Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Conservative Examples outside of North America

How many of these can we find

France

It sounds similar to what we see of conservatism in North America. It is obviously has some religious ties with the Roman Catholic Church. How strong is it in French politics? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can find no independant confirmation that this party exists. "Restoring" the monarchy, which is the main issue of this website, is not a part of either American or Canadian conservatism. TFD (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The "religious ties" that that party has (which is not any kind of important party, for the record) are simply restoring the Roman Catholic Clergy to the First Estate, that is their land owners under the ancien regime which it wants to restore. And believe me, no one in France wants to restore the ancien regime. It has been dead for a very long time. RGloucester (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Czech

Their listing of values has many similar features to North American conservatism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Conservative Party (Czech Republic) gained 4,232 votes, or 0.08% of the votes cast, in the 2010 general election.[1] TFD (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Britain

The governing centre-right Conservative Party has a Policy page of pdfs (see here). Generally they avoid ideology and emphasize change — from the last government's policies!

Some policies — "We have maintained free entry to national museums and galleries to protect access to our great heritage . . . We will cut red tape to encourage the performance of more live music . . . We will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation. . . We have established a Commission to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that protects and extends British liberties, that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law . . . We will use our relationships with other countries to push for unequivocal support for gay rights and for UK civil partnerships to be recognised internationally" etc etc.
Arguably, the Conservatives are to the left of the Democrats in the USA, though they are now in coalition with the centre-left Liberal Democrats. Under David Cameron they are no longer Thatcherite. --Kleinzach 06:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be a return to some of the principles of Disraeli's One Nation conservatism, although it is probably more rhetoric than reality. TFD (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

China

The CPC was originally a revolutionary party, but during the past 30 years it has become increasingly conservative (in Chinese: 保守的  baoshoude), emphasizing the maintenance of public order based on the rule of (communist party) law. This brings it in line with Confucianism, the bedrock of east Asian conservatism, that teaches respect for tradition and obedience to superiors for the achievement of social harmony. (Confucius himself has been rehabilitated, with the Temple of Confucius and Imperial Academy now refurbished for visitors etc.)

Political slogans used by Hu Jintao and others have strong Confucian overtones ( see the Economist article, 'Ideology in China: Confucius makes a comeback' [2] ).

"Fifty years of practice have also proved that in upholding and perfecting the people's congress system, the most fundamental thing is to maintain an organic unity of upholding Party leadership, ensuring the people being masters and administering the country according to law. . . . The building up of ruling capability is a fundamental construction of our Party after it holds power. An important aspect of raising the Party's leading level and ruling ability is to adhere to the basic strategy of running the state according to law, regard administration as a basic method for the Party to run the state and exercise administration, persist in carrying out activities within the scope of the Constitution and laws, act strictly according to law, and be good at using state power to handle state affairs. . . . The NPC [National People's Congress] has traversed a 50-year glorious course. A continual perfection of the people's congress system will surely usher in a bright future . . ." (from the official website [3] --Kleinzach 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
See also New Conservatism (People's Republic of China). TFD (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to perceived threats

This pause in the in-fighting may be a good time to make a well-intended request. While suspicions of the intended goals of certain editors may have a place in individual articles, a project of this size and conviction cannot constantly ask its members and interested guests to hold their tongues. The prevailing comments of some members to "like it or leave it" (and other "theres the door!" type comments) have no place in the open marketplace of ideas that WP creates. As conservatives it has been been said by some that we intrinsically mistrust the potential for success of things when left on their own and feel the need to manage. But the arena where this project exists is proof that WE (WikiPedia Editors) don't need to be over-managed, that we can be trusted and should be assummed to be of good faith. Buster Seven Talk 02:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, these accusations are due to the fact this project is under fire every other week, be it a deletion nomination, a move request, or a request to either kick out the Americans or kick out everybody but the Americans. It is rather hard to assume good faith when a particular group of editors support each and every one of these requests. I assume good faith unless proven otherwise (ie. the duck test), and some editors on here have ruined my good faith. This isn't an issue of over-management, it is one of protecting this project from those that seek to neuter it.
And those requests are the best alternative. If you don't like a project, why hold actual work up? It's a request to 'agree to disagree', one to allow both parties to get back to work. These continuous discussions harm legitimate work, not help them. Toa Nidhiki05' 02:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Toa Nidhiki05, could you possibly stop step-indenting your messages? Conversations become difficult to read if there appear to be extra non-signing participants. Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that American conservatism is a type of liberalism - it supports limited government, capitalism and separation of church and state, and this project confuses that with support of monarchy, aristocracy and the established church. TFD (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Your protection of this project is honorable but strident. The half dozen editors that are constantly being threatened with excommunication are not out to destroy the project. Granted they want to mold it and shape it and have it reflect what they think. How is that different than elsewhere at WP? I am familiar wih some of them. You would be well served to not turn a blind ear to their communications. They are not nonsense peddlers. Again, my simple request is that you restrain your tendency to call for their expulsion. TY. Buster Seven Talk 07:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You note the problem that I address - these half-dozen editors want the project to reflect the way they think, not what the rest of the 70+ members of this project think. The will of six members should not supplant the will of dozens and dozens of other members.
The issue isn't me calling for 'expulsion' (which is, in reality, a request for them to leave, not one to remove them forcibly), it is the fact they are calling for the de facto 'expulsion' of dozens of hard-working editors, be it through deletion or decreasing the scope. With all due respect, I'll stop calling for them to leave as soon as they stop calling for dozens of editors to be de facto removed from this project.
I will note that they have enough numbers to form a WikiProject that fits their views - the minimum to form one is five. They do not have to do anything with this project to get their views represented. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A silent majority argument? No, the project is shaped by those who speak up and lead. You calling for people to leave if they don't like it is not helping anything. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, 66 is not 70+. "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin." Buster Seven Talk 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'inactive and former members' list given, so there are probably less than 66. Members who have not been on WP at all for the past three months should go on such a list. --Kleinzach 00:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Toa, how do you know that anyone disagrees with you? You have never explained what you think conservatism is, and therefore no one knows if they disagree with your definition. TFD (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not getting into the semantics of conservatism with you, TFD. I support the scope of this project and you don't support it at all, given your delete vote. It is not rude or impolite to ask people who want to radically reshape and/or delete this project to fit their wants and their desires to leave and form their own WikiProject. Why destroy or break up this one when you can create your own? No one is making you join this project, which you clearly disagree with. No one is keeping you from forming your own. Why do you insist on attempting to break up or destroy this project? It does nothing to help this project improve conservatism-related articles, all it does is disrupt. Toa Nidhiki05 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I view proposals to delete or break up this project unfavorably. AGF or not, I am skeptical of editors who wish to destroy this group. Btw, there are 66 editors on the About Us roster, and another 4 who added the project userbox to their userpage but did not add themselves to the register. That's 70.– Lionel (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionel: Can you address the issue of American conservatism raised by TFD above? Thanks. --Kleinzach 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Why should we? We are beating a dead horse every single time we argue over the scope and what X member thinks conservatism is and why X member thinks the other 60 who haven't supported his view are wrong and should be overruled. Toa Nidhiki05 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not possible for a group of editors to collaborate on a project unless there is a general understanding about the subject matter of the project. That does not mean that different editors cannot have different opinions. For example, editors involved in a North America project may disagree on which countries form part of North America, but may agree on the countries that are included in the project. What do you think should be the scope of this project? TFD (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The current scope. Further, unless you can establish there is confusion among editors as to what this project covers, your argument is rather weak. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could explain what the scope is. I notice we have had discussions about including the Swiss People's Party, the Ku Klux Klan and United Russia - but no agreement because the scope of the project is undefined. TFD (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It is the last question on the FAQ. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

