly uncover leftist bias that no man has done before” - History of American Conservatism, Contemporary Conservatism (or lack thereof), Social Conservatism, Traditionalist Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and its offspring, Libertarianism. I’m a social conservative and a fiscal centrist, a Christian Democrat”.
These type of statements are worrying. In theory, it would seem good to “combat bias”. But I don’t think there is a consensus that Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias, first of all. And secondly, the rhetoric used in these statements is amazingly aggressive. Again, I’m not saying that this a problem with all members. I’m sure the project does make many good contributions to Misplaced Pages. But there is no way to tolerate this type of behaviour on a roster page.
Fair enough, but other projects have the same issue - look at WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Socialism, etc. This is not some isolated thing and singling us out is a bit misleading even that isn't the intent. If it is so intolerable, will you go to those pages and bring it up as an issue there?
Quite frankly, it demonstrates one of the fundamental problems with this project: even if it has noble goals, it could very easily become a breeding ground for NPOV, or promotion. I think a lot of the users speaking on this page have noticed this, through various ways, and that’s why were here today. There have been plenty of examples provided. Now, I don’t have time to pull up more stuff right now, but I’m sure others can. Either way, as far as suggestions? Well, here’s what I’ve got:
Please, please, please, make a more clearly defined scope. You don’t necessarilly have to “lessen” it, but it needs to be clearly, and coherent defined, to the letter.
Our scope is broad, but also specific - we cover conservatism, broadly defined. If the topic doesn't relate to some form of conservatism, it shouldn't be tagged. At the same time, WikiProjects have the exclusive right to define their scope and which articles they tag. The Guide recommends a broad scope to attract a wide variety of editors, which is what we try to accomplish.
* When you members are making statements like those shown above on the members page, police them. Make sure they realize NPOV, and the goals of the project.
How many of them are active participants? If it really is an issue this is one easily fixed, but if the members aren't active there isn't any harm done.
*Conspiracy theories about leftist bias on Misplaced Pages do not help. When there genuinely is a bias, help out, sure. But do not err in the other direction.
I don't think there is a predominant bias except in coverage, since Misplaced Pages has more nontheists and leftists than average and they would be more inclined to improve those articles. That's why atheism is a featured article and theism isn't, for instance.
* Reduce the amount of articles the project tags. For an example, articles that would be better handled by another project, like, say WP:Politics, should be handled by them. As an example, why is Talk:First Thatcher ministry tagged with a Conservatism tag? It is simply a list of ministers in her government, that really has nothing to do with this project. These things are better handled by other projects, and should be considered outside the scope of the project.
Less articles tagged means less active editors. The more articles are tagged, the more we can work on and improve. Margaret Thatcher ran a conservative administration, so we tag an article that relates to that. What is the issue? There is nothing stopping other projects from tagging stuff - projects don't own articles.
* Avoid antagonistic attitudes when dealing with outsiders. I understand it must feel bad to have outsiders coming in and trying to “dictate” things. But that isn’t really what is happening. Work with everyone. This applies to outsiders as well, they ought not be antagonistic. They should try and help, they shouldn’t try and destroy the project.
Fair enough, but this project has a history of outside attempts to delete or split it by outsiders who had no intent of joining or helping it afterwords. While this has calmed lately and hasn't been an issue for half a month. We are more skeptical of outsiders because of this, as a great deal do not wish this project the best.
* I think, above all, what needs to be done is that someone independent of the project leadership needs to be appointed to oversee the project, and police its member. Not to change the project itself, but to avoid incidents like those on the roster page. That way, we can be sure that these issues won’t arise.
Interestingly enough, we don't have a leadership, so this can't be fulfilled. There is a common misconception that we do, but there is no hierarchy and no real leadership. We do have a sole founder, Lionelt, but he has no special powers or anything. The idea itself isn't bad, but project coordinators are only common in very large projects such as the Military History project, where there are multiple task forces and hundreds of members. Ours is relatively small in comparison, with no task forces. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but any project member should be able to run and only project members should be able to vote.
You could certainly argue he is de facto leader due to his role as founder, but he is not de jure leader - we do not have any sort of official leadership capacity. That is what I intended to covey - there is no official leadership group or individual. ToaNidhiki0502:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Now, for my responses,
First of all, dealing with the idea that the Socialism project is just as big. No, this isn’t the case at all. It may have tagged many articles, but look at the talk page. The last “real” post by a member was mid-July of this year. It isn’t an active project. That’s really a fundamental issue here. Furthermore, Socialism is a different story as subject matter. Socialism was a “created “ ideology based primarily upon the doctrine of one person, with supplements of others (i.e. Mao/Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky etc.) for different versions of socialism. Conservatism is not a coherent entity. There is such a thing as “conservative communism”, i.e. Stalinism, but would your members consider that conservatism? Conservatism means about a billion different things, and this presents problems in defining the scope.
What I mean with the “American” bit is relatively simple. As I said above, conservatism is not a coherent entity. It means a billion different things. From what’ve gathered from the the project, the predominant view of the majority of editors is that conservatism is essentially the American version of fiscal/social conservatism. The reality is, conservatism can be more “leftist” than socialism. Fascism, for example, is rooted in a “kind” of conservatism. But so is constitutional monarchy. But so is Stalinism…etc. Conservatism is so amazingly hard to define that, when you have editors that are primarily American, or even primarily “Western”, you get misrepresentation of “conservatism” as concept. This, of course, proves NPOV issues, and possibly even problems of cultural imperialism. But nevermind.
I’ve read the LGBT members list, the Socialism members list and the Islam members list. NOWHERE is there aggressive rhetoric like there is here. The Islam members list even primarily seems to be made up of non-Muslims. The Socialism list is incredibly small, with no issues. The LGBT one had no aggressive rhetoric, and a thorough mix of people joining. The problem, here is the aggressive rhetoric. Wanting to combat NPOV violations is good, but when you combine that with comments about leftist bias and so forth, it simply becomes useless. There is harm done, because it allows the project be perceived as being aggressive, as a place the willingly harbors aggressive people that have the potential to easily commit violations of NPOV. I don’t think the project wants that reputation. It also implies to the any potential members that that type of rhetoric is okay.
The problem with over-tagging is well, complicated. As I mentioned, conservatism is hard to define, so that inevitably makes it hard to judge what to tag. The problem, though, arises when articles get tagged where they should really be better taken care of by another project. In the case of that article, it really has nothing to do with conservatism. It is a list of ministers. That is covered by another project. Overlap should be avoided, I think, to maximize efficiency and reduce the potential for incidents. And again, this poses the question, what is conservatism? You say Margaret Thatcher ran a “conservative” ministry, but what does that mean? Why isn’t Stalinism tagged? If I were to join the project and tag Stalinism, would that be a problem? Herein lies the problem. Again. WHAT IS CONSERVATISM? No one knows, because it doesn’t exist as a coherent entity on an international level or historical level. What is the “conservative movement” that people often seem to reference?
As far as outsiders are concerned, I understand entirely. I think everyone in this debate (project members or otherwise) needs to cool down a bit and understand that what people may or may not say is not meant as a personal attack.
I’m aware that there is no “official” leadership. Most WikiProject don’t have anything like that. But, as pointed out above, Lionel is clearly the “de facto” leader, and the driving force behind the project. It would be nice if we could have his commentary here. So, what I meant was…basically someone entirely independent of the project or the debate that could look after it, and make sure that everyone works out well. Since this is a difficult situation, I think it is warranted, even despite the size of the project. It is perhaps the least intrusive thing that could be done to help solve the problem, as it doesn’t involve merges/deletes/changes etc. Who would choose this person? I think a good place to look for this would potentially be the WikiProject Council. Again, it is all to be discussed.
Just because it is inactive doesn't mean it isn't as big - it was founded in 2009 and has more articles tagged. I would argue socialism is just as diverse, both in policy and in practice - communists are entirely different in goal and intent than social democrats or social liberals, for instance, while different groups disagree on which groups are the oppressors and which are victims (feminist socialists, green socialists, anarcho/libertarian socialists, religious socialists, state socialists, etc.). In fact, right-wing socialist ideologies such as national socialism define themselves as socialists, even if they differ in practice. Both socialism and conservatism are indeed diverse ideologies with independent and even contradictory goals, but both base around opposite concepts, and vary in concept and goals based on their interpretations of their base ideology.
Conservatism is an ideology with broad and even contradictory goals, as most political movements are. Our focus is on covering all major and national varieties, and the various subtopics that belong to them such as policies, programs, people, thinkers, and ideas. This single concept allows us to bring in an international group of editors interested in the topic.
I think you are wrong here, actually - granted, there aren't as many. But, plenty of editors identify as 'activists' (take that as you will) and I'll post a few other examples:
LGBT
36. Lisapollison (talk · contribs) I am an Anthropologist and Folklorist - my interest in LGBT is in the area of crime and the societal reaction when LGBT people are victims of , perpatrators of or simply involved in notable crimes. I greatly expanded the article on the case behind the play M.Butterfly, Bernard Boursicot. I have also tried to add details of her Lesbian identity to the Kitty Genovese article but get shot down every time. I've joined the project out of frustration over having anti-LGBT activists delete any mention of being LGBT from articles on historical people or incidents involving LGBT people even when the people self-identified as such. I'm hoping that by working within the project, I can learn how to best deal with such activisim. Thanks.Lisapollison 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Islam
33. User: Aaliyah_Stevens Long time convert to Islam, particularily frustrated with right-wingers trying to distort Islam or certain Islamic movements in wikipedia
51. AdvertAdam talk Experienced in Islam in wester societies: especially in explaining its peaceful truth with reliable sources, including academic studies and linkage between all religions and their holy-books.
Socialism
Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs) Primary plan on working on libertarian socialist organizations and people. Especially interested in history of socialism in the United States, and repression of socialist groups by the United States government.
Lefty101 (talk · contribs) Member of Workers Power Britain
We don't own articles, anyone can tag them as long as their project agrees. We don't own them and I don't think we claim to.
I'm glad you recognize it - it has been an issue in the past, but for the most part this has been a logical discussion with little personal attacks or intent to harm.
