Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against conservatives


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination against conservatives

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research article about alleged discrimination against social conservatives in the US. The article presents an unsourced thesis and then argues it with a loose collection of cherry picked examples of supposed discrimination against conservatives. In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups. The title may be a candidate for redirection to Social conservatism in the United States. The article is mostly scandal mongering and lacks merit as a serious encyclopedia article. - MrX 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * weak keep Could the content of the article result in increased persecution of individuals such as those in same sex relationships?  If so that could be a valid justification for censorship.  Gregkaye (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)  but its mainly weak because I don't like what I'd describe as conservative attitudes.  The multiple issues cited are: may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline; may not include all significant viewpoints; lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies; examples and perspective in this article represent opinions from the United States and may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (all from June 2014).  Notability! all seems verifiable - 28 references, significant viewpoints: if there is discrimination then the discriminated against must be allowed to speak, if they are wrong then please say why they are wrong, again please, undue weight: how? the article has a topic and is sticking to it, (but I might support a proposed rename if there is a term with a wider meaning than discrimination to enable a wider view of the topic), US centric: I'd speculate that after the US has suffered under George W. Bush etc. there may be more motivation to discriminate against conservatives in the US than other places .. but if that is where discrimination is happening and if thats where "folk" are talking about it then they have a right to speak.    I also feel wary about main author and self proclaimed Dr. Bobbie Fox who I wasn't able to find on google  Gregkaye (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as original synthesis.--4scoreN7 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives. I see a list of examples of people/companies who faced various consequences/bad press as a result of statements on the subject of same sex marriage. There is nothing in here that's actually about conservatism (in the United States or elsewhere). There are indeed a lot of sources out there claiming discrimination against conservatives, but these (like the present article) almost always boil down to a single issue and thus are better suited for our various encyclopedia articles on those specific controversial issues. So delete as an article which exists only as the product of WP:SYNTH. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  19:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will say, however, that I was surprised to see that we don't have an article for political discrimination (maybe I'm just failing in my searches for an equivalent?). But I do see political repression and pages for every notable controversial issue on which people on either side could claim discrimination. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If Rhododendrites' accusations are substantiated then, if it is possible, I would love to see a redirect to a title such as "Discrimination against conservatives in the context of an opposition of same sex marriage". Otherwise, in light of WP:CENSOR and admittedly from the perspective of someone not from the United States, I am not sure how far we can go with this.  A section could certainly be added to the article with a title like "Reports of contexts of reported incidents of discrimination".  A mention of discrimination in this article may be a double edged sword but, again, I am talking from an outsiders perspective. Gregkaye (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding this and your comment above, I fail to see how WP:CENSOR is relevant here. The question isn't whether or not it's harmful, offensive, etc. The question is whether this page is appropriate as an encyclopedia article (i.e. that it is neutral and balanced in its coverage, it is well sourced to reliable sources, contains no original research or synthesis, is not already covered by other articles, and is it notable). We don't redirect to non-existent pages, so are you suggesting instead to rename the page? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have placed original research and neutrality tags on the article and I totally agree. Delete.  You say that you don't see an article about discrimination against conservatives.  Is there a tag for misrepresentation of title or similar.  In another situation perhaps this is the kind of labelling that might be used.  It is clear that article titles should be representative of their contents.  I also think that, as a general rule, articles should be correctly tagged in line with the content of an AfD preferably before AfD requests are submitted.  Yes, I had in effect suggested a move but that seems a moot point now.   Gregkaye (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think that Wikipedia should rethink its policy on censorship. Gregkaye (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pure WP:OR. An article on a phenomenon that does not actually exist outside the tortured fringe spheres of the right-wing blogosphere. A laundry list of disparate white people problems does not a topic make. Tarc (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This sorry article starts by citing "a survey carried out by the [sic] psychologists of the [sic] Tilburg University among their colleagues". True, it only does so via a Moonie-financed newspaper; but very little effort is needed to find the actual article, "Political diversity in social and personality psychology", indeed written by two psychologists at Tilburg U, and apparently published in a respectable journal. The article says In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate. Now, one shouldn't rush to write articles on the strength of a single academic article (so far little cited, though there is this), and this study may be mistaken; but Perspectives on Psychological Science is not a "tortured fringe sphere of the right-wing blogosphere". -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's plenty of evidence that people avoid or oppose those who do or say things they find repellent. Some of these "things" are often associated with the right wing, just as others are often associated with the left. The article alludes to a single paper (PDF) that talks of discrimination against conservatives. There could be something to this. Wait until it's clear that there indeed is. Meanwhile, this is mostly a ragbag collection of efforts to spurn or oust a few semipublic figures because of particular beliefs or actions ascribed to them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, as the author of the original article, I can see it wasn't very consistent. However, there is an ongoing trend of boycotting/vilifying public figures who oppose gay marriage in the 2010s, which clearly wasn't present in the 2000s (it's not just "avoiding or opposing" like Hoary said, it involves launching massive campaigns against these people's art, career, etc.). It shouldn't be too difficult to find reliable sources on that matter (Deseret news, Washington post, Daily caller, etc.), which analyze the trend as a whole. Therefore I suggest renaming it to Discrimination against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States, Social pressure against same-sex marriage opponents in the United States or something like that. --Dr. Bobbie Fox (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As used in a substantial number of reliable source books etc. implicitly or explicitly - including NYT usage regarding "liberal bias" etc.  It may well need a different title, but simple deletion is simply covering our eyes as to what is discussed in many places now.  It is, moreover, not our place as Wikipedia editors to make any value judgments that "it was their fault because they opposed something which is a fundamental right" (In many cases, the subjects themselves are notable for promoting discrimination against other individual and groups.) or the like.   We only can use what the sources specifically state, so that sort of argument is invalid here. ,    etc.   Better to improve this article than to let such non-policy reasoning hold sway here. Collect (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)   I removed some "extravagant language" from the article - but a genuine skeleton of an article definitely exists. Collect (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename per Rhododendrites. To be neutral, a title like Political discrimination in the United States would be best.  As titled, the article is a problematic but the basic premise behind it is sound and the current material is sourced and worthwhile as a start.  People/orgs/biz discriminate based solely on political leanings in the US, and there is plenty of material about the topic.  While this focuses only on conservatives (which is a problem), I'm confident that the pendulum swings both ways and the overall topic of discrimination is worth writing about.  Rather than see it go away, I think we are better to open the door and cover the topic in a broader sense.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I am no expert on the subject but I suspect that any suggestion, in title, article or reference, that connects sexuality to political affiliation would likely be misleading. Sexuality is one thing.  Politics is another. Gregkaye (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow you. You seem to be confusing "discrimination" with sexuality, or something I'm just not getting.  Nothing in my comment was a reference to sexuality. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:BLOWITUP. The "examples" are all "discrimination against anti-homosexuals", and are only reported, not put in any context.  The paper referred to in the lead does (at least, appears to) report discrimination against conservatives, but I suspect you could find equally good sources that conservatives discriminate against liberals.  My google-foo is not the best, but political discrimination looks more appropriate, if commentary on the issue can be found.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the university study was not about LGBT positions but "conservative" in general, and this is likely the single strongest source in the article on the exact topic.  I suspect the NYT  Public Editor columns about bias on that newspaper also would be germane, and a few other sources.  There are, of course, arguments that anyone perceived to be "not us" is likely to be discriminated against, but that is not a policy based reason for deletion of this article IMO. Collect (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The university survey (not study) was about "conservative" in general; however, it wasn't even single-blind (the participants knew the researchers, as well as the other way around). Although in a legitimate journal, it has no statistical significance.  Even if the article were to be kept, I would question the "reliability" of the source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Parsing "survey" v. "study" seems without merit here. Meanwhile the topic makes the NYT,  Bloomberg's speech at Harvard,     Okrent's dissection of the NYT in his position as Public Editor,  inter alia.  It is a "real topic" and likely should also include allegations of anti-liberal attitudes as well,  but real topics merit Wikipedia articles. Collect (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to head off at the moment, but the survey would fail the form of WP:RS now applied to scientific articles. I'll have to consider whether the NYT articles (if they are articles) discuss discrimination against conservative ideas or discrimination against conservatives.  If they do discuss the topic of the article, we could add them to the lead, and remove all the examples, and start editing again.  In that case, I would change my !vote to Keep (but remove examples which do not say specifically that they are "discrimination against conservatives", and are commented on.  That would be all the examples now here.  I do not think the published survey is adequate to indicate notability.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it a scientific articla? In a news article that does not erroneously confuse sexual issues with political issues I see no problem.  It might be relevant to state the category of source that a citation came from: academic source, university-level textbook, book published by respected publishing house, magazine, journal, mainstream newspaper etc. if this categorisation was applied consistently to citations.  