FAQ issue

The FAQ is inadequate IMO. Who wrote it? I've searched the archives and I can't find any record of the FAQ being proposed or discussed. If I am correct, the FAQ is not backed by any consensus. --Kleinzach 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood how editors write FAQs containing answers to questions that have never been asked before.   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
What should we do with it? If it's never been proposed or approved, maybe we should remove it to a discussion topic (on this page) so people can express their opinions about it? --Kleinzach 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ is fine, and it is consensus: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." – Lionel (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If I read the thread correctly, it no longer has consensus since it is now disputed.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparently added by Lionelt 28 July, 2011 "(added FAQ which hopefully will address recurring issues and lessen contention on talk page)".[4] TFD (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if Lionel would like to propose the adoption of his FAQ? Perhaps in a new topic? I think that would be more elegant than one of us simply removing all the questions. It would be better to consider them one by one. --Kleinzach 09:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Lionel declined though perhaps he may reconsider? Maybe it would be best to sort out the scope first? That will obviate at least one of the FAQ problems. We can come back to this afterwards. --Kleinzach 23:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Scope: Part II

Presented only to bridge the gap.

  • B7's Version I...The scope of Project:Conservatism lies in the interest of consolidating diverse Conservative thought and various Conservative Movements and Conservative social expressions that have existed over time throughout the world. Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Why should the project devote itself to consolidation? Also what do you mean by Conservative social expressions? What have these got to do with a political project? --Kleinzach 00:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Kleinzach. If you have a better idea let's see it.Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
See here. --Kleinzach 07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. This could retain the current broadness of the project. I'm not going to support just yet, but a good idea. Toa Nidhiki05 19:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Answer from FAQ...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.
That is begging the question. Conservatism is defined as conservatism. TFD (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Which one begs the question? Buster7's or the answer from the main page? Do you have an interpretation or scope to present for discussion? Let us collaborate to formulate a scope that is more than just an agenda. Buster Seven Talk 21:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
TFD, we do not need to define conservatism - we have reliable sources for that. Rather than unilaterally declaring 'X' to be conservative and 'Y' to not be, we can let the reliable sources 'confirm' something as conservative. Toa Nidhiki05 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That'd be fine if we actually followed it.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
What would a scope look like which keeps the existing membership intact, and includes all currently tagged articles? It would look like exactly what we have now: a wikilink to the conservatism article. When I founded this project almost a year ago my inspiration was the conservatism article. The roadmap I used for the thousands of articles I have tagged is the category:conservatism category. To undertake an effort, a year after the fact, to overlay a detailed, specific scope on top of a project which has grown in this manner is a monumental and unnecessary challenge. Monumental because there will never be agreement on the langauge. E.g. TFD will always insist that American conservatism is not true conservatism, that is is liberalism and should not be merged with worldwide conservatism. That scope is doomed. Unnecessary because broad scopes are permitted, even recommended by the WikiProject guidelines. Any change to the existing scope which breaks up this group of editors will undoubtedly fail. These repetitive and obsessive proposals are exercises in futility. – Lionel (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Why not draft exactly what you have described? Based on the conservatism article, category:conservatism as a roadmap: what's so monumental about that? Other editors may not agree with your scope after you've done it, but at least you would be respected for producing one, and we would have a basis for a discussion based on good, rather than bad, faith. No-one is regarded seriously in politics if they can't 'lay out their stall' (as they say in England).--Kleinzach 05:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Toa says that "we do not need to define conservatism - we have reliable sources for that". Could Toa please provide these sources, because we have rs that Putin, a racist party in Switzerland, the KKK, liberals in Belize, etc. are all conservatives, but have no criteria for inclusion. There are sources that Roosevelt was a conservative, should we include him as well? TFD (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
@Klein: to what "bad faith" are you referring? – Lionel (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Beginning a discussion thread with the caption "Responding to perceived threats" may reasonably be seen as an assumption of bad faith. TFD (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"@Klein" means what follows is directed at Klein. – Lionel (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
@ TFD...I started the thread "Responding.......". I choose perceived so I wouldn't get into an argument with whomever as to whether the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" comments were in fact threats. There was no assumption of bad faith on my part. I can't speak for anyone else.Buster Seven Talk 08:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • B7's Version II...The scope of Project:Conservatism lies in the interest of consolidating diverse conservative thought and various conservative movements that have existed over time throughout the world. Buster Seven Talk 06:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
IOW, the scope of conservatism is conservatism, but that is circular. TFD (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Once again — why should a WkiProject be 'consolidating' anything? Wrong word? Deep meaning? Please tell us. --Kleinzach 07:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It was only a starting point. Instead of picking mine apart, I challenge you to come up with your own. I'm just trying to move us from this quarrelsomeness. Buster Seven Talk 08:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
To jump back into the fray for a spell, I'd propose something similar to this: Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political organizations and movements that refer to themselves as "conservative", whilst recognizing the diverse interpretations of what that appellation refers to. Then, after having that, I'd make a space below that stating the "classical definition" used in most of the world along with the more modern American version. That way there would be no confusion, and misconceptions could be curtailed...RGloucester (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • RGloucester's Version: Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political organizations and movements that refer to themselves as "conservative", whilst recognizing the diverse interpretations of what that appellation refers to.
That is one of the fairest ways of defining the scope. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
What about, all parties and political writing that are generally considered to be conservative, particularly following in the traditions of Burke and DeMaistre. TFD (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
RGloucester, that's pretty good. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It's as good as we're going to come up with, and I daresay fairly close to the intent of most Project members. Let us embrace this definition. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