I don't think I would agree to leadership outside the Project - the person should be elected by the Project, from inside the Project. Since anyone can join, this is a fairly loose idea. The leader would quite obviously need to be supported by project members (perhaps majority vote), and a truly neutral voice, and would need to be on a fixed term so as to easily replace inefficient leadership. I think we can all agree the vast majority of editors here are not problematic (hopefully this includes myself, I don't want to disrupt), and they deserve the assumption of good faith. While I do agree in principle that a leader might be a decent idea, and certainly preferable to an RfC/MfD/ArbCom case, I'm not comfortable with the idea of us handing off control to someone who isn't a member or even involved in the topic area, really, and that is what it boils down to. As for Lionelt, I'm not sure what he is doing right now - he may be busy or on a break. ToaNidhiki0503:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn’t talking about appointing a leader. I think that would be too much. Merely an independent overseer. He/she needs to be outside the project, or else he/she isn’t independent. He/she also needs to be outside of this discussion. I think this is the critical aspect. A leader controls the project. That isn’t the goal. Just a neutral observer who makes sure that there are no incidents, and that everything is okay within the project.
The Socialism project really isn’t big. This project, here, the conservatism project, has a ton of content (to its credit, of course). Portal (a very well put together one), newsletter, many collaborations, many more members. It really isn’t a viable comparison. As far as Socialism being as disparate as conservatism, I can’t say I agree. First of all, pretty much all of “socialism” has roots in Marx, one way or another. It can be traced back to one person. Different people have added supplements, and different ways of getting to Marx’s goals, but they all held the same fundamental tenants. Conservatism doesn’t have a clear lineage. It really has none…Social democrats and Communists ultimately want the same thing, they just go about it differently. You can’t say the same thing for conservatism. What I’m trying to say, is this: if anyone from around the world sees the word socialism, they will know what it means. They will know the common threads. They will know Marx. If anyone from around the world sees the word conservatism, they will all say different things, depending on where they are from, that have no logical connection. By the way, pretty much all political scientists accept that “national socialism” is not socialism at all, and that it simply used the word socialism as a marketing tool to gain the favor of the working class. Perhaps that is why the article that you linked, Right-wing socialism is currently being considered for deletion. Socialism does have central tenants that can be defined. It has a manifesto. Its differences arise in how it is implemented, not the ultimate goal.
The examples you point out do not show aggressive rhetoric, other than the second one. The first one is an exception, because if you look at the Islam roster, most of the people in the project are not even Muslim. And no one has had issues with the Islam project. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t be told to take a look at that particular member.
The 1st person simply wants to place it in an article that someone was LGBT, when others remove the reference. That is genuinely combatting a problem that is documented all over the academia, and doesn’t involve promotion of one view or another, simply stating a fact. The last three you listed are in no way partisan, and are purely stating their intellectual interest.
:That sounds fine in theory but in practice I don't find it practical to find somebody, outside the project, who would be 'overseeing'. What does that entail; controlling decisions? Tiebreaking votes? Ejecting members? It is simply very vague.
I disagree on the roots of socialism - socialist roots are in the 18th century, really. Marx is a major figure, but he came along over a century after the term began being used, and even he argued socialism as only being a step towards his ultimate goal, and not all socialists would agree with him - religious ones would object to his goal to eliminate religion, while others would disagree with the idea of a stateless society. Socialists and communists have different theories, different ideas, but the idea communists are just socialists in a hurry went out the window when communist countries began oppressing and murdering their own people. Also, my example of right-wing socialism was merely to note that the term is broad enough for far-right groups to be able to attract other people with (part of why I think the political scale is a circle, not a line, but I digress), and it can be compatible with the traditional interpretation of conservatism as being supportive of a monarchy. Regardless, socialism is just as diverse as conservatism (perhaps even more so due to the sheer number of types, each of which claim a different oppressor group and a different group of victimized peoples)
There isn’t anything with being an “activist”, as long as you aren’t aggressive and try to harm POV. And anyway, this comparison is moot because an “LGBT activist” is advocating for the protection of the rights of a minority, in the same way that the Black civil rights movement came about. Conservatism is a political philosophy, and so the situation is entirely different. Regardless, a “conservative activist” is not a problem, as long as they are not aggressive, and do not err from truth or NPOV. Stating what you are, calling a spade a spade, is fine. Again, the real problem was the aggressive rhetoric. Calling yourself an activist is not rhetoric, it is just stating a fact. As far as socialism is concerned, I’m sure I won’t be able to persuade you, so I don’t think we should waste time going back and forth. I’m sure many other editors would agree with me, and I’m aware that many political scientists do. I’d like it if more people chimed in….RGloucester (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, telling the community of your views is a good thing as long as it is to inform, not present a bias. That is why I self-identify on my talk page as a number of things, such as enjoying certain types of music, being a Christian, and politically as a pretty right-leaning individual with libertarian leanings. Calling a spade a spade is fine and informative. ToaNidhiki0523:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2b
Haha, I am problematic? I would say persecuted, but that is my humble opinion. I understand that I have done some things wrong, and have disengaged, but apparently I was able to edit war by myself, and although I may have crossed a red line that doesn't mean that I am typical of other editors within this wikiproject, so please do not project two events upon the entire wikiproject.
As I said before, possibly elsewhere, there appears to be two greatly differing opinions regarding WP:NEU and attempts to bring balance to articles or reduce POV in them. Look at the essays, policies, and guidelines my statement links to.
WP:VER is a cornerstone of content. The liberal bias, or belief in its existence, is verified to exist. Editing neutrally, or to bring articles towards keeping with WP:NEU I think is something no one can object to. As such bias is believed to exist, or actually does exist, per WP:NOTDONE such articles should be worked on. Additionally, not all of my edits are on political issues, and for the majority of my editing it is not. However, if there are articles with blatant POV, shouldn't someone say something about it
Unfortunately, I think that since as Jimbo Wales has said, since the editing community is slightly more liberal leaning, that if there is a liberal bias it is not something that is as easily perceived. I can understand that if there is a conservative bias, it may make it harder for conservatives to perceive, that's fine I can understand that as well.
As others other than me have often said biases/POV is corrected by civil discussion and reaching a consensus, something that is difficult to reach when meatpuppets and tag teaming occurs, especially when those editors who believe they are doing the right thing openly state that they want to make an article bias or keep an article with its pre-established bias. This is something discussed in Criticism of Misplaced Pages#Level of debate, edit wars and harassment, where due to self selection bias contributors drawn to a certain article may have similar POVs and thus can quickly gain consensus to bring about a POV or protect an existing POV.
That being said, that has little to do with the goals of this wikiproject other than to balance articles that fall within this wikiproject's scope by introducing balanced conservative, neutrally worded, content if there is an existing undue weight of other political philisophy POV already existing. As, if the other POV is attributed, it should be kept in some form per VER, perhaps its wording should be more neutral tone, or it's wieght should be reduced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Where is it "verified" that there is a "liberal" bias on Misplaced Pages? This sounds to me like the useless battle over which side the media in the US favors. 174.254.183.161 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Two observations about some earlier comments here:
The fact that Atheism is an FA but Theism isn't doesn't come close to proving a leftist bias in the editorship. I make a lot of edits to Atheism and I also make a lot of edits to Religion. Does that make me an atheist, a religious person, or just confused?
About the US tilt in the perception of conservatism amongst some of the active members here, I think that this shows the way that it sometimes manifests itself (equating "conservatism" with "modern American conservatism" until the community reviewed it).
No, because the opposite of atheism is theism, with agnosticism in the middle. I'm not implying there is some left-wing bias (there isn't, at least on a project-wide scale), but that any bias would only exist due to the topical interests of editors - that is, editors tend to edit and improve articles they are interested in. That's why articles on current pop singers have incredibly well-researched and written articles by very talented editors, but older bands or indie groups might not have as many, for instance. ToaNidhiki0500:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
In response to Toa’s most recent post, above: I’ll give you that, sure, interest-level in a topic will determine interest-level of editors getting involved in article (speaking to your example, I’ve written a few indie band/record label articles). I wouldn’t call this “bias” though. And, regardless, conservatism is an object of intellectual interest to many non-conservatives. It isn’t as clear cut as the pop singer example, because everyone more than likely has some contact with conservatism and some interest, where as indie bands are just obscure (this is actually debatable….no music arguments here…). Conservatism is inherently of interest to anyone interested in politics, or even anyone that watches the news, regardless of political affiliation. That kind of leaves little room for your argument, except for extremely technical articles. Why is Atheism the featured article of the two? To me, that is fairly simple. Theism is an incredibly broad subject, that is better covered in many articles, i.e. Christianity / Wicca / Zoroastrianism etc. Theism alone is not really the topic of interest. Atheism, though, is a coherent entity, and all atheists share the same belief that god/gods do not exist. Theism, on the other hand….the only thing that links theists together is that they believe in some higher power/s. They could be monotheist, pantheist, deist, christian, muslism, hindu, african traditional religion, etc etc etc. Atheist all share the same tenets, more or less. Most theists have less in common with each other than they do with atheists. Theism does not define beliefs. Atheism does. RGloucester (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even arguing there is a bias - if there is, it would only be because of editors improving one area of interest. I think most active editors on this encyclopedia have good intent, by an far. ToaNidhiki0503:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A WikiProject is nothing more than a group of editors, Dennis - if we are fostering a bad environment, that is a charge that does against the collective whole of the group. I will say that from a pure total of edits here I am the second most active contributor on this page, so you aren't talking to a nobody or anything - the next most active are listed here, but the next highest commenters are either not active members (Kleinzach, TFD), indefinitely blocked (Will Beback), or who did something to try and end the project via deletion (Binksternet). Interestingly, RGloucester is the next highest, and he isn't even a member. So really, a good deal of discussion is going on among active participants on this page.
Also, an RfC is unneeded and hasty - there are multiple issues with the one that is in the works, as I have noted on that page, but we are talking here. I'm more than willing to take suggestions or discuss, but it is up to you to give concrete suggestions. ToaNidhiki0520:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It is really hard to claim we are stonewalling when I, the only project member actively involved in this dispute, am offering to field concerns and have only gotten a total of one person take me up on that (I supported the idea, incidentally). ToaNidhiki0521:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't the only one to express such concerns at the the MfD a year ago - exactly the same concerns that are being expressed now - and in the interim, those concerns have been blown off completely. That strikes me as stonewalling - after all, you can't address a problem whose existence you refuse to acknowledge. That said, I do appreciate your engagement in this thread. MastCell21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There could be a number of reasons - no individual notification, not wanting to get involved in wikipolitics, being scared off by a gigantic wall of text, etc. Once again though, I'd rather see concrete suggestions than vague claims. I can't offer much if I don't know what you all think is problematic. ToaNidhiki0522:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised that others are wondering why other wikiproject members are not active in this discussion other than myself and Toa. There is not an an assumption of good faith of the wikiproject or of myself. Is it no wonder that members, such as myself feel persecuted, when a group of the same editors continue to attack an editor, not respond to the argument presented, and continue on with their original belief that something is wrong?
I have already stated that I have disengaged from the article where other editors have openly stated that the belief an unbalanced article is what is needed.
