Talk:ConservativeHome

Notability query
Do the passing mentions of Tim Montgomerie and the ConservativeHome blog in the articles linked to really establish notability? --SandyDancer 14:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose The website has a number of its own claims to noteriety, not least immitators such as LabourHome and, less seriously, |UKIPHome. However there have been a number of Tory related stories over the last two years that have originated at ConservativeHome - although admittedly these were added after the merge suggestion. JASpencer 15:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa. This isn't a deletion debate. I was asking a question - if I wanted to delete I would have nominated it. It seems to me very telling that all the sources here are more about Montgomerie than about the website. Maybe he's notable enough for an article but it isn't? Why do you oppose a merger assuming you do)? --SandyDancer 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the usual procedure for a merge debate. Any way ConservativeHome has a number of contributors (I came across it when researching other Tory figures, many of whom seem to have authored or co-authored a piece on there).  The two pieces on Orange (at the end of the article) don't mention Montgomerie at all.  Most of the A-List commentary only mentions Montgomerie in passing, if at all.  Other articles (such as the Progress Magazine article) are definately focussed on the blog rather than Montgomerie.  JASpencer 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a look at WP:WEB and the first criterion says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." It says that press releases and trivial mentions don't count.  I think that the Inigo Wilson affair (covered in more than one publication), the A-List expose (ditto) and the Progress magazine article adequately cover this.  They are also independent of Montgomerie who also has notability from the Conservative Christian Forum and 18 Doughty Street.  I think the merge tag can be removed.  JASpencer 15:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most references to the site are actually references to Tom Montgomerie. Those that aren't seemed to be passing refs. Why not merge this with Montomgerie giving him a more deletion-proof and readable article and drop this one? This site is effectively his homepage. --SandyDancer 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian evangelist
As I understand it, the site promotes the US-style "Religious Right" style politics favoured by its evangelical Christian founder. This should be reflected I think. --SandyDancer 16:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely, and embarrassingly, pov
Compare the entries on ConservativeHome versus LabourHome. Absolutely ridiculous. Reading the current article (and the comment above) would lead one to believe that CH.com is some kind of Thatcherite-meets-Texas-Pentecostal-Evangelism-meets-who-knows-what web page. Anyone who follows the website knows this to be absurd. The views of both the official posts and the blog comments run the gamut from those to the left of Kenneth Clarke to Cameroon to Thatcherite, with everything between and all around as well. And, if it matters, the comments also include plenty of Lib Dems and Labour supporters.

If the contributors who have thus far edited this article were actually interested in developing a factual account, somewhere in the entry they would have included, oh, I dunno, maybe the fact that CH gets tens of thousands -- actually hundreds of thousands -- of hits per month? And that LabourHome modeled itself after CH? No, why would anyone write that?

Oh, btw, this is an article on conservativehome.com, not Tim Montgomerie, however much one would like it to be on the latter.

And the citations?!?!! Most of them are misrepresentations the likes of which even Rupie M wouldn't follow.

And, random comment posters do not warrant subheadings in the WP e-n-c-y-c-l-o-p-e-d-i-a. Unless, that is, your point is not to right neutral articles, but rather instead to push your own politics through smearing. Oh, right....

I don't have time/energy to compete in a revert war, so maybe I could ask for some help here. Maybe we could get more than two people to contribute to this?

The article should be completely redone.

[Apologies for the cheap sarcasm, but this type of subjective editing really burns me, and it is definitely one of the problems that keeps WP from being taken seriously by many.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longlivefolkmusic (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Users who, despite being experienced on WP, don't sign their posts, and users who bitch about POV articles without actually suggesting or implementing changes "burn me". --SandyDancer 10:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake for not signing -- a sincere oversight. I was not, er, "bitching". I guess my tone was a bit strident, but frankly the comparison of CHhome versus Labhome deserved the stridency, I think. And I will be happy to "suggest and implement" changes, but I have a strong feeling that as soon as I do anything with the article I will be overrun by more experienced posters. Believe me, I do not want and am not trying to make any enemies here. And I would ask that we keep the talk pages focused on the articles as much as possible, not on each other.[Yes, my post above made reference to the entry editors, but it was in the context of the entry]. In any case, I stand by what I said in the previous post about the article, and I will try to get in some edits over the weekend..--longlivefolkmusic 16:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You said - Reading the current article (and the comment above) would lead one to believe that CH.com is some kind of Thatcherite-meets-Texas-Pentecostal-Evangelism-meets-who-knows-what web page. Why? The article itself doesn't say anything to suggest that. I think your objections are to things that have been said here on the talk page, not in the article. I think you should remove the POV tag on that basis. --SandyDancer 12:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just read this article again and don't think it is biased in the least - so good on JASpencer for removing the tag. --SandyDancer 15:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the POV tag. I really couldn't see what was wrong in the article itself.  I've also removed the merge tag as that proposal has gained no traction.  I've changed one of the criticisms - which seems to simply be inter-blog jealousy.  I think that's a suitable compromise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Oops. My bad. JASpencer 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Propaniac (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ConservativeHome → — The website's name is usually pronounced as two distinct words; the use of CamelCase is purely stylistic in the logo. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on ConservativeHome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522160746/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2180647,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2180647,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060614035908/http://adamboulton.typepad.com:80/my_weblog/2006/05/to_blogdom_a_bo.html to http://adamboulton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/to_blogdom_a_bo.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060904201219/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/17/uorange.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/17/uorange.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on ConservativeHome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930104840/http://www.progressonline.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=1246 to http://www.progressonline.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=1246
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C1052-2180647%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116121203/http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/08/inigo_wilson_a_.html to http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/08/inigo_wilson_a_.html
 * Added tag to http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=13427
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2006%2F08%2F17%2Fuorange.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028025952/http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/10/inigo_wilson_re.html to http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/10/inigo_wilson_re.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)