"...all political organizations and movements that refer to themselves ..." That's going to be a major change to the scope, and require considerable effort to determine. For one thing, many movements do not have leaders with authority to speak for everyone. For another, the project currently covers more than just organizations and movements: it also includes individuals, publications, and concepts. In addition, this scope would exclude religious topics. While I agree with that change, I had thought the consensus was to include them. Finally and most importantly, limiting the scope to only movements and organizations which are self-described as conservative means that no reliable sources for independent views of whether they are conservative would be used. Taken together, only a fraction of the current articles would qualify under this scope. I think that may be a good thing, as I've previously asserted that the vague scope could encompass tens of thousands of articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Conservatives in most of the world generally do not call themselves conservative because the term has negative connotations - it means reactionary. Similarly, some on the extreme right call themselves conservative because it is more acceptable than alternative descriptions. TFD (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose RGlouster's ill-concieved scope. Would clearly result in a much, much smaller project. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
What's the problem with having a smaller project? A smaller project would allow more focus on the content that needs improvement.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I've adapted it to broaden to the scope. I had never meant to limit it. I simply want to limit misconceptions, and that's what I'm trying to do here. My proposal now states "all social and political entities", which in my view includes publications, theories, individuals, political parties, NGOs, etc....Please work with me here, and be constructive, instead of just slapping a "strongly oppose" on the top. I'm trying genuinely to make a change that I will think will benefit Wikipedia and the project. RGloucester (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • RGloucester's Second Version: Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all social and political entities that refer to themselves as "conservative", whilst recognizing the diverse interpretations of what that appellation refers to.' RGloucester (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Did the Cold War refer to itself as a conservative entity?
Did Reagan's Berlin Speech identify itself as a conservative entity?
And so on. Self-description is a fine idea in some contexts, but I don't see how it can be applied to a practical scope for this project.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider the Cold War (on its own) ever part of this project, to be honest. And Reagan's speech is conservative by being the product of someone who referred to himself as conservative...or at least that's how I worked it out. However, it could be changed again to include all that...the key bit is that the project's scope should recognize just how diverse interpretations of the word "conservative" can be. RGloucester (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • RGloucester's 3rd Version: Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all social and political entities (and products of those entities) that refer to themselves as "conservative". It also includes entities, thought, theories etc, that are incontestably labeled "conservative" by verifiable 3rd party sources, i.e. academic journals. Whilst doing this, the project recognises the diverse interpretations of what that appellation may refer to.

That's a little better, but "products of those entities" may not make sense. If we add Ronald Reagan, as a self-described conservative, do we therefore add every speech he gave and every law he signed? Maybe it'd be better to say something like, "Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political, social and religious topics that are either self-described as "conservative", described as "conservative" by reliable sources, or are otherwise closely connected to conservatism, recognising the diverse interpretations of what that appellation may refer to."   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Will Beback's version: "Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political, social and religious topics that are either self-described as "conservative", described as "conservative" by reliable sources, or are otherwise closely connected to conservatism, recognising the diverse interpretations of what that appellation may refer to."
Your new version sounds good to me, I'd say it is our best hope. RGloucester (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • A version per Kleinbach's "see here" of 07:35 14 Dec 2011 above:WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism, a political and social philosophy that promotes maintaining traditional institutions, while supporting limited and gradual social change.
Of the seven available options, I think User:Will's provides the best opportunity to satisfy the broadbased membership. Buster Seven Talk 02:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Will Beback's version's is the best drafted so far, however I suggest tightening the RS criteria and omitting religion (as offering up an unnecessary hostage to future fortunes). --Kleinzach 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Will Beback's modified 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, or are otherwise closely connected to conservatism, recognising the diverse interpretations of what that appellation may refer to."
If one source describes a group as conservative then so will multiple sources. We need to establish the degree of acceptance. For example if a group has 1,500,323 Google hits and 12 describe it as conservative then that may not be sufficient. TFD (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes indeed, if the project continues to place such importance on RS-based bannering, then a well-drafted project guideline may be necessary. --Kleinzach 06:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Google hits are a very bad of of determining anything. Whatever we do, we should not be thinking of Ghits as part of it.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, but TFD's point still stands. A topic should be typically called Conservative, not seldom or occasionally referred to as conservative. --Kleinzach 06:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the idea, but I think it's going to be problematic to implement in practice.   Will Beback  talk  07:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right — which is why I've never thought a project definition based just on RS was really viable. (RS are for referencing articles, not for validating publishing collaborations.) --Kleinzach 09:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I can find multiple reliable sources describing each and every modern Democratic president as a conservative, does that mean they belong in the project? TFD (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Why not?   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Because a huge scope and small band of editors are not going to achieve much except marking territory. (That's also indicated by the repeated discussions about project banners, and the attention paid to banners in the FAQ above.) --Kleinzach 09:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly agree that a smaller project could actually be more effective. But that said, if the US electorate tends to favor conservative political parties then it's hard to avoid dealing with that fact. Better to make a more general limitation, like focusing on just politics rather than including social or religious groups and concepts.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
'That fact' would not be a difficulty if American conservatism had its own project. Separation would address TFD's argument that American conservatism is essentially different from other types. --Klein[[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px --Kleinzach 23:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach]] 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Then create one. Nothing is stopping you from doing so. You don't have to slice this project up. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
That'd be another way of focusing the scope more sharply. But there's a fundamental problem with creating a project based on a vague concept. I was just reading about the conservative, pro-Stalin opposition to the Khrushchev Thaw in the USSR. This article is now like a project on Progressivism which includes every article that mentions "progress". Let me toss out a different scope, for discussion: "Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage of topics related to the modern American Conservative movement." The majority of tagged articles are probably related to the American Conservative movement, and it's a fairly discrete but still large topic.   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst it is noble to attempt to split the project as such, that has clearly been deemed unacceptable by members of said project. Rather than attempting to do something that will never be allowed by the "establishment", perhaps we should focus on attempting to define the scope in a fair manner that is inclusive, but also concise. Myself, I would support doing something like this in theory, but I just don't see it happening. A compromise should therefore be made, which I think is the modified version above. I would add in something similar to the phrase "incontestably described as or commonly held to be conservative by academia i.e. verifiable third party sources" and "in the context of the nation in which they are based". In other words, whilst American democrats are considered conservative by European standards, they are not in their own context, hence they shouldn't be included. That should sort it out a bit. RGloucester (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you draft a new version of the modified text including your suggestions? I've tried to do so but it looks rather wordy. --Kleinzach 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't a proposal to split the project but to narrow its focus.
There is almost nothing which is "incontestable". That language would also have the effect of drastically shrinking the scope of this project, though it would require a lot of article-by-article investigation and discussion.   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Will, your scope was rejected in the moving debate. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to consider the 'America only' option I think the project has to be named as such.
  • Will Beback's alternate proposal ('American' wording): "Project:American conservatism aims to provide coverage of topics related to the modern American Conservative movement."
We've rejected that idea in the move proposal. By extension, we have rejected a scope that would cause the same result. This is beating a dead horse and you know it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
When we have completed drafting possible definitions, can we start 'approval ivoting', i.e. endorsing the version(s) we think are satisfactory? There should be no opposing. We can leave the process open for (say) two weeks. --Kleinzach 23:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad idea. People may not want to change the scope, and would thus not support any change... Which means they have effectively no vote under such a system rigged to favor change. Toa Nidhiki05 00:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea of spinning off an American Conservatism project is turning into a perennial proposal. Will Beback's modified version is the best I have seen so far because it allows for work to be done on the global conservatism movement-Guerillero | My Talk 00:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of the 'global conservatism movement'. Do you have a reference? Incidentally we can include the present masthead in the approval process. Here it is. --Kleinzach 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Present version: "WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism."
  • 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.