Another editor has already stated that my concern was justified, even if in hindsight I should have left the article long ago, as I have now, to what slanted POV status I know not what, even if those editors belief that it is in the best interest of that article to be slanted.
From that one event, and my statement of concern regarding the continued NPOV status of the article, is being used as an attack on this wikiproject as a whole.
Again, this goes back to not assuming good faith of the wikiproject and myself, who has been labelled as a "problematic editor", even when the VAST majority of my edits have not been in the many years that I have been active within Misplaced Pages as a whole.
Should I be concerned about NPOV in articles? It appears that it is other editors' views that if that means be introducing due weighted content that is conservative in nature, or bringing up my concerns and suggesting a reduction of other content (that may themselves hold a POV), that I shouldn't ... and thus the non-neutral articles should remain.
How does this impact this WikiProject as a whole? Is it wrong that a number of wikiproject members are concerned about NPOV? If it concerns us, shouldn't it also be a concern to other editors that there is this view, and rather than working against those editors efforts, to work with those editors to temper those concerns and bring about more neutral articles?
Dennis, it has not 'only been met with resistance'. You know full well I have been discussion concerns with RG and have offered probably six times to field concerns and suggestions. If you have ideas on how to fix concerns you have, by all means tell them. I'd be more than happy to consider, discuss, compromise, or give a counter proposal. ToaNidhiki0501:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to chip in too. I've encountered this project on multiple pages and it's always promoting conservatism and removing all opposition through dirty tactics or overpowering other wikiprojects rather than constructively discussing things on every occasion.
There is the Straight Pride article to start with, a WP:Synthesis, which i believe i recall at one stage members here tried to keep as the dominant article even with its notability questioned and discussed merging Gay Pride into, rather than the other way round. Multiple instances of "Heterophobia" and Straight Pride marches (or anything perceived as such) were then linked together to create a movement which the evidence showed there was none and no connection between the events.
Homosexuals Anonymous, an Ex-gay ministry...It took a painful amount of effort to get a mention of conversion therapy back into the article which Lionelt personally fought against and even removed multiple instances under WP:BLP violations, even when cited and later getting reverted by multiple people.
Exodus International, an ex-gay ministry and advocate for the "curing" of gays. Much the same problem again with multiple rewrites to the page and causing multiple issues (all of these should be on the talk pages too).
Chick-fil-a, A bit of recentism but also another one of these common occasions when quite a lot of this project and people with the same editing patterns as a lot of my examples show up to overpower any opposition. As has also happened at Homophobia where a certain editor for over 4 months wanted to rewrite the article without presenting a single citation and was a few times backed up by members here, again with identical editing patterns.
That's all i recall but LGBT covers a broad range of topics so i doubt i have the most examples to share. Most or all of these examples include Lionelt and Belchfire although i'm not saying more on that. Also someone above mentioned this too - someone at Wikiproject LGBT Studies recently raised concern of editors removing LGBT tags from historical people who identified as such as trivial. That's a strange one to me and i haven't been able to see why.
So no, the project isn't the problem, it's some of the editors. Thanks ツ Jenova2008:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to respond, if you don't mind. Strictly speaking, you are correct: nobody has claimed that the entire project is full of editors behaving badly. And nobody has claimed that only those editors who are officially in the project are behaving badly. It's slightly more subtle than that.
Lionelt acts not only for himself but as leader of this project, and where the leader goes, the followers follow. As you said, they travel in a pack and work together to dominate articles, removing material they dislike under the banner of a false consensus. I don't actually understand their motivation; the things they remove are of the sort that are seen as negative or positive based on political background, not as universally negative. So, for example, the ex-gay thing has plenty of support among conservatives and is seen as a good thing by them.
The latest article to fall victim is Christian right, which has been cut to the bone, but the MO is the same. They use tag-team reverts (with each pack member plausibly staying under the 3RR radar), intimidation (including personal attacks and filing false reports to demand blocks) and constant stonewalling (including disrupting threads, refusing to accept reliable sources and ignoring previous discussions).
They do all this under the banner of the project and with the urging and direct support of its core members. Lionelt himself has been strangely absent as of late, but the shenanigans continue, which shows that the problem is structural, not individuals. It's not a few bad apples, it's a rotten tree. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Still, you refused to participate in the dispute resolution for that case, and they completely rejected your listing the GOP as a 'Christian right' party. Of course, you think DR is worthless but the neutral volunteers didn't agree with you.
Also, terms like 'rotten tree' and 'core members' are really vague accusations. I find it reprehensible you attack the 80+ members of this project, most of whom have done nothing wrong, without a single diff. It is very McCarthian and is not showing good faith towards them. ToaNidhiki0520:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice wall of text going on here. Is there any chance of getting a summary section where any editor can state & update their position in X words or less? I doubt you are going to get any consensus on any proposals if the problems (real or not) can't be summarized in a succinct manner. Threaded conversations are sometimes great, but some clarity is needed. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer15:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice wall of text going on here. Sarcasm, while perhaps well intended, rarely works in RL when spoken. In its written form, it loses all fragrance of collaboration. ```Buster Seven Talk16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Little green rosetta will be expected to read the talk entries (which I don't think are all that lengthy) in order to have a voice in the matter. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've read it, but I still don't see what the actual complaint is all about. Dennis said It isn't going to "blow over", and something will come of this situation, that is certain. If an RfC is going to come of this, we will need a much simplier description of the percieved problem or nothing will come of this. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear what the actual complaint is all about. It's about the behavior of WikiProject Conservatism members and fellow travelers. Specifically, it's about their pattern of working together to violate policy by inserting conservative bias. Can I make it any more clear? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think an RfC is needed or even justifiable at this point - to file one against the Project, you'd need to find proof that editors are misusing project resources to violate policy. Simply saying things or suggesting potential for misuse are not enough, and just because a few members might mess up doesn't make the rest of us guilty by association - there needs to be concrete proof (preferably through diffs) of repetitive misuse of project talk pages and resources. On the other hand, there are probably issues that can be dealt with by discussion and compromise, which I am more than willing to do. ToaNidhiki0523:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a minor point here: an RFC won't be against the project but on the project; i.e. the purpose of the RFC will be to solicit outside opinion as to the project as a whole and whether it is currently of benefit to Misplaced Pages and, if not, what needs to be changed about it. WP generally follows utilitarian and pragmatic principles, meaning that what matters at the end of the day is whether something has a positive or negative effect on the encyclopedia. Fairness, justice and due process are secondary considerations.
My overall point is this: if, in the course of an RFC, the community determines that WP:C is a net negative, the community will attempt to make changes to make it a net positive; the standard of evidence required is only that which is sufficient to demonstrate said negative impact. The standard mentioned by you above regarding project resources and whatnot is a red herring because ultimately it only really matters whether we can fix the problem or not. If we can't fix it and if the only meaningful course of action is to shut the project down then it is likely that this will be the case - even if it doesn't meet normal ideas of fairness. Sædon00:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
And, as a co-signer of the previous RFC draft, I'd like to point out that closing down the project was explicitly stated as not being the goal. Let's avoid that sort of red herring as well. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Saedon, I respectfully disagree - project complicity is a major aspect of any potential RfC. Simply put, there may be a few bad eggs here - but to blame the Project, you need more than just 'x and y are part of z, so z is bad'. You prove there is a problem with the project, not individual editors, you need to find some sort of proof that project space or resources have been abused. Otherwise, the red herring is hitting the project, not the individual editors.
Your response is misleading; an RFC is a necessary precursor to ArbCom. Likewise, Saedon was right that "net negative" is the only criterion that matters here; you don't get to raise the bar. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 4
Having given a link to it earlier, I should note that the draft RfC that had been stored in Viriditas' user space has been dropped. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Dennis Brown above the break. I would prefer not to be the drafter of any RfC that may result. I’d rather remain as a contributor, rather than such a role. Of course, if an RfC were to be drafted, I would be happy to assist. RGloucester (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
RGloucester, if you think it would be helpful, I believe that an admin can allow you to view the recently-deleted RFC page. While I'm sure you want to do your own thing, there might be something you can take from it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, for some of them, it is. But that's really beside the point. What will determine the outcome will be community consensus, not the views of just a few editors – on either "side". I suspect that, following the RfC, subsequent dispute resolution will probably result in the banning of certain editors, but the RfC ought to focus on articulating problems and laying down what will be needed to fix those problems. It then becomes a matter of individual conduct, as opposed to some sort of collective conduct of Project membership. Individual editors who resist what the community seeks will find themselves on the wrong side of whatever will follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Deletion should not be put on the table. I don’t think that is fair, or viable. I also don’t think anyone here has stated any interest in deletion during this discussion. In fact, many of us are trying to avoid a deletion. The only way that would occur would be (in the event of an RfC) if the community found that editors with the project were not willing work with the community to resolve the problems mentioned here. This should provide extra motivation for members to participate here. I don’t think it should be a problem, as, at least in Toa we have a sane, rational and willing mind, who has committed himself to productive dialogue. RGloucester (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
While I have the utmost respect for Toa and his willingness and capacity to, as you say, have a productive dialogue, I would hope that a broader spectrum of members will be active participants and voices of reason. Toa has been a member of this project pretty much from the beginning and has proven his capacity to support and stand-up for the Conservative Ideal thought (?) conservatism (as he see's it). Which is the point I wish to make...as HE see's it. In order to have a dialogue of any substance and lasting effect, more than the current half-dozen or so members will need to speak up. If the silent members voices remain quiet, the 80+ person membership is a false entity and is less a standard of a project than it would seem (or that it is promoted to be). ```Buster Seven Talk00:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I just wanted to acknowledge that staunch support of conservatism is to be expected from members of this project. It may even be a hindrance to mutual understanding between editors....but so it goes. My attempt was merely to shake the membership tree and harvest what fell. ```Buster Seven Talk01:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate the complement (at least I regarded it as such even with the 'conservative ideal' thing, which I'm not sure refers to the project or politics) and overall cordial tone, I don't my political views really don't come into play here - my goal is to avert drastic measures by responding to ideas, concerns, and suggestions. I will say that I agree that members need to speak up, but that is up to them to find and notice it. ToaNidhiki0503:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll strike Ideal since it sends the discussion way off base. And I didn't mean to imply anything negative. Just two words that came together while I was composing. Maybe thought fits better. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Better yet------>conservatism. ```Buster Seven Talk05:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
To respond to Still's comment above about the need for an RfC, it isn't actually a necessary step to go to ArbCom. Given the level of controversy I doubt it would be difficult to get a request for arbitration approved. However, that would probably not be in the interests of any of the editors involved and I believe it would not be in the interests of the community either. All I can see coming about from an arbitration case is a massive culling of the herd on both sides similar to the climate change debacle.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It can be solved by topic bans and indefinite bans from regular admins, or it can be solved by ArbCom. I'm not sure what's worse, but some amount of force is going to be necessary. To be clear, if this project is -- as suggested above -- only intended for conservatives, then it violates the fundamental basis of Misplaced Pages already and must be radically changed. I bring up the concept of Decimation (Roman army) as our model. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Admins, individually, can block but cannot ban. Bans can be enacted by the community (through discussion at WP:AN), or by ArbCom. But anyway, it would be in everyone's interest that it not have to go that far. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but read what I said about decimation. Rather than disbanding the entire unit, they killed a tenth of its members. The analogy here is that, rather than shutting down the project, we figure out who the core individuals are who pull it into a direction that conflicts with Misplaced Pages's pillars. We can remove them instead of removing the project, as by giving them topic bans that keep them away from any article that's been tagged as part of WikiProject's Conservatism's domain. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would some amount of force be necessary? This Wikiproject, is open to all who are interested in the subject. There are multiple members of the wikiproject who openly state that they are not conservatives and are here for NPOV purposes. There is nothing wrong with that.