Gregkaye (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect, I looked at both of the links you provide. Both briefly address allegations of a liberal bias (one in TV content, the other in the NYT). "Discrimination" is a slippery term, and in one of its meanings I unashamedly discriminate among choices during most of my waking hours (and ought to be institutionalized if I didn't); in this context, though, we're surely talking about inequitable and unjustifiable discrimination against people. I don't see any mention in either of those links of a claim that those who hold or espouse views that are conservative (however defined) are discriminated against (have difficulty getting served, have difficulty getting, keeping or advancing in their jobs, are "profiled" for immigration or police checks, etc). I'm willing to believe that sane people have seriously alleged that such discrimination exists; you are of course free to add it to the article under discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No doubt, there is such thing as discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, discrimination research looks like | this. It accounts for methodology and data sets and statistical measures. I would love to see some competent studies of discrimination against conservatives. Unfortunately, there's none to be found here. This is WP:COATRACK.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious coatracky synthesis; there's no there there in these disparate incidents. People choosing how to spend their money isn't discrimination - it's the free market, baby. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The article title has no basis in political reality. This is is not discrimination. Look at that article. See anything about political affiliation there? Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion etc is prohibited by the US Constitution, while treating people differently because of their politics is no more than refusing to cooperate, and any laws forcing cooperation with opposing political forces would be the worst sort of impingement on political freedom. Anarchangel (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No policy issue -- just a claim that refusing to work with people because of their political beliefs is fully proper - thus is not "discrimination." What an interesting viewpoint, but not one which has any policy basis at all. Collect (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Constitution comes first. Then, maybe, we write about it. That is to say, it must be notable. In a case of discrimination, if it is not covered by the Constitution, it does not exist. If it does not exist, it is not notable, and we do not write about it. Not my fault if there is no WP rule that specifically states there should not be articles about a subject which is defined so badly as to be nonexistent. I suspect there are, though. I suspect, also, that you have stumbled upon a new Argument to Avoid in deletion discussions; sort of the opposite of the rule against throwing acronyms at the problem instead of using logical arguments. I used a logical argument and no acronyms. So? Anarchangel (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! If the Constitution does not cover it, it does not exist is an amazing claim.  Cheers -- but if that is the basis for "deletion" then anyone closing it should give that argument the precise weight it deserves. Collect (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect that there may be United States conservatives that neither support or oppose same sex marriage. Some may even support it and some may themselves be very gay.  I also suspect that there may be people from other political views that have strong opposition to same sex marriage.  I would be dubious about any title that associated sexuality based prejudice and a political view if there were more broadly defined titles that could be sensibly used.  An association might be done on a more individual basis but within the context of an article  Gregkaye (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:TITLE. Article titles should be what the article is actually about. This article is not about discrimination; it's a COATRACK of cherry-picked examples of reactions to discriminatory statements and actions of people who oppose same sex marriage. To loosely collect all of these reactions under the banner of 'discrimination' is blatant SYNTHESIS, it's misleading, and it violates WP:NPOV.- MrX 01:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you dislike a title - the course is to rename the article.  The fact is that one survey shows a concrete issue is what one must contend with -   and that the same concerns were expressed by the Public Editor of the New York Times.   Calling Okrent a "blatant" anything is likely incorrect.  And his point said nothing whatsoever about "same sex marriage" and the survey was not about "same sex marriage."  The cavils about the cases shown may indicate that broader cases should be added, but the assertion that no issue exists is simply blindness to real problems which have existed in many places over many years.   I suggest that a person in the pre-war South who opposed slavery would have been boycotted by his neighbors - and this is the same issue -- the issue of "trial by vote" of any political position.  Twain wrote about people viewed as "pro-Chinese" in nineteenth century San Francisco being driven out of town (an ongoing issue which arose again in the willful internment of Japanese-Americans in WW II and the interesting profitable seizure of their lands and businesses). Santayana's admonition about ignoring the past is relevant here.    Should the article be broader?  Likely yes.  Should it be deleted?  Likely no.  In fact, the perils of any "blacklist" would be a fit here.  Collect (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - a hot mess of original research and synthesis wrapped into a article fork of an urban legend. If this article about this fringe belief is kept, it must be re-named into something more neutral. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would not be opposed to Political discrimination in the United States, but this article has way too many issues, and I'm not convinced that all of them are solvable through normal editing.  A more neutral presentation that included actual discussion of the topic, instead of cherry-picked examples, would be a viable topic.  The way it's currently written seems to be some kind of "discrimination against bigots" soapbox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV coatrack. Political discrimination in the United States might be an encyclopedic topic. This article ain't it, nor even within the same zip code of being it... Carrite (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A load of recentvist hooey. Of no value in anything close to this form. 70.192.87.133 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:SYNTHESIS. No basis for renaming or redirecting. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.