RGloucester (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry "Strong"

My attention has been drawn to a very rough draft of Rick Perry's "Strong" ad. I do not have the time to help out with the article right now and I was wonder if some of you could help out there. Lots of work needs to be done but it is good DYK material and could potentially be a GA. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor would have to personally invite us to edit the subpage and guarantee that they wouldn't delete our edits (they have ultimate control over content in their own userspace, with some exceptions). – Lionel (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to archive?

This page has become huge. Some discussions are a month old. Would anyone object if I did some archiving (chronologically by last date of course). --Kleinzach 02:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The archivebot is set to archive threads over a month old. Rather than archiving manually it might be better to just lower the archiving threshold.   Will Beback  talk  02:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually it's MiszaBot II which doesn't archive chronologically (by last date). --Kleinzach 04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to elect a project coordinator

This project has difficulty building consensus — we can all agree on that, right? Leaving contentious ideological matters to one side, perhaps we can take a more procedural approach to getting the project back on the rails?

One possibility, I think, would be to elect (yes, elect) a neutral-minded, 'mop-carrying', project coordinator. His or her tasks might include:

  • soliciting opinions, mediating disputes and 'casting the deciding vote' if opinion is deadlocked
  • managing project collaborations
  • posting notices for the project when necessary etc.
  • maintaining categories, assessments, and guidelines according to the wishes of the project
  • archiving discussions etc etc

Good morning and thank you. Reactions? P.S. For an explanation of how coordinators work, see the Films Project: here. Incidentally, if my proposal is accepted, I won't be accepting nomination myself. --Kleinzach 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, besides the 73 edits you've made to this talkpage, how many edits have you made to WikiProject Conservatism project pages, portal pages, templates? (Putting yourself on the member roster doesn't count.) – Lionel (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't see how we get out of the ideological mess until people stop bringing a 'new' debate on the same issue every other week. As for the idea, a 'project coordinator' - which seems a lot like what Lionelt already does - why rank one member above the rest? Putting a single figure in authority seems contrary to the broad and open nature of this project.
No, the coordinator serves the project, he's not in authority. To quote from the Films page linked above: "The project coordinators are . . . not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.". Project coordinators are facilitators. --Kleinzach 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Really, though, unless people stop attacking the scope of this project, I think this will end up at the Arbitration Comittee eventually - and I don't think anyone wants to bring sanctions into the mix. My proposal? If you don't like this project or its scope, nobody is keeping you from leaving - so it might be best to do so. While disagreements are healthy, if you oppose the very basis of the project, why did you join? It's the best for all involved parties. Toa Nidhiki05 04:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This could be a good direction to take, but it depends wholly on the existence of one editor who can pick up the role and run with it. Who is that? Until such an editor steps forward, throws his or her hat in ring, the proposal can only be rhetorical. WikiProjects require strong personalities as leaders, ideally strong personalities with a neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
We have some able editors here. There are at least a couple of people I'd be happy to nominate. --Kleinzach 05:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Predictable, Klein. Pretty predictable. Am I imagining things or was it just a couple of hours ago that you accused me of dictatorial aspirations. Well... WP:FILMC says "The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work." Interestingly Klein, there's nothing in FILMC about "mediating disputes and 'casting the deciding vote.'" Power play, Klein?

The maintenance refers to keeping the subpages up to date, and keeping the various departments functioning such as Assessment, Collaboration, etc. We could get a feel for who would be a good coordinator by looking at contributions to the very pages he/she/it would be maintaining:

Page Top contributor Edits Second contributor Edits
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism Lionelt 78 NYYankees 2
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment Lionelt 27 Jj98 2
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Collab Lionelt 36 BelloWello 5
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator Lionelt 24 JohnCD 1
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/News Lionelt 60 Guerillero 1
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/About us Lionelt 35 Avazina 4

The subpages and templates of this project are complex and sophisticated. It would be advantageous if the coodinator understood html, CSS, transclusion, templates, parser functions, etc. We should also look at who has recruited the most members, tagged the most articles, and published the most newsletter articles. Who do you think is most qualified to do the "maintenance and housekeeping work" around here Klein? – Lionel (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is from the WikiProject Council: "A co-ordinator's voice is often, by virtue of their position, granted considerable weight in internal discussions, enabling co-ordinators to take the lead in drafting project guidelines and visions, and overseeing the implementation of those decisions; however co-ordinators are not arbitrators or 'leaders' of a WikiProject — all such decisions are still made by community consensus." Hope that's clearer. Obviously the coordinator should not be a controversial character. --Kleinzach 09:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
So even though WPCouncil says "The primary responsibility of any project's coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work", you want a coordinator to "cast the deciding vote." The only thing we ever talk about here is (1) do we get rid of the Americans or (2) keep the Americans and get rid of everybody else? Is this the deciding vote that you're eager for your coordinator to cast?