If there are organized users on of any political spectrum interested in NPOV, whether it be here or elsewhere, is that a bad thing?
When is it a good thing? When is it a bad thing?
As I suggested before, if there are editors who believe that there are biases, and thus articles that are not adhering to NPOV, shouldn't those concerns be addressed as to temper those concerns, and direct those editors energy towards a constructive manor of addressing those concerns to the larger community?
I have so far only seen a few non-wikiproject-conservatism-member editors state that there is this concern; others have stated that the wikiproject is being used as a tool to advance a POV, which from what I have observed (maybe I am not part of the alleged group that exist here that does it) is not the case of this wikiproject.
If we are to assume good faith of fellow editors, this would be a far more productive manor of addressing any issues rather than the topic bans, blocks, decimation, and cullings that I have seen suggested by some other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Force will be necessary unless the members of the project can police themselves. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence that it even acknowledges the scope of the problem, much less that it's willing to fix things. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help with Sen. Corker's article
Hi, I have been working on improving Senator Bob Corker's article for several months now. I work for Sen. Corker's campaign and because of my conflict of interest I have been focusing my efforts on reaching out to other editors to review my suggestions. Last week I placed two requests on Sen. Corker's talk page that I would like reviewed. The first request addresses two separate "Senate campaign" sections of the article and the second request asks for a small addition to be made to the "Blind trust" section. I hope that an editor here can review these requests and implement these changes for me. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Where is The Founder
I find it extremely unusual that User:Lionelt has not participated in the important discussion above. Should we be concerned for a RL situation that prevents his input? For someone that had such obvious constant and strict control over this project, his absence is remarkable. While User:Toa has been commendable as an available spokesperson for the project, I'm quite sure we would all like to hear from the boss.```Buster Seven Talk14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed we can, should and are doing so. But it should never be said that we're blindsiding him by taking away his chance to respond. I personally sent him an email, so I know that he's aware of this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely: he really ought to be here. But we've made multiple good faith attempts to inform him over a span of time and get him to show up, so if he chooses not to participate or is for some reason unable to, there's little more that we can do about it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A request to all: please keep the discussion cool and civil.
I’ve noticed that people on both sides have been getting a bit to fired-up of late, and so, I wanted to request that we keep this discussion civil. Avoiding personal attacks, and also avoiding “us vs. them” rhetoric is key to resolving anything as a group. We all have to remember that this is not about a war between factions, but a desire to solve a problem, so that the project may move forward and continue to improve Misplaced Pages. I commend Toa for his willingness to discuss and engage with editors who have concerns. I do wish, however, that more people would participate. If anyone is reading this, feel free to chime in with an open mind. And also, if you know anyone that probably should be involved, give them a ring and tell them to head on over here. Thank you. RGloucester (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you for being civil as well, and I would advise the same. Discussion is being somewhat productive, so let's keep going with that and see where it leads to. Let's not pick sides or throw dirt at other participants. ToaNidhiki0523:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The official place where you can ask TN about stuff
Basically, if you have a question, suggestion, or concern related to WikiProject Cosnervatism, please post it here and I will respond to you when I can. While I am not an official spokesman, I am more than willing to discuss and comment on behalf of the project (unless there are internal objections). ToaNidhiki0523:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask this: would you be interested in taking a role of trying to help the Project address and fix the concerns that other users have been raising here? Please understand that you are entirely free to say no, especially if you feel that the concerns are things with which you disagree. But I think that evidence that some members of the Project would be willing to work towards mending things might well be a reason not to re-start efforts towards a formal RfC at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If nobody in the project objects and the rest of you think I would be neutral enough for it, I'd be up to do it - I'd prefer not to get this to an RfC, especially if it can be prevented. As far as I'm concerned the gist of what you are suggesting is basically what I am doing right now - trying to demonstrate the good-faith intent of this project and a willingness to discuss. The only difference is adding non-objectionable action into the mix.
However, I would qualify that with I'm not going to be 'taking over' as leader or taking a leadership role, but implementing common-sense proposals. I'll be discussing and implementing positive changes to help solve issues, but I would not doing stuff like changing the scope or changing the name- those issues belong to the Project as a whole to discuss. However, I'd be fine with changing or improving the FAQ, removing questionable posts on the talk page and 'About' page (or banning them entirely like many projects do), clarifying our stance on bad behavior, etc. The way I picture this is more akin to a housekeeper than a remodeler. Just as a note, I'll probably not be on here for the rest of the night due to football, but I'll check back at halftime. :) ToaNidhiki0523:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahhhhh! With responsibility comes the problem of time management. I can tell you're not married because you still think you can get everything done during halftime. Good Luck 'wit 'dat. ```Buster Seven Talk05:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
To consolidate comments in the above discussion, please reply here, not there!
I’m creating this section, because the other section has gotten too large. If you are replying to a recent comment made up there, just say who it is you are responding to and place the comment here. This will help sort out some of the mess that’s been created above, and make the discussion easier to follow. RGloucester (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Above the statement was made:
Unfortunately, there has been no evidence that it even acknowledges the scope of the problem, much less that it's willing to fix things.
— StillStanding-247
I do not believe this comment shows that there is good faith being taken regarding concerns stated by myself and other members, and suggestions on how to direct this discussion in a manor that is productive/constructive in addressing those concerns rather than this devolving into a witch hunt.
I agree, I have been giving ample opportunity to allow suggestions for changes. To say we aren't willing to fix things is misleading - the goal here should not be to iblock users or to topic ban 'prominent users' from all articles the project covers (I'm assuming this includes me) , but to fix issues and discuss things civilly. Blocks and topic bans are not first resorts, they are close to the last ones, and indefinite blocks are certainly not warranted at this point. The goal isn't to eliminate users you don't like, it is to fix legitimate issues. :) ToaNidhiki0500:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that problem is more complicated than individual editors. Individuals are easy to deal with, by talking, guiding, sanctions or other means. It isn't about this project being a conspiracy to commit bias, but it is about the structure and design being inherently biased by its very nature. I haven't commented in a couple days because I'm wondering if we need to look at all projects that are similar, although this is the only active project with clear political leanings. In short, this project is not about improving articles that cover historical conservatism as a political theory (a valid use of a project) but instead seems to focus on very current or recent events with a decided goal of presenting a Republican perspective, even if all the members aren't biased in their editing. Once a section, a portal and project, crosses the line from "building an encyclopedia" into "insuring our side is represented", then one of two things must happen: A complete removal of the infrastructure, or a complete rebuild. Every project can't just say "well, we hope our members don't have a bias", they must PROMOTE neutrality.
Very well said. These were the sorts of inchoate thoughts I had swirling about in my brain when I called for the deletion of the project almost a year ago. I thought that MfD had a good chance of passing but I was proved wrong. I also thought it would serve as stern warning against vote stacking but instead it seemed like the general membership took the MfD result as a confirmation of the rectitude of their past practices. This cannot continue or the wiki will suffer. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Neither you nor I are members here -- but I would humbly suggest that your position is not based on seeking NPOV on any articles. Diffs on request, but one example is at , , , , , , , , , , , (all within a single week) demonstrating an absolute misapprehension of WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and a veritable alphabet soup of policies to be violated. Further that the same editor sought an RfC on this project, seeking once anew to dismantle it. Suggestion: If you do not like a project Ignore It. Easy and much less likely to get you your twentieth warning from an admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out earlier, the negative influence of WikiProject Conservatism exceeds its membership roster. You are, if not a member, at least a fellow traveler. When WikiProject Conservatism vote-stacks, you can be counted on to join in on their side. So, no, you're not a neutral party. Now, you can try to turn this into an attack on me, but I won't play that game, and you should be ashamed for even trying to pull such a stunt. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism. Rather than recognize that there's something wrong with a project whose apparent goal is to make Misplaced Pages more conservative, he blames the critics. And this is why I suspect it will end in blood, with indef-bans all around. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
And SS24's comments show the problem - I am not only not a "conservative" nor am I member of this project (unless Lowell Weicker is too conservative for SS24), I have sought at all points to use the proper decorum and noticeboards on all issues. And his desire for "blood" is not only non-collegial, it violates the Five Pillars. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
See, I don't desire desire blood, I merely expect it. When it comes time to chop off heads, the admins will need to make a show of parity by sacrificing a few non-conservative noggins, such as my own. But, as I said, I see no signs of the WikiProject Conservatism or its fellow travelers willing to admit that there's a real problem here, so it's going to end badly for all of us. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In which case, you ought not be a Misplaced Pages editor. See the Five Pillars, AGF, NPA etc. Your "expectation" runs contrary to Misplaced Pages policy utterly, and thus your hopes are untenab;e. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please differentiate between your post and a personal attack? I'm unable to.