In any event, per WPCouncil, we are not a good candidate for a coordinator because (1) we do not have taskforces (2) the project is already "managed effectively by the project members." – Lionel (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points, Lionelt. I was going to support if it was only a maintenance task, such as what WikiProject Military History, but a coordinator could really only be useful for a project with many taskforces, such as WikiProject Films or WikiProject Military History. Seeing as we currently have no taskforces, it is (to me) both unneeded and an overt grab at power. Given Lionelt already does all of this, we have no need to usurp him from the help he gives the project. Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Lionelt, you cannot show past performance stats to prove you are the only one qualified to coordinate the project. That would be like Obama listing his official presidential actions to prove Gingrich could not be president—Gingrich has performed no official presidential actions. Kleinzach is discussing a future coordinator, so the merits of estimated future performance must be debated.
Kleinzach, this is still only a rhetorical discussion until someone says "I will step up. Vote for me." Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Or someone is nominated. --Kleinzach 02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait, what? Why can he not show that he already does all that stuff anyway - seems like a good argument to me! Unless you can prove that his work on those is sloppy or bad, you can't pull an IDON'TLIKEIT on his argument. Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is built upon civility. This means, among other things, respect and positive regard. Thus our discussions will be respectful. An example: I have, perhaps, made five edits on conservative articles. Another person has started the project and has hundreds of edits. In a civil world, a vote is not needed. After all is discussed, argued, etc. I will defer to experience. I am not against voting for a coordinator. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather than one person, why not consider a council of three. Lionel and two others. All major decisions would have to be approved by the three, in consensus. The three should not all be in the same "camp" but should represent a cross-section of editors. Just an idea. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this project, but if I may: Wikiproject Coordinators and Directors in my experience generally only work successfully if the project if very active, e.g. Military History or (analogously) FAC/TFA. Is there any pressing reason that this project needs a coordinator? If not, you all might be better served by continuing as you always have. NW (Talk) 15:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, agree with NuclearWarfare. I've done some work on Military History and that project functions very well with the system they have. I'm very happy with Lionelt's direction at this time. I think he's done an excellent job pulling things together and he has a great deal of experience. As the project progresses we can reevaluate the need to expand the leadership. Let's find our way first. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When I quoted the WikiProject Council above, I probably should have put one clause in bold. I'll do that now: " . . . co-ordinators are not arbitrators or 'leaders' . . .." I wrote "Obviously the coordinator should not be a controversial character. "' Again I should be more direct. Lionel's abrasive and confrontational style make him unfit to be a coordinator. (Likewise it might be better if other controversial members did not put themselves up for this.) We need a level-headed individual who has the necessary motivation and ability to help guide this project back towards normal, consensus-based collaboration. --Kleinzach 02:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this the smell of a coup d'Etát? I think it is... the problem here is not Lionelt, who is doing quite a good job. The problem is that there are a few editors who should be focused on improving conservative-related articles and not on trying to mess this WikiProject. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen (talk • contribs)
Coup d'État? Is that like a Coupe de Ville, only bigger? Writegeist (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
KZ this is nowhere big enough to have a coordinator --Guerillero | My Talk 16:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Size is not the only consideration. This is a particularly non-consensual group of people. I think that means we have to be a bit more formal in the way we approach decision making. --Kleinzach 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)reply

@Klein: let's set aside for the moment the obvious widespread opposition to your suggestion that we elect a coordinator... I have to ask: the person you feel is best qualified to be the coordinator of WPConservatism is RGloucester (talk · contribs)??? user talk:RGloucester#May I nominate you? Are you aware that his account is 18 days old? Are you aware that he has 331 total edits? Is this your idea of what you call a "mop-carrying" editor? Are you aware that this is the same RGloucester who tried to break up the project? Do you remember writing "Obviously the coordinator should not be a controversial character"? If trying to break up this group and orphaning the non-American members isn't controversial I don't know what is. You probably think that Binksternet's attempt to delete this group wasn't controversial either. This behavior raises serious concerns about your judgment and motives. – Lionel (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RGloucester has a track record of some moderate and intelligent comments here. Also he is an American and so possibly more acceptable to American members, while the fact he lives in Europe means he can understand non-American perspectives. However since I contacted him he's explained that he is a social democrat, which he probably feels disqualifies him. (He may not want the job anyway.) At any rate, I think we need a moderate as coordinator, someone who is willing to build bridges to all the different factions here. Perhaps we can find another candidate? Incidentally I see the roles of the 'founder' and 'coordinator' as being essentially different. The 'founder' can be a leader, but the 'coordinator' can't. Hope that is clearer. --Kleinzach 08:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is insane

I'm from London, and I find this project appauling. The type of people that appear on the portal that come up are not conservatives like we have! Do you think david cameron would not allow same-sex parternships? Do you think david cameron would get rid of abortion? Do you think david cameron truly cares one ounce about religon? NO! And neither does none of the UK. This project is totally stupid, and should not monopolize the name conservatism when it knows nothing about how it is. 109.68.196.101 (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So there are no social conservatives in the UK? Does that mean there are none elsewhere in the world? You can have different sorts of conservatives, you know.
Also, "conserative" is a political ideology, independant of party. I would think the UK Catholics denied the right to handle adoptions would care.
I am also of the understanding the what is called "conservative" in the US is often given the term "liberal" (not leftist) in Europe.Mzk1 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK no group in Britain identifies itself as 'social conservatives'. Mzk1 can you explain a bit more about what you mean by ""conserative" is a political ideology"? --Kleinzach 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of IP's comments from KKK section

I agree with Will Beback's arguments for inclusion of the KKK. However, user:Rjensen's removal of the responding IP's comments on the grounds that they were "derogatory...about another contributor" makes me uneasy, not least because I didn't see them as derogatory about Will or any contributor in particular but rather as a blustering and (IMO) somewhat peculiar attempt to contradict the content of Will's post. (If you want to see what a derogatory remark about another contributor really looks like, try this.) I'd like to see the IP's comments restored. Writegeist (talk)

The edit refers to other editors as "WP liberal gatekeepers" which is a personal attack and lowers the tone of discussion. TFD (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Writegeist - IP's comments should be included. No direct personal attack was made, and no language was used. No reason to remove. Toa Nidhiki05 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
the removed remarks also violated WP:BLP rules. The author tried to be as derogatory and insulting: You cannot use this "Brian Farmer" guy who clearly admits himself to be a far-left wing zealot as a "Historian" And as for attacks on Wiki contributors, he used language like this: "knee-jerk response by the left-wing..." This language is "derogatory" and therefore violates Wiki rules and hurts the quality of the work. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The IP says that the proposed source is a self-described far-left zealot. The collegial response would be to (1) ask for a supporting diff (2) ask the IP to strike the statement if no supporting diff is forthcoming and (3) strike the statement if the IP fails to do so. The IP uses the phrase "knee-jerk". It's a colloquial synonym for "automatic" (i.e. predictable). It may be mistaken in this context, (I happen to think it probably is) but I do not see it is as derogatory, or as legitimizing the removal of the IP's post. Censorship of harmless and sincerely-held views is not conducive to a collegial editing environment. I note that several posts to these pages, including from The Founder, have appeared to be accusatory, belittling and dismissive (and therefore arguably derogatory), yet those comments have not been removed.
@TFD: The tone of discussion on this project's pages has been lowered a lot further by other participants than by the IP. If "lowering the tone" is legitimate grounds for deletion (is it?), why start with the IP? Writegeist (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
He violated WP:BLP by calling Brian Farmer "a far-left wing zealot" -- that is totally false and Wiki rules say it MUST be supported and unsupported derogatory comments about living people MUST be immediately removed. The whole passage is derogatory and Wiki rules are the guideline here (not free speech). The WP:BLP rule = Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. If he tries it again I will initiate blocking procedures. Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually that's not correct. He did not call Mr. Farmer "a far left-wing zealot". He said that's what Mr. Farmer had admitted himself to be. As I explained, a simple request for a diff would have sufficed. As for the "whole passage" being "derogatory", that is just your opinion, and it is clearly not supported by the content of the whole passage, as I have already explained. And unless you are an administrator (are you?), you don't have the power to "initiate blocking procedures" (time for an Rfa?). Writegeist (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I support the removal of the IP talk entry. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Most Wikipedians have discovered that if you feed the trolls, it makes it worse. It's a waste of time to try to potty train them. the statement that Framer admitted he was a "a far left-wing zealot" is a derogatory statement--it is a lie and a total fabrication. and it's unsourced. Wiki has zero tolerance for unsourced derogatory comments per WP:BLP . The whole passage was designed to be derogatory, to ridicule Wikipedia, its editors, its content, and its reliance on Farmer. (for example he wrote: our youth are being exposed to this "wiki-history" and our true history is being systematically erased, thanks in large part to Wikipedia and their tolerance of being taken over by leftist zealots.) And indeed any editor can call for a person to be blocked (only an administrator can do the actual blocking). Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Trolls and potty training, eh? Now who's being derogatory and lowering the tone? Lol. Breaking off from dialogue here that has nothing to do with improving the article, and replying at jensen's talk. Writegeist (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC that members may be interested in

On the Fox News article. [5] SeanNovack (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

Lionelt removed the project banner from talk:Ku Klux Klan with the edit summary "far-right is not conservatism".[6] I added it because the Ku Klux Klan is described in Brian R. Farmer's American conservatism: history, theory and practice as a "conservative extremist group", part of a "conservative reaction" to the Roaring Twenties, etc.[7] Obviously, conservative groups can also be extremists.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Another illustration of the need for a project scope definition? This one could go either way. If Lionelt thinks conservatism is centre-right not far-right, perhaps he can propose this? I'd be happy to support such a position, if it led to some clarification. --Kleinzach 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
In a discussion above, #Labelling of foreign political parties, the consensus seemed to be that a single source calling an entity "conservative" is sufficient. Whatever criteria we use it should be fairly objective and consistently applied.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it might be better to create a parallel project, "right-wing radicalism"? aprock (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that wouldn't affect this project. Articles can be in multiple projects.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The KKK meets Lionelt's criteria for inclusion by having a single reliable source that calls it conservative. Also, the 1920s Klan and the modern Swiss People's Party both belong to the same political family. Could Lionelt please explain the criteria he is using. TFD (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
the problem is that there are three entirely different groups that used the KKK name. The current KKK--small and violent--has no conservative connections. But KKK-#1 (1860s) and KKK-#2 (1920s) were indeed conservative according to most RS I have seen. Rjensen (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article inclusion is determined on a case by case basis. If the consensus of the membership is to include KKK then so be it. Here we go...

On what basis would you remove a group that is called "conservative" in reliable sources?   Will Beback  talk  10:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The basis is that you are attempting to prove a point. Previously you wrote "This project has already achieved overkill ... even the tagging of a tangentially connected topic is defended at length." The point you're trying to prove is that "any article with at least one source describing it conservative is included." There is no indication whatsoever of conservatism in the KKK article. You expended a bit of effort to unearth a "tangential" connection. If the project is too big, as you say, why are you adding articles? If you oppose tangentially connected topics, why are you adding tangentially connected topics? I have always valued your contributions, Will, but this path you're following I find surprising and alarming.– Lionel (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Is there a consensus that this project should stop expanding? There has been considerable discussion about the inclusion of religion, but otherwise I'm not aware of a discussion which has agreed that we should stop adding articles. If you disagree then please say so. If not, I don't understand your objection to adding one more.
Regarding the source, do you think that Brian R. Farmer's American conservatism: history, theory and practice, written by a social sciences professor and published by Cambridge Scholars Press, is a tangential or unreliable source? That book devotes a whole section to the Klan, not just a passing mention. If one source is not sufficient there are more. But however we decide this let's set a standard we can use project-wide.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The argument that "The KKK has always had a history deeply entrenched with Democrats" is false--the KKK in the 1860s was anti-Republican & the KKK of the 1920s was bipartisan. Byrd became a prominent Democrat long AFTER he renounced the KKK. and note David Duke, Republican candidate for governor of Louisiana. Rjensen (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear which assertion you're calling "false". However the issue is whether, during significant parts of its history, the KKK has been considered to be conservative or closely connected to conservatives or conservatism, not which U.S. political party it was connected to. Anyone with a decent knowledge of American history knows that the Democratic and Republican parties of the 19th century bear little resemblance to their current selves, so political affiliation is besides the point.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I was responding to a passage that has since been erased by its poster: (The KKK has always had a history deeply entrenched with Democrats....) I'm glad it's gone. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying that. Actually, it looks like the editor moved his comment to the end of this thread, where I responded as well.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Another more extremist, nativist organization that affected rural America and that represented the viewpoint of some socially conservative Americans was the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). [8]
  • [Canada] Many top men in the Klan were Conservatives ("The Klan leaders openly proclaim their adherence to the Conservative Party," said one contemporary newspaper report14) and a good number of leading Conservatives were Klansmen. [9]
  • The Klansman is usually a conservative member of Southern society. [..] The Ku Klux Klansman is always a conservative. [10]
  • [Canada] The underlying objective of the KKK was to facilitate the Conservatives' return to political power. [..] In effect, the Klan functioned as the terrorist wing of the Conservative Party. Many prominent Conservatives helped to organize the Klan, and some numbered among the leaders.[11]
  • [misreading--distinguishes conservatives vs KKK] White conservatives' success at turning Klan attacks into lynchings signals the importance of language in Reconstruction. [12]
  • [Canada] But the Klan attracted followers from every party. Conservatives were the main supporters. [13]
  • Women of the Klan, like other conservative women's groups, saw no contradiction between political activism and their defense of women's maternal roles.[14]
  • Women belonged to numerous patriotic organisations in the 1920s, but perhaps none as conservative as the Knights of Kamelia and the Women of the Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).[15]