Of course, it's more than personal. I was writing about the fate of the project, but you reacted by attacking me. This is what happens when people criticize the project's behavior! And it's why I anticipate blood. Too bad some of it will likely be mine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with those above. That went to far. There can be no success out of faulty rhetoric. The same type of rhetoric we are trying to prevent here. This is a discussion, not a duel in the houses of parliament. Shall we lay off, please?RGloucester (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The most rational course is to avoid beating a dead horse. So far I have seen zero concrete evidence showing anything remotely approaching collusion, or any improper acts here at all. Where there is zero smoke, it is unlikely that you should call in the fire brigade. Nor do projects require any licence at all that I can find in any policy or guideline. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there is a problem, I don't know. But what really has been irking me is the lack of evidence, combined with Dennis' ...It isn't going to "blow over", and something will come of this situation, that is certain.. The anti-congruence of those two is very un-Dennis-like. Once again, maybe I'm missing something -- and I hope I am, but unless and until someone shows me the folly of my logic I'm going to remain dissapointed. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer22:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
While I still have great interest in the outcome, I must, sadly remove myself from this worthwhile endeavor to straighten this crooked road. Should something be forthcoming I would appreciate a heads up. ```Buster Seven Talk22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I went back and read your comments again in context. It still seems like a threat against this project of who some think, whether correct or not, feels a bias against them does exist. Heavy handed dialouge doesn't help, and only serves to give the project a black eye. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The evidence is Lionelt has sent out to invitations to like-minded people and his stated aim is "Countering liberal bias". He tags articles in which conservatives may have an interest, not just articles relating to conservatism. The overwhelming emphasis of these editors is on current events in the United States and they show little if any interest in articles about conservative ideologies, writers or historical figures. They mainly care about whether negative information should be included about Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin etc., the Republicans and the Tea Party. It would be as if a Communist were too invite fellow-Communists to remove anti-Communist bias not only in articles about Communism, but in articles about other political groups as well. TFD (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Lionel's essay is entirely misunderstood. While it is indeed written from the perspective that there is a bias (I don't fully agree - if there is a bias, it is in quality and coverage, not tone, of articles), the basic gist of the essay is that, if there is indeed any liberal bias, the best process to use to combat it is by following basic Misplaced Pages policy - not edit warring or being combative. It argues that presenting reliable sources and boldly changing text viewed as biased are the best options. It also stresses that edit warring is not a good way to solve disputes and that following the bold, revert, discuss cycle is the best option - it also notes that, if discussion stalls, the dispute resolution noticeboard is the best option, while stonewalling is best handled at dispute resolution. Near the end, it lists common issues and remedies - for example, stating opinion as fact can be fixed by adding inline-text attribution, and criticism sections can be folded into narrative. It isn't as bad as it is made out to be, and it also isn't even in mainspace, nor is it in project space. ToaNidhiki0502:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I must state, I agree with what ToaNidhiki05 has said, and what little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer has said. Perhaps the reason why others have sought to avoid this conversation as they may get wrapped up in the incivility, and the lack of good faith that appears to have been shown towards the wikiproject, some of its editors, and towards those who may have similar interest to the wikiproject but are not members of it. Furthermore, there maybe a fear that coming out as someone who has similar interest may subject that editor to persecution to those who may not share those same interest, or opposed to WP:NPOV if that means including (in a due weight manor) content that they may disagree with which is worded neutrally.
As I said before, if there are editors here, and elsewhere, that have the opinion that certain articles due not meet WP:NEU, perhaps it is best to address those concerns civilly, and assist those editors in addressing those concerns in a productive manor that can help improve Misplaced Pages as a whole.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
This project has deflected, evaded, and ignored serious, good-faith concerns about its operation for more than a year. This page is currently full of civil, good-faith concerns about the way the project has functioned, along with suggestions for improvement. You can't just keep citing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as an alternative to actually grappling with other editors' concerns - although, granted, that's worked for more than a year. MastCell17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I made one suggestion above - for the project to police itself a bite more proactively against the most common ways in which it's been abused. I think others have made suggestions as well, but really, people will only put effort into solving this problem if there's evidence that the project recognizes its existence. Otherwise, you're basically just asking us to fetch you a shrubbery. Let me turn it around: what do you, and the other project members, think should be done, if anything, to address the concerns that have been raised? MastCell19:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking for some menial, worthless, undefined task - I'm asking for concrete examples of issues and constructive, rational ideas on how to solve them. I think the issues raised have been, for the most part, extremely vague, with very few diffs. It isn't too much to ask for actual ideas or constructive input instead of vague assertations.
To start out with, any and all of the general ideas raised could easily be solved by minor solutions - by not allowing comments on the members page, by requiring all requests for input neutrally worded, etc. There are very few proposed concrete proposals of this type at the moment. The drastic (and I'd argue unwarranted) proposals such as indefinite blocks/topic bans for 'prominent members' (a vague example, for instance), merging with another project (also vague), and deletion simply do not demonstrate the good faith of their proposers - rather than offer compromise or give the project as a whole the benefit of the doubt, it gives the impression (true or not) that you all are out for blood and want to destroy, not reform. ToaNidhiki0520:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
About Lionelt's essay, let me try to explain why some of us find it concerning. It's true that the essay pretty much just states boilerplate about the standard correct practices for resolving POV disputes on Misplaced Pages. Insofar as that goes, there's nothing objectionable. However, the question then arises as to why one would need an essay pointing its readers to all of those policies and guidelines, when we already have so many other pointers to them. Seeing the context about the supposed liberal bias, the answer to that question appears to be that Lionelt intended the essay to be a guide for editors about how to counter that supposed bias according to Misplaced Pages's rules. And that's where the problem is. There is an implicit agenda of using the WikiProject to counter a particular perceived POV. But that agenda, of its nature, is one of favoring the opposing POV. In a sense, it's the epitome of "civil POV pushing". I realize that one can reply that countering a POV is just working towards NPOV, but the appearance, in full context, is not one of working towards NPOV, so much as working towards a US-conservative/Republican POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me show you another, similar example. Take a look at the editing history of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism/References, where you will find two edits that I made, reverting edits that Lionelt made. In each case, his edits were to remove sources including The New York Times and The Washington Post from the list of reliable sources for the purposes of the Project. By any reasonable measure, those and similar periodicals are considered by the community as a whole to satisfy WP:RS for most kinds of political and governmental subjects. Why then would a WikiProject need to have a recommended source list that, deliberately, excludes those sources? I'm afraid that the only plausible answer is that Lionelt believed that, for this Project, the kinds of sources needed were different from what the community as a whole considers reliable sources – and that the sources needed for this Project's agenda need to be skewed towards US-conservative/Republican POVs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment regarding project scope and sources
As I've said elsewhere, I think we are, in general, best served when individual WikiProjects have a rather clearly defined scope, generally at least in part building on the earlier efforts of others. That can be seen as indicating, in general, that groups tend to center their focus on, and tag, those articles which either appear in other reference sources related to the topic, or are clearly related to those articles, such as biographies of individuals whose notability is most clearly tied to the topic of one of those articles or subarticles of those articles.
So, it might be useful to know what reference works exist. I went to WorldCat and found the following:
Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey O. Nelson. American conservatism : an encyclopedia, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2006.
Miner, Brad. The concise conservative encyclopedia : 200 of the most important ideas, individuals, incitements, and institutions that have shaped the movement : a personal view, New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1996.
Now, I acknowledge that is a rather limited selection, but that is at least two sources which directly relate specifically to this topic, and I think, if this project is to remain active, it might be best to focus its efforts on the content which directly relates to the topics in those works. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
We don't limit ourselves to one particular form of conservatism. We cover all types - British conservatism, Canadian conservatism, Australian conservatism, and yes, American conservatism. Out project has rejected numerous times the idea that we need to focus entirely on one type. We welcome constructive ideas, but with all due respect radical reduction in scope isn't going to happen. I will say, however, that both of these sources appear to place more emphasis on libertarian ideas in conservatism - this isn't a bad thing, we do cover libertarian conservatism, but a WikiProject on Libertarianism already exists. ToaNidhiki0519:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "isn't going to happen" from a single editor, who appears by that statement to be clearly stating not only that he is speaking for the group in a formal way, but also appears to be saying that, regardless of any other input, basically, what he says goes, could reasonably be seen as a huge problem which indicates that the opinion of one editor is, basically, law. I don't think this is the first time such behavior has been noticed. As per Tryptofish above, there is serious evidence that this project exists to engage in civil POV pushing, at least insofar as one editor's statements can be seen as being standard for the group. Personally, I am myself rather a conservative, and have no objections per se to seeing my own thinking appear here, but under the circumstances I begin to wonder whether the problems with this project, as apparently displayed by the conduct of what appears to be its current self-appointed spokesman, might even be grounds for deletion of something which seems to have, as one of its bases, the objective of somehow at least skirting policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I examined the intersection of editors who are members of this project as a statistical exercise. I have used this tool in the past and found extraoridinary levels of interesction with some groups, but those levels are not found here - the intersection levels is nearly random as a matter of maths.
The only article found (after an hour of looking at "greates number of intersecting editors" using the "wikistalker" tool) with as many as 7 members editing it out of a subgroup of 10 was Fox News Channel. The editors involved who are members here are: Lionelt, Drrll, CWenger, Dezidor, ThinkEnemies, Instaurare, and The Four Deuces. Most articles show an overlap far lower indeed. I then looked at the "most active editors" on that page: Out of the top 20 editors on the page, CWenger accounted for 9 edits and Drrll accounted for 5 edits, out of a total of 481 edits on that page. In short - zero evidence on the page with the higest apparent intersection of editors and this project of any conceivable collusion in editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
This is not particularly relevant to our concerns. All it takes is three or four editors, whether formally members or just fellow travelers, to pile on to an article so as to create a local false consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The concept of "evidence" is that it be actually existing. Making charges against any group of editors without providing any evidence whatsoever is contrary to ArbCom rulings in the past, and likely would be so in the future. I would popint out that calling any editor a "fellow traveler" may be a personal attack. I recall one editor who opined I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. And I note also the responses thereto. The OP provided zero evidence, and the others there happened to notice the Emperor's state of dress. Thus when on a specific search to find evidence, and I found none of any collusion whatsoever, nor of any group of editors having interest in any specific article greater than one would expect by random chance, I posted my findings. If you can provide real and substantial evidence, please do so, I would be most appreciative to see that I missed something. If no evidence is given in the form of diffs showing collusion, or (as I tried to find) showing statistical evidence of members of this project showing any unuaual overlap in editing of articles, then we have a wondrously simple case of "IDONTLIKETHEMSOLETSHAVEBLOOD" which is not actually a valid argument on Misplaced Pages. And since you have been given stern warnings from well over a dozen admins of all philosophical stripes, I think it an eeensy bit more likely that they saw something. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, all you're doing is taking a claim nobody is making and disproving it. This is uninteresting. If you were to address the actual concerns, that would be a big step forward. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Collect has a point. If you want to say we are canvassing and colluding on articles, is it not unreasonable to ask for evidence that there is abuse of project resources for canvassing. Basically, to prove wrongdoing on the part of the project and get sanctions (which seems to be your ultimate goal), you need to show evidence that canvassing and collusion are happening on project space or with project resources. If you don't provide sufficient evidence, than the idea of sanctions becomes both unfounded and unlikely. If there isn't evidence for abuse of project space/resources you have are project members causing an issue, not the project as a whole, and that isn't really the same thing. As a a side note, 'fellow travelers' aren't even project members, so how do non-members somehow make the project bad? As Collect said, it seems to be an attack term designed to imply complicity with misbehavior.