We have many sources which describe the Klan (at least some iterations of it) as conservative. If we don't include it then we need to rethink the scope of this project.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. Your statements are clear and unambiguous. Now... You asked me what my basis for opposition was. I responded that the basis was WP:POINT. Then, I asked you, "If the project is too big, as you say, why are you adding articles?" You responded with: "Is there a consensus that this project should stop expanding?" Well, I didn't ask about a consensus. I asked you why are you adding articles? Since I did you the courtesy of responding to your direct question, I would appreciate a response to my direct question. – Lionel (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:POINT says do not disrupt the project to illustrate a point. How would adding a group which is widely considered conservative by scholars disrupt the project?
Above, you wrote: At the very least, "UDP has been described as conservative" by at least one RS. That is more than enough for this project. One source more than enough but nine source are insufficient?
You've taken my comment about overkill out of context. You'll see that just a few lines later I also wrote, "let's go for broke and see if we can get the project up to 30,000 articles." You didn't disagree with that proposal. How large should the project be, and would adding one more article put it over the limit?   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. WikiProjects are supposed to be collaborations for working on the encyclopedia. This one seems to be perpetually arguing about its scope. Given the wide usage of the word 'conservative', relying on RS is bound to be problematic. Using RS presents a lot of difficulties in general, as you can see If you look at notability guideline pages etc. Much depends on the context in which RS are used. The New York Times might seem to be a copper-bottomed RS for most things, but obviously not for microbial taxonomies. --Kleinzach 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But the sources listed above are directly relevant to the issue of political and sociological affiliations. However I disagree that relying on RS is problematic. Wikipedia is built on a foundation of reliable sources, without which we have nothing.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Will, that list of sources serves to convince me the Ku Klux Klan has been considered conservative by enough observers to merit the project banner. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Several of the citations deal with Canada, where the Canadian KKK was close to the Canadian Conservative party. One citation is plain misleading. Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the relevance of Canada? It's my understanding that this project covers conservatism around the world. It's possible that an excerpt may be out of context - I grabbed them hurriedly. But that would not change the equation.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
@Klein: the problem with redefining the scope is the proponents of this initiative. Will Beback is not a member and has no standing in a scope discussion and he encouraged TFD to join not to improve articles but to argue about the scope. He's on record stating that the project is too big. Besides being 1 of only 2 members voting to delete WPConservatism, TFD favors a scope which would only cover American articles--thus shrinking the project by half. Binksternet nominated the project for deletion--enough said. They respectively want to inhibit growth, reduce the project to a shell, and delete the project entirely. It could be argued that their positions and actions have not been in the best interest of this group. These are the editors who obsessively propose redefining the scope on a regular basis, and to adopt any of their proposals would be to our detriment.– Lionel (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Lionel: Off topic. The subject is Ku Klux Klan. Once again, please don't use these discussions to make personal attacks. --Kleinzach 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm obviously a member of this project, and I think that line of argument is a bit offensive since I've worked more on project articles then most other members. I have not sought to "redefine" the project but rather to refine its vague definition, which may or may not include all anti-communists and all fundamentalist religions.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
In the future, I suggest we stick to discussing articles and other conservatism-related issues, and avoid discussing individual editors.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well, usually a project banner should be placed on the article if the project itself is willing to work on it. Since WP:Conservatism is not willing to do so, the banner was probably rightly removed by User:Lionelt. Besides, the article on the KKK seems to be covered by a plethora of more relevant projects, such as WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Terrorism. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. We've obviously been working on this article. How many of the project's 3000+ articles have you been working on?   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello User:Will Beback, my apologies, I was not aware that you are a part of WikiProject Conservatism. I can still see why others, such as User:Lionelt would remove the tag from the article on the KKK. To add a WikiProject Conservatism banner on the KKK article is analogous to adding a WikiProject Liberalism banner to the article for Mass killings under Communist regimes. Both the KKK and Communist régimes are "far-right" and "far-left" groups that one might not want to associate with mainstream Conservatism and Liberalism, respectively. I hope you are understand where I am coming from. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 04:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what liberalism would have to do with Mass killings under Communist regimes but it is a tagged as part of the socialism wikiproject, which makes perfect sense. Per the numerous sources listed above, the Klan was a conservative group, with conservative members and which supported conservative parties. BTW, it's important to remember, when discussing the Klan, that historically there were at least three distinctly different Klans, and in modern times there are numerous Klan groups. The "second" Klan, which reached its peak in the 1920s, was relatively mainstream unlike the modern ones.   Will Beback  talk  05:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Anupam, anybody you encounter on this talk page should be accorded the respect of a fellow editor, not hounded for supposed membership. Regarding membership, anybody who takes part in a WikiProject is a de facto member whether or not they formalize the connection. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The issue of the Klan came up because Lionelt decided to to include the far right Swiss Peoples Party (SVP) in the project, even though sources say it has abandoned conservatism. Lionelt said that if a single reliable source called a group conservative then it belonged in the project. My question to Lionelt is why is the SVP acceptable while the KKK is not? (BTW the KKK in Canada was close to the Conservative Party of Saskatchewan, not the Conservative Party of Canada.) TFD (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The aren't actually linked, but you're right that we should seek to formulate and apply a consistent standard. Trying to find a consensus on each individual inclusion, without any guidelines, isn't practical when the project could include thousands or tens of thousands of pages.   Will Beback  talk  06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a WP:POINT discussion. It seems the only goal of Will Beback, TFD, and Binksternet at this project is to disrupt the project. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I consider that close to a personal attack. I've done nothing to disrupt this project and doing so certainly is not my goal. Please avoid making negative personal remarks about your fellow editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with WB that the comment was nearly a personal attack. Regarding my goal: I have worked against what I perceived as Lionelt's desire to gather a minion for making POV changes to articles: vote stacking. I nominated the project for deletion so that I would not have to stay so very alert against such a strategy. On the other hand, when the project takes a neutral stance and simply improves articles I am satisfied with its work. I approve of the widening of its scope to include articles about topics that are not palatable but are certainly under the auspices of conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, it's questioning your purposes here. For all the whining about the scope, none of you have actually proposed a well-defined scope or shown any interest in working to create one. At least to the best of my knowledge. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
My purpose here is the same as everyone else's should be: to collaborate on improving Wikipedia articles. Please do not make accusations to the contrary unless you're willing to support them with proof, and please don't refer to my remarks here as "whining". As a matter of fact, i have made clear proposals regarding scope. The question here is why one editor decided that the Klan was outside the scope of this project, despite clear and extensive connections to conservatism. Attacking the integrity and purported goals of other editors is not a good way of addressing simple issues like this. Please do not make further negative remarks about your fellow editors.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that I'm wrong about you. But Binksternet nominated the project for deletion and TFD !voted to delete, then they both stayed in the project after the nomination failed. It's not unreasonable to question their purposes here. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've said it before: I'm here for the same reason your car has brakes. Action is not equivalent to useful progress. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
NYY, you should read WP:AGF and WP:NPA: you should not question the motives of other editors on article talk pages. I voted to delete the project because "the topic is ambiguous and therefore the scope is unclear". I have actually created several articles in the project and substantially contributed to many more. However, I believe that the scope of the project needs definition. TFD (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. We are trying to determine the criteria for inclusion in the project. The KKK is definitely considered conservative under some criteria. Can you explain what criteria you believe should be used? TFD (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
to go back a step to the Swiss party in question--many RS are explicit that it is "conservative". for example: a) "the conservative right — led by the Swiss People's Party and also composed of some minor, more radical right-wing parties- — has been doubling its share of the vote during this period." in Hanspeter Kriesi, Direct democratic choice: the Swiss experience (2005) p 27; b) "This vote was likely seen as an endorsement of the Swiss People's Party and was likely to lead it to push forward its conservative agenda, including more conservative policies in general" from George Ritzer, Globalization (2009) p 310; c) "The Swiss People's Party is a nationalist, conservative party, gaining votes with populist, xenophobic and nationalist policies not very different from other European right wing parties." from Georg Lutz, Participation, information, and democracy (2006) p 15. Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As your source says, it is a right-wing populist party, which is a different political family from conservatism, see for example this extract from Alan Ware's Political Parties and Party Systems. When Ware wrote, he included the SVP as conservative, but it is now considered right-wing populist. All these parties are often called conservative. Does right-wing populism fall within the scope of this project and, if so, do we include far right parties, such as the British National Party which Ware would have grouped with the extreme right? Do we also include Christian Democrats and Liberals who are described as conservative? TFD (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I would exclude extremist parties, (which reject political values like democracy) but INCLUDE "right wing populist" parties in Europe. (In the US, the Tea Party Movement, altho not a "political party" does fit the "right-wing populist" mold, & I consider the Tea Party to be "conservative". (I believe the current KKK is extremist, as are militia movements in the US) Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"Extremistst" is a vague description, and it's not clear why that would be part of the scope. Are conservatives never extreme? Some folks considered Ronald Reagan an extremist - so there could be a lot of contention over deciding that boundary. Would folks here feel comfortable if Wikiproject Socialism excluded extremist groups on that side, like communist parties?   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "Extremist" can be vague at times. But I see nothing vague in klan sponsored terror and lynchings, cross-burnings, etc. The klan may have a rosier side, but I can understand why people don't won't the klan included in their conservative project. If project socialism did not want similar terror groups included in their socialism project, I have no argument with them. I agree with LionelT that members of the group, through consensus, can decide how to manage the project. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me quote Farmer again.
  • Conservative Extremism, like other facets of conservatism, is not monolithic, but diverse.
Scholars consider conservative extremism to be part of conservatism. Either this project follows the path laid out by scholars, or it's just the cherry-picked interests of anonymous Wikipedia editors. Do editors here support changing the name of the project to "Mainstream Conservatism"? If that's the scope then that should be the name.   Will Beback  talk  03:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Will, let it go. We are not obligated to support any page we don't want to support- you're double-barreled questions do not help your case any. Whenever you pull some bullcrap like this, it holds up legitimate work. Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. I seem to remember someone saying that " 'has been described as conservative' by at least one RS [...] is more than enough for this project." Why isn't that true anymore when it's a group that might make conservatism look bad? This is WP:Conservatism, not WP:People and groups Lionelt and Anupam personally agree with (or rather, People and groups public association with whom doesn't discredit Lionelt and Anupam), which is not an appropriate scope for a Wikiproject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The klan offends many conservatives. Some "liberals" like to paint intense conservatives with the same brush they do the klan. But the klan follows its own agenda and if a new way of behavior, radically new, helps them reach their goals, they have no interest in being conservative. I realize that labeling the klan conservative, or not, is controversial. But most, if not all, contemporary conservatives distance themselves from klan ways. To include the klan in the conservative movement is to misrepresent the movement, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • DRS - Currently, the consensus seems to be that the scope of this wikiproject is not limited to the conservative movement, which is generally considered to be an American movement begun in the 1950s. Se #Scope, below. If you think the project should be limited, then you might want to comment down there. As it is, many articles are included which are not part of the conserviative movement at all, includung the French royal family, the Bourbons.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion, per Lionel, NYYankees51, Anupam and DonaldRichardSands. The KKK article does not describe the Klan as "conservative". It uses the word exactly twice, one of those in a footnote. Lionel's action is correct; and, it makes the project scope more precise: true hate groups (like the Klan) and groups as far out of the mainstream as the KKK will not come under the umbrella. --Kenatipo speak! 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Then I assume you'd approvie of its inclusion if the article did say it was conservative, an inclusion which would be well-supported by the above list of excerpts from sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • From the guideline