In this case, Collect points out that the article with the highest intersection of project editors, Fox News Channel, only had seven members, and even they didn't comment too much. Regardless of reason or when the editors posted, most articles are far lower than that. That is pretty good evidence that there isn't widespread intersection of members on talk pages of tagged articles. ToaNidhiki0518:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Collect has no point because his methodology is suspect. Nobody claims that it takes a large number of WikiProject members to take control of an article, nor that the WikiProject acts alone as opposed to having non-members who follow its lead. He propped up a straw man just so he could shoot it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to make a more general observation about how we should be examining alleged canvassing. There are two levels that are relevant here. One is whether or not the WikiProject, through its discussion pages or other modes of communication, is serving as a place where canvassing messages are posted. The other is whether, at a given page, editors are engaging in tag-team editing or other disruptive behaviors. The former is a legitimate issue for an RfC about the Project as a whole. The latter is really a matter of the conduct of the editors involved, and should be treated as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. The project's to-do list is a prime example of inappropriate project-level canvassing which has gone on for more than a year and a half (, , , , ) until it was addressed by DGG (). There are also examples of groups of project members engaging in tag-team editing, but those are less relevant here, since they arguably might have happened regardless of the existence of the project. MastCell21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps DGG was right to neutralize the statements made (and there were no objections to those actions), but adding links to watch changes in Conservative related content is reasonable within the scope of this wikiproject. Also, the past there was a discussion about possibly writing an anti-conservatism article so adding a WP:REDLINK for such a proposed is well within the scope. these allegations of canvassing I believe show bad faith of the wikiproject, and shows continued prosecution of the wikiproject and its members. I have proposed good faith solutions, but it appears that some users may not want to try those solutions, instead believing that it is in the best interest of[REDACTED] that this wikiproject or certain members of this wikiproject not be active on[REDACTED] (even if there is a view that some articles could use some assistance with NPOV that may fall within the scope of this wikiproject). If this is the case would that not create a systematic bias in[REDACTED] that may not include certain POVs to provide due weight or create consensus that support exclusion of content that may otherwise balance an article to assist it becoming more neutral?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm confident that anyone capable of recognizing inappropriate canvassing will recognize those diffs as inappropriate canvassing. I'm not totally sure where you're going with your response, other than to reiterate for the thousandth time that anyone with concerns about this project must be acting in bad faith. MastCell23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't state I am making statements I am not stating. I never stated that DGG's comment was in bad faith. However, I have stated a possible solution to perceived issues, that also assumes good faith of editors who have POV concerns of content, thus directing those editors efforts towards a constructive manor that improves the project as a whole. Rather than seeing this (the initial concern) as a hammer which to reduce down editors who have POV concerns of content, or which to diminish this wikiproject, it can be a learning experience for all involved, and create new efforts which can address the concerns of those editors and improve the articles where those concerns exist, in the end a win win for all involved.
Assuming that editors who have POV concerns of content in certain articles of Misplaced Pages are ONLY here (this wikiproject or[REDACTED] as a whole) to push a POV (sometimes introducing balanced due weight content can help articles achieve neutrality, sometimes removing POV wording achieves neutrality, sometimes reducing existing POV content achieves neutrality, sometimes there is no change needed, there will always be different outcomes for different articles) does not assume good faith of the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Cow, Lionelt's essay wasn't about fixing all bias, just about making articles reflect less of the liberal POV. Or, to put it more bluntly, it was an essay on how to politely and successfully push the conservative POV onto political articles. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Have to say once more that these particular claims of canvassing are off as notifying editors of a specific bias is perfectly normal, especially when the bias is self-evident. In every one of those articles there is an obvious "liberal" bias that is in need of correcting and not noting this as the nature of the bias blunts the purpose of notification. Perhaps the notifications could be worded more neutrally, but failing to specify what kind of NPOV issues exist would be detrimental to addressing the problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Note the part of the guideline that says "(canvassers) may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I do believe you gentlemen are wrong, viz: "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Misplaced Pages collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." Thank you for your attention, though. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that selectively soliciting support here, and without even stating a premise, constitutes inappropriate canvassing. The point of seeking outside opinions is to get unbiased NPOV input. That's why the current issue was posted on BLPN. If this continues it will go to WP:AN next. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That BLP is not currently marked as being "of interest" to the project posted on ... making the charge of CANVASS troubling, although I can see why it might end up being so marked. The other comments are simply water-roiling at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned by the fact that you are dismissing our reasonable concerns rather than accepting that there is, at the very least, the appearance of impropriety that needs to be dealt with. It seems to be part of a general attitude of denial. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
|}
Actually, the request is neutrally worded, it's just not neutral in intent. He was reported for edit-warring to insert conservative POV, so he needed a plan B. Somehow, GeorgeLouis knew that the place to go when you wanted some conservatives to back you up is this project. Why is that? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to add some closure, despite Collect's protests to the contrary, the ruling on WP:3RRN is that GeorgeLouis was canvassing and that he had been edit-warring to violate WP:BLP. Whether he'll get blocked for it is less clear, as the report was stale. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
When making asides about me, it would be nice if the asides were accurate. I stated that the possibility of CANVASS is troubling - and that it evidently did not work. Cheers -- but the penchant for errant comments about editors is also troubling. Collect (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If I was experiencing a situation (and needed like-minded editorial assistence) on an article about Clydesdales horses, I wuld go to Project:Horses. If the article was about Boa Constrictors, I'd go to Project:Snakes. That's why User:George Lewis came here, to canvas like-minded editors. What is the problem with admitting that?```Buster Seven Talk18:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
When seeking additional input For an editorial issue like the one we were dealing with, the appropriate place to go for a second opinion and neutral advice would be the BLPN or RSN. I in fact posted the issue to BLPN and the EWN last night. A couple of hours later, an editor on BLPN looked into the case and removed the video; then George came over here an hour or so later to canvass. I fail to see how George exclusively seeking the advice of experts in conservatism fits with the examples above about seeking the advice of experts on snakes and horses. The issue we were dealing with (a video that contained slurs against third-parties and clearly violated WP:BLP) would not require expertise in conservatism, but rather expertise on BLP violations and reliable sources. The BLP violation was so clear cut that George should never have been involved in a revert war to begin with; the video was indefensible. The issue was so obvious that it didn't even require expert input; filing the notices was just a formality to get the video out of the article without having to resort to an edit war with George.
@User:Rhode Island Red. My point was that he came here to canvas for supportive comments (where he knew he might find an audience). Not expertise. Not advice. I agree with you that he came here to canvas.```Buster Seven Talk19:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The appropriate way to solicit additional input is to clearly describe the editorial issue at hand (e.g., "is the VanderSloot/Heritage Foundation video suitable for inclusion...the concerns are X,Y,X") and provide a quote or a diff edit. George's vague petition ("Big edit-war and reversion problems with the above article") was nothing like that at all; it provided no details and seemed more like someone sounding a general alarm bell and calling for reinforcements, as StillStanding-247 pointed out. There's no way to spin this that doesn't translate to a WP:CANVASS violation, so instead of nagging people to apologize for having called out an act of canvassing, George could have just apologized for having canvassed. I just hope it doesn't happen again lest the involvement of WP:AN be required. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I am just flabbergasted at some of the invective above. The fact of the matter is I posted with the Conservative group because VanderSloot is a conservative. If my posting was not worded "properly," well, I am sorry about that, but I wanted to keep it short. Period. The end. (Until somebody wants to make this interchange even longer than it already is.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
US pro-life and right-to-life movements: distinct, same thing?
As part of working on User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, I would like some feedback from people who consider themselves reasonably expert on the history of anti-abortion political advocacy in the United States. Specifically, I have encountered assertions that the pro-life movement and right-to-life movement are meaningfully distinct entities, and also assertions that they're the same thing. Can anybody provide me with useful insight into the question of which is the case -- or even, if I may hope, references to support for either position in reliable sources? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any sources to support this, but to my knowledge the right-to-life movement opposes abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, war, and (sometimes) self-defense and killing animals. The pro-life movement is only opposed in principle to abortion, occasionally extended to oppose birth control pills and the like. To my knowledge, right-to-life activists tend to be more associated with the political left (mainly manifested in a wide array of ideologies ranging from pacifism to anarchism to social libertarianism), while pro-lifers tend to lean towards the political right (particularly conservatism) due to its support of capital punishment and the right to self defense on both a personal and collective/national scale. So basically, in theory all right-to-life activists would be pro-life, but not all pro-lifers would be right-to-life activists. ToaNidhiki0500:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Liberal bias
Can any of the editors supporting Lionelt's essay, "Countering liberal bias", please explain what he means by "liberal bias". It is not defined in the essay. It seems though that he means the viewpoint most commonly expressed in newspaper articles and academic writing, as explained in this Conservapedia article. The problem is that what it calls liberal bias is in Misplaced Pages called the mainstream view. The proper way to fight this bias is to have Misplaced Pages change its NPOV policy. Attempts to disregard policy in individual articles because one objects to the inherent liberal bias is disruptive. TFD (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If it means "mainstream scholarly viewpoint" or even "mainstream news agency consensus" then of course this project should not work against it in any way—it would be against Misplaced Pages policy which rates these things as high quality reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been aware of Lionelt's activities for some time. The more I've looked, the more concerned I've grown. The essay listed above is without a doubt against Wiki policies, and when paired with the instructions in the "How to counter liberal bias section:
“
Alternative references and search engines such as the Western Center for Journalism search engine can be found at "WikiProject Conservatism/References". The References page is also invaluable for adding reliable sources to express minority viewpoints and add opposing views. If you find liberal bias in an article that needs to be corrected the NPOV Tutorial recommends that you "Be bold in editing pages that are biased."
”
Of particular concern is the "reference page"(which is the only link I left in the quote), which despite a few scattered mainstream sources is mostly just a list of conservative POV links, a portion of those would be considered fringe. I don't think there is any doubt that Lionelt's instructions, along with using this project to canvass are serious problems for Misplaced Pages. Add to that the fact that Lionel has recruited many problem editors to this project, of which all seem to fit Lionelt's own POV. His claims of mentor-ship seem one-sided and it's obvious he looks for editors with a conservative POV to try and add numbers to this project, but has not(afaik) reached out to editors with an opposing POV in the same manner. In any case, if there is a RFC or Arb case, I will gather the oddities I've found and try to present them as best I can. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I am glad to find the LA Times, NY Times, Ottawa Sun, and Washington Post are now all conservative periodicals. I suspect almost all "projects" have similar biases in their lists of references, so I am unsure exactly what you think this proves? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Collect, the reason that those periodicals are on that page is that I reverted, twice, Lionelt's efforts to delete them. The fact that he was so eager to delete them is actually quite disturbing to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC) I'm referring to the ones other than the Ottawa Sun. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The Ottawa Sun is a conservative newspaper, as are its four sister publications that Lionelt also listed along with their television affiliate, the Sun News Network. Since they are regional newspapers, reasonable editors would probably only look to them for regional stories. TFD (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian Conservatives are not the same as the US conservatives, TFD. Perhaps you did not notice that. Moreover, Ottawa is the capital of Canada. You could also call the Ottawa Citizen "Conservative" if you wished to - but major newspapers in a national capital are not generally so readily dismissed as "regional newspapers". They are just as "regional" as the Washington Post. Collect (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Regional newspapers obtain all their outside news stories from news wire services and have no circulation outside their region. The "conservatism" represented by the Sun is the same as US conservatism. TFD (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Even if all the bias in articles were that of the mainstream against the fringe, though that is definitely not the case with an article such as Roe v. Wade, it would not mean bias is not possible. Misplaced Pages is for describing subjects in an objective and encyclopedia manner based on an accurate and balanced (due weight) representation of what is stated in reliable sources. Articles are not for attacking fringe theories or fringe theorists and that certainly can and does happen on matters that would be of "conservative" interest such as Intelligent Design or Global Warming. Some editors seem to think that WP:FRINGE entitles them to use strongly dismissive language, but such language is often not reflective of the sources provided.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good question. In the US, intelligent design is closely associated with the Christian right, and denial of global warming has been associated with some energy business interests that fund Republicans. So the question then becomes one of how much conservatism generally would equate to the present-day US Christian right and Republican party. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As this wikiproject covers all forms of conservatism, including (but not limited to) American conservatism, and as the scope of this wikiproject can also include articles that are related to those multiple forms of conservatism, it can be argued that those may fall into the scope of this wikiproject. That is not to say that they cannot fall into the scope of other wikiprojects as well. Therefore, such diverse articles such as Monarchy of Australia to Neoconservatism in Japan to European People's Party to La Violencia could theoretically fall within this project's scope.
As for allegations of this project mainly being about American conservatism, I think that maybe a systematic bias that most editors of Misplaced Pages are from North America and Europe may have something to with it. However, that doesn't mean that there are not editors who are interested in other forms of conservatism. This is the same as how, as Jimmy Wales has stated:
If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don’t, I would say that the Misplaced Pages community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population
Additionally, what this means is that recruiting potential editors with interest in conservatism outside of North America and Europe maybe a potential goal for this wikiproject. I for one have asked about the possibility of a Conservatism in the Philippines article, however although it exist, haven't gotten around to creating such an article, or have found sufficient reliable sources to create the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Uhm, Jimbo just said it almost certainly doesn't matter, so there is no such bias. You'd have to be far from neutral to read this as an endorsement of Lionelt's thesis that Misplaced Pages is plagued by liberal bias that he can repair. For that matter, you said nothing to refute the notion that this project is primarily concerned with American Conservativism -- particularly as manifested in the GOP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that part of the problem of defining a scope is defining what exactly the word conservatism means wrt WP:C. If the scope of the project is conservatism in general this poses a problem because the word means something entirely different to Americans than it does the rest of the world (mostly). For instance, while I've heard American conservatives refer to Obama as a socialist or leftist, in Britain he would fit in nicely as a Tory (British conservative party). Does this then mean that Obama's BLP is within the scope of WP:C?
If conservatism is used only as a label then the scope of this project is enormous and will cover topics that (i)are not of interest to conservatism outside of the US and (ii) not related to US conservatism but included because they may be related to other forms of conservatism. For an example of the former, consider gay rights. While some American conservatives attempt to restrict gay people's right to marry, in other parts of the world this isn't considered a conservative stance, just a bigoted and/or theocratic one - not seriously discussed. For an example of the latter, I refer to my previous example regarding Obama's BLP (note that I don't know whether his BLP is part of WP:C, I'm just pointing out that using broad definitions logically leads to broad scope).
So when you say that recruiting editors outside of the US may be a solution, I would have to disagree simply based on the idea that if this project were a mix of nationalities you would have a mix of people who can't agree on what the word means in the first place. As a corollary to this, when you only have American editors then you have a much more focused definition, but it's not the definition used by most English speaking people. Perhaps retitling the project to WP:American conservatism and then creating other projects to deal with non-American conservatism is the solution here, but I'll leave that for others to decide! Sædon01:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that limiting the focus to something self-consistent might be helpful, but the focus is itself problematic. Once we admit that this project is about American conservatism, we have to ask what the goal of the project is. Is it to neutrally improve articles in its scope or to "combat liberal bias" (or, in plain English, insert conservative bias)? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In response to Gloucester, the science of intelligent design and global warming pertain to conservatism due to the implications of each issue. With intelligent design one finds issues of separation of church and state and the influence of government in education. Global warming has been used to advance increased government intervention in various fields of business and legislation designed to force a specific economic decision on the populace. In each case you have obvious issues where general conservatism, not just American conservatism, might be involved.—The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Many conservatives, for example, many Europeans, are rooted in the notion of “big government” and hierarchical structure. Benjamin Disraeli was the proponent of much government intervention, and happily accepted an Earldom after his premiership. When a Prime Minister can give out hereditary titles that forever give the heirs to that title the rights to sit in parliament, is that “small government” ? It was actually the Liberals who were opposed to government intervention in the economy, and who somewhat challenged that structure. Oh wait? Is this confusing? YES!!!! Conservatism does not mean small government. It does not mean social conservatism. It means every possible political policy in the world combined. It would take anyone two seconds to go through some books and find out that there are so many contradictions, so many variables. Nothing is clean cut, and I think that is a problem. The “general conservatism” you talk about does not exist. And from you describe, it sounds like you are referring to American conservatism. Oh dear!? How shall we clean up this mess? RGloucester (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
While I don't discuss details, it's no secret that America's not the only country I've lived in. As you say, the meaning of "conservatism" elsewhere differs from the American version. What bothers me is that active participants of "WikiProject Conservatism" seem to be entirely ignorant of this (or, worse, unwilling to accept it). I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That's painting the entire project, and its members, with a very broad brush. Although the scope is huge, that doesn't mean that is a bad thing. For instance some other wikiprojects have HUGE scopes see WikiProject United States or WikiProject Biography just to name two. To say that active participants are ignorant is being ignorant of post above, and in the archive, that recognize that this wikiproject has a wide scope; that due to the multiple national variants of how conservatism is defined that they may differ slightly to greatly, but still fall within the scope of this WikiProject. Thus as I said, one possible solution to this is to reduce the systematic bias by gaining more interested editors from areas outside of North America and Europe, and once this has occurred, perhaps as Biography has done, task forces can be created that will focus on certain sub-topics. That is not to say that recruiting isn't the only possible solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
These are not parallel at all because "United States" and "Biography" each have a self-consistent meaning. In contrast, American conservatism seems to have little to do with conservatism worldwide. The problem isn't just the ambiguity, but that so many of the project members do not recognize this ambiguity. This really isn't WikiProject Conservatism. At most, it's WikiProject American Conservatism. But, more accurately, it's the old Conservative Noticeboard all over again, with all the same vote-stacking problems. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The US is unique in that the mainstream political range falls entirely within the liberal tradition. A result of this has been to paint opponents in extreme terms. Hence Roosevelt called his opponents "conservatives" as a slur. They claimed they were the real liberals and he was a "socialist". Eventually they came to call themselves conservatives and liberal became a term of abuse. The National Review editor, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, called this the "Great American Semantic Confusion". TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually StillStanding, you are missing the point. The trouble isn't the 'inaccurate' definition of the Wikiproject. The problem is that this Wikiproject is defined so as to split a field of knowledge (contemporary politics) into two adversarial halves (Conservative and Liberals), and conceived of as a way to favor one side (as we can see from Lionelt's 'Countering liberal bias' essay). This is not true for WikiProject History or WikiProject Biography (there is no anti-biography side). Suppose someone posts at those Wikiprojects that there is edit-warring going on at an article. We know that he is not canvasing for support, because the way those topics are defined there are no 'sides'. This Wikiproject should be set up the same way, say as, 'Wikiproject American Politics'. FurrySings (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
@Gloucester, please keep your demeaning rhetoric to yourself. I am quite knowledgeable about international politics and need no instruction from you. While conservatives in Europe are often more favorable to big government than those in the United States, the actual form of government intervention I was talking about is a position of the left and not generally associated with conservatives in any country.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It isn't meant to be demeaning, just merely explain that it is confusing. It is as confusing to me as anyone else. It is just that humans, and specifically, those humans who speak English, have a tendency to create semantic confusion. We are left ruins that our forbears provided us. Perhaps it is time that we started using more understandable terms... RGloucester (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Let us all admit one point: playing the game of politics gets in the way of quality editing. One point of agreement moves us closer to our true purpose, collaboration. ```Buster Seven Talk15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Statements such as this require some evidence. It doesn't stand on its own that editors who perceive a specific bias in a group of articles and seek to correct that bias are themselves engaged in biased editing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In his essay, Lionelt recommended using the Western Journalism Center (WJC) search engine and tried to have mainstream newspapers removed from the sources section. The WJC is a conspiracy theory website which currently is featuring articles such as "Did Arabs Fund Obama At Harvard?" and "Will An Obama Victory Spark A Civil War In The US?" It appears to violate WP:FRINGE: "And for writers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." TFD (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
What I see are sites listed for editors looking to find a good source for the conservative POV on a subject. This much is stated in the essay: "The References page is also invaluable for adding reliable sources to express minority viewpoints and add opposing views." It is not like The New York Times, Washington Post, and MSNBC are unknown to editors, but you would generally not look to them to find a conservative take on an issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Normally, we look for reliable sources to provide an NPOV take on issues. If one is searching out minority opinions, why limit them to conservative minority opinions? There are also leftist sources that represent minority views. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The criterion for inclusion is neutrality. Views may be included if they are notable. If they are notable they will be mentioned in reliable third party sources. For example intelligent design and climate change scepticism are both covered in mainstream sources. Lionelt however writes, "When a liberal point of view is challenged or contradicted by a reliable source, that opposition must be reflected in the article." TFD (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The foundation of the essay on “Liberal bias” is based on a serious distortion of Jimbo’s statements.