    A group of editors cannot be forced to support any article that they do not wish to support, or prohibited from supporting any article that they wish to support

If this group wants to exclude an article that is ostensibly within the scope then it is our prerogative. If this group want to exclude an article because it makes us "look bad" or any other reason it is entirely within our prerogative. If an article is brought here for discussion of inclusion/exclusion the consensus rules regardless of the prevailing interpretation of the scope. – Lionel (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Several of the members of the groups are already working on the Klan article.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. At least three members of the project are already editing it.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose : This is a good example of what is wrong with WP "neutrality". The KKK has always had a history deeply entrenched with Democrats. The KKK was created to terrorize Republicans who supported ending slavery, and right up to the 1960's, Democratic Congress member and long-time KKK leader Robert Byrd was tolerated by the modern democratic party. Even with this solid, non-refutable historical evidence, The WP liberal gatekeepers want to throw that history away because a liberal professor named "Brian Farmer" out of a small texas college wrote a book of revisionist history. Five minutes Googling professor Brian Farmer reveals clearly that he is an uber-left liberal, with a definite personal agenda. Why does his book trump solid history of the KKK, enough to peg the KKK as a "right wing" organization in the USA political model, when the Republican Party in the USA was the target of the KKK from its onset? I shudder when I think of the schoolkids learning their "history" from WP. Unbelievable. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not the Republican Party project. In the late 19th century the Republicans were the more progressive party and the Democratic Party was more conservative in many respects. In any case, Farmer is one of many scholars and commentators who consider one or more iterations of the Klan to be a conservative movement. The partisan tone of the above posting is unhelpful to resolve issues concerning what purports to be a non-partisan project.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per guideline posted by Lionel. If our WikiProject is opposed to its inclusion under us, then we should be the ones who keep it off, and its inclusion need not be forced upon us. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the multitude of reliable sources cited by Will Beback. Writegeist (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)