Jimbo Wales: “The Misplaced Pages community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don’t, I would say that the Misplaced Pages community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population...The idea that neutrality can only be achieved if we have some exact demographic matchup to United States of America is preposterous.”
Jimbo seems to more or less dismiss the idea that the WP editorial community is significantly more liberal than the U.S. as a whole. But more importantly, even if the demographics do/did lean slightly liberal, that would not constitute evidence that WP articles themselves have a systemic liberal bias, for that would require a baseless assumption that so-called “liberal” editors are incapable of editing with a NPOV, and that “conservative” editors, even if in the minority on WP, would be incapable of injecting systemic conservative bias into articles. Even a cursory inspection of the interview from which Jimbo’s quote was excerpted shows that he quite adamantly dismisses the notion of systemic liberal bias on WP.
Aside from that glaring and fundamental flaw in the central premise of the essay, the essay's guidance to remedy the non-problem is what really disturbs me. The essay makes a push for rooting out bias only when it is liberal bias, while ignoring other types of political bias (e.g. conservative bias). What the essay argues for essentially amounts to “political profiling”, and seems akin to racial profiling – e.g., go after transgressions only when they are committed by a particular identifiable group. In the case of racial profiling, it’s people of color; in the essay it’s liberal ideology. Going after liberal bias exclusively seems antithetical to WP:NPOV -- rather than fix a POV problem (one that doesn’t seem to exist in reality), the proposed actions would quite likely create a POV problem, by letting conservative bias stand uncontested while taking extraordinary measures to purge liberal bias alone. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's nice to see that User:Tao has improved his position in the pecking order of this rather authoritarian project. The question becomes...can he (or any other member) clearly see what liberal bias really looks like? The purge by this project of so-called liberal bias in WP articles and the resulting restructuring of those articles undercuts the Pillar of Neutrality. Dictatorships like this have a natural obsession and aversion to the “enemy within” and therefore they sanction unbridled interference with a blessing from on high. (see Countering liberal bias). The failure of this project’s activists to recognize the potential for harm to the Encyclopedia has become evident and has prevented them from forming a real partnership with their Liberal counterparts. Perhaps project members only see them as "the Opposition". Naturally, both sides are suspicious of each other’s political goals and each other’s capacities and drive to influence the real life voting public rather than on an accurate analysis of specific situations. While some may fear a dismantling of this project others like myself feel that, at the very least, a restructuring is necessary.```Buster Seven Talk06:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Buster, thank you for making everything so clear. The solution isn't to restrict this project to American conservatism, but to extend it past conservatism. The project should focus on American politics and accept conservatives, liberals and whatever else shows up. That's the real solution; not destruction but reconstruction. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
A widening of the project will also have the beneficial effect of bringing people together rather then forcing them apart with a combative mindset. FurrySings (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And it'll allow reasonable debate on issues with articles rather than nodding along to issues and applications for back-up in the aim of controlling articles. It's a world Conservatism project at the moment anyway, not an American one. Thanks ツ Jenova2011:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Widening the scope of this project will lessen the polarization that makes American Politics so aggressive. We will be able to bond with each other and connect to larger ideas. ```Buster Seven Talk15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to object to this idea. We cover all forms of conservatism, in the US and internationally, and switching this project to cover all types of American politics, while a perfectly good idea for a separate project, would result in us losing those articles and, by extension, our international editors - it isn't an increase in scope, it is shrinking and a fundamental change to the idea that this project was created for and the project that our editors joined; a project covering conservatism of all types. We don't divide editors based on political belief or what they are interested in and we never have, and I hope we never will.
A counteridea could be to create several task forces of this project - for example, one covering US conservatism and international conservatism, or one covering figures and groups and the other covering ideas and thought. I think that raises a lot of issues, however - it segregates editors from working together and could actually intensify any bias. But it is still a much better solution than de facto deleting this project and replacing it with something completely different. ToaNidhiki0519:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The conversation that has occurred in the past day is rather enlightening, and reveals that a group of editors are forming a consensus that this wikiproject must be torn down, and that it is not here to improve wikipedia, or achieve neutrality ... even though members have stated that we are, and mostly dismissed. I can understand why any potential liberal bias would not be observed if the standard reliable sources are themselves leaning towards that bias, as that bias would be "normal", whereas other reliably sourced viewpoints would be considered fringe because they don't contain that standard leaning.
For instance, as a hypothetical, if something was written in a pro-Chocolate POV and the majority of mainstream reliable sources available were written as containing pro-Vanilla POV, then surely that pro-Chocolate POV is fringe and those who attempting to add neutrally worded balanced content reflecting that view are not there to improve content and are pushing a POV.
Therefore, I can understand the mindset of these group of editors, and their POV that they are doing it in the best interest of the project, while disagreeing with their conclusion as to what is trying to be achieved within this wikiproject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Well of course we would have to give more weight to the pro-vanilla POV, and may even ignore the pre-chocolate POV in most articles. That anyway is the policy. Even if it were not, we would need some criterion for determining what weight to provide to differing views. I suppose in this case you might want to provide equal weight, but remember there are other flavors of and alternatives to eating icecream, all of would have to be balanced. Political disputes cannot be evenly divided into liberal and conservative because there are ranges of views with that range and others that that fall outside. TFD (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the community as a whole will be in favor of getting rid of this WikiProject. Rather, I think that the community will want to fix it, so that it functions according to community norms. Up until very recently, the lead of WP:Verifiability said that Misplaced Pages writes what is verifiable, not what is true. That was because I might think one thing is true but RightCowLeftCoast might think the opposite is true, and we might both be acting in good faith. The way Misplaced Pages deals with such differences of editor opinion is to rely on what the preponderance of mainstream sources say. If those sources lean "chocolate", then so should Misplaced Pages; if they instead lean "vanilla", then Misplaced Pages should follow. I realize that some editors, in good faith, may feel that Misplaced Pages is short-changing certain conservative perspectives when Misplaced Pages follows mainstream sourcing, but that's a complaint to take up with the larger society, not with Misplaced Pages that simply tries to report on that society. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree; the bottom line is that Misplaced Pages has specific criteria to determine which sources are appropriate. One may wish that one's viewpoint was more prominently featured in those sources, but that doesn't change our obligation to follow this site's sourcing criteria while we edit here.
I suppose one could try to amend the sourcing criteria to deprecate the mainstream media because of its supposed liberal bias - that would be unlikely to succeed, but would at least be above-board. And there are instances where a group of editors interested in a specific subject have successfully drafted specialized sourcing guidelines. It's much more problematic to gather a group of like-minded editors and develop an "alternate" list of sources which contradict this site's sourcing guidelines. MastCell21:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not how things actually work. Most articles where I see an apparent "liberal" bias, it is precisely because editors are giving undue weight to certain views or because editors are writing the material in a slanted manner that sometimes even misrepresents what is in those sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I recall that discussion, but this was an entirely different proposal - to rename the project to 'WikiProject American politics'. If he verbally opposed it here I'd be more than happy to count it, but he hasn't said anything yet. ToaNidhiki0501:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Re:The truth. The tools we have at hand, words, are pitifully inadequate in order to "tell the truth". Our righteous (and left-eous) self-defining gets in the way. Sometimes we humans grasp a truth and then make the mistake of believing (and promoting) it is "the whole truth and nothing but....". The real truth is that "chocolate chip" should be the dominant POV. My apologies to "strawberry" editors.```Buster Seven Talk00:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC).
I was also a member at one time and left the project. Not for political reasons but for the tyranically manner in which the project was being manipulated. Am I a part of the "exclusive right'?```Buster Seven Talk01:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are a current member of the project, you would presumably be able to vote. But the Council is very clear that the WikiProject itself has the sole right to define their scope - there isn't really any room for debate. It is clearly worded to imply such. ToaNidhiki0500:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the scope needs to be determined by outsiders. The idea of renaming the project is silly enough, but it simply isn't justified here. ToaNidhiki0501:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There have been serious suggestions of renaming and thus redefining the focus. The suggestions are not silly. Outsiders will deal with a harmful project as needed, up to and including fully locking it down for archival reference only. Renaming it is one of the options. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It is a silly idea because other options that are not nearly as drastic have not even been discussed. The main goal here is seeming to trend towards 'blood' (as Still put it rather nicely) rather than actually fixing issues. There hasn't even been any real evidence presented to warrant a move. ToaNidhiki0501:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As to discussions about sources, even if Vanilla is the predominant POV of the mainstream reliable sources, that does not mean that Chocolate (or Strawberry (or any other flavor for that matter)) reliable sources should be totally excluded or content supported by those sources not be given due weight (and neutrally worded) inclusion.
Dennis, I was replying to Bink and others who want to move forward with an RfC. And I think short of Arbcom turning into a star chamber, there is no actionable evidence (at least presented so far). I'm not poo-pooing concerns, but I think the claims of malfeasance coupled with politics makes this look like a witchunt. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Look, we can rename this project or we can just shut it down and let someone open up a new Wikiproject: American Politics to replace the American part of it. And if we want to make room for non-Americans, we just create WikiProject: Politics and let American Politics be a task force of it.
But the lesson we've learned here is that partisan wikiprojects are, unsurprisingly, magnets for partisan editors who band together to violate the basic purpose of Misplaced Pages. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, and that explains Lionelt's essay, for example, or his practice of inviting conservatives to join. The more you deny what's everyone else takes for granted, the less well this is going to end. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Above, I and others pointed out how Misplaced Pages depends on the preponderance of reliable sourcing. It disappoints me how the subsequent discussion dances around the issue without really engaging with it. I realize that some editors may believe in good faith that they have seen pages where sources with one POV are accepted as reliable while sources with an opposing POV are resisted. But the solution to that is to follow existing procedures for resolving content conflicts, and for dispute resolution if need be. It isn't to form a project that is designed to focus only on one subset of source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Intentions of WP ConservatismI got into reading this because Dennis pointed it out to me. I don't have much to say. I lean conservative I suppose (more Libertarian) but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of intentions here. I created a graph to explain when I think it is. I think the perceived intentions and the intended intentions (ha) are getting mixed up. I am not saying the project's ideas are correct, but I think this is what they see as correct.--v/r - TP16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Reading the talk page archives provides an interesting refresher course on the history of this project. It seems inevitable that some RfC-type action is forthcoming and getting a feel for where this project has been and what has been previously discussed may provide some valuable insight on how to proceed. The discusssions about "what the scope of the project should be" are very informative and thought-provoking and display encyclopedic concern on both sides. I would boldly suggest that anyone new to this project take the few hours necessary to investigate its talk page history. ```Buster Seven Talk13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
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
