Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias

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

The result of the discussion was  keep. NAC by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias


The first salvo by WikiProject Conservatism in an attempt to attack Wikipedia's "liberal" policies and guidelines from the safe and protected high ground of a user essay page. This essay, "Countering liberal bias" starts off by claiming to offer advice about the NPOV policy, immediately and implicitly establishing the superiority of "conservative bias" in a false dilemma. In this sneaky and surreptitious manner, this user essay tries to rewrite and reframe what the NPOV policy says while establishing a rationale for making Wikipedia a battleground to achieve these aims. For example, the essay attempts to negate the import and direction of the NPOV policy by arguing that minority opposing views must be represented using equal validity, which contradicts WP:VALID. To conclude, the essay is a coatrack for Conservapedia arguments that violate NPOV and is being used to provide battleground ammunition for members of WikiProject Conservatism. This attempt to rewrite the NPOV policy from the outside and use those ideas to disrupt the Wikipedia community with the goal of reframing the NPOV policy in favor of conservative bias is transparent. By doing this, the essay promotes the false idea that Wikipedia is a battle between conservative and liberal factions. If allowed to remain, this essay will be used by WikiProject Conservatism to rally the troops, weaponize discussions, and launch crusading campaigns with the rallying cry of WP:COUNTER! We must not let this happen. Essays should not be divisive or serve to target any member or group. Essays should encourage community not divide it, contribute to solutions not cause problems, and fairly represent the policies and guidelines they are referring to, not attempt to rewrite them. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't know if this delete rationale is compelling. I mean, really all the page does is say "Wikipedia has been accused of having a liberal bias" (fact, not opinion), and here are some tricks and tips and relevant pieces from essays and guidelines that are relevant. If this essay was called "countering bias", I don't think there'd be any problem with it at all. In fact, you claim that there is a call towards giving conservative ideas undue weight, but it explicitly mentions WP:UNDUE and uses a quote that, to my eyes, isn't really taking the policyline out of context. I think your issue is more about the title and author than the hard substance of the essay. Achowat (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep legitimate essay in userspace violating no Wikipedia policies or guidelines that I see. And the easiest way to avoid battles is not to take part in them -- whilst seeking to remove all essays one finds politically offensive is a move calculated exactly to increase battleground mentality. As for "targeting any member or group" - I see no perdonal attackes therein -- might you elucidate what precisely is so heinous here? Note particularly that I am not a member of any wikiprojects remotely connected to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 August 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Though it does indeed attack wikipedia's liberal policies nowhere does it "establish the superiority of "conservative bias""
 * also the article does not at all approve of making wikipedia a battleground it states verbatim in the essay


 * "If your changes are reverted, per the BOLD-revert-discuss cycle you should avoid edit warring and start a discussion on the article talk page in order to form a consensus"


 * Also wikipedia is over-represented by left-leaning editors (according to Jimmy Wales himself) wanting that not to affect wikipedia's neutrality by giving advice to other editors how to counter-act such bias if it occurs is perfectly reasonable. Finally I would cite WP:NOTCENSORED Lionelt has the right to speak such concerns for heaven sakes Jimmy Wales has expressed similar thoughts John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a few responses to your points: Wikipedia has no liberal policies; the process of creating an encyclopedia is not a political excercise. Jimbo doesn't get to make things facts; he simply said it was probably true, and the truth of that statement can, honestly, never be known. Also, WP:BATTLEGROUND isn't necessarily about edit warring; it's about a mentality of editing. Finally, Lionelt doesn't have any rights to do anything on Wikipedia; it's a private venture and the comments and contributions of individuals can be (and are) restricted by the WMF. Achowat (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad I meant to say bias, but you misinterpreting I meant to say that Jimmy Wales said this is a fact not that he was quoting a fact though it is pretty well-established and editors do have the right to contribute to wikipedia if it is productive, which the essay was so no one has the right to censor it. and I'm afraid your wrong some unfortunately do make the process of creating an encyclopedia into a political excercise as the essay was critiquing, so all my points were valid and mostly accurate John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John, that's not what Jimbo said. He said, "The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that."  That's hardly a "fact", John. Opinions aren't facts.  It's also been argued that the perception of liberal bias is in fact indicative of a narrow America-centrism POV, since the US is more conservative than the rest of the world when it comes to basic issues such as health care etc. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again I meant to say that Jimmy Wales said this, was a fact, not what he was stating was a fact as I already said and made Clear, plus Achowat already made clear it was not a fact so there is no use in continuing to discuss my vote, reasonong, or poor wording, let's get back to the real debate John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * John, according to actual evidence (facts) published in 2012, "Wikipedia's articles appear to be centered close to a middle point on average."  In other words, no liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence and facts point to the contrary and to say wikipedia has no liberal bias at all is wrong as saying wikipedia has no conservative bias at all, but there are a great deal more examples of liberal bias according to many reliable sources (see essay), one website opinion like Jimmy Wales opinion does not make it a fact, stop using my vote's poor wording for debate points it is off-topic to the disscussion at hand John D. Rockerduck (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: this essay first establishes--from our own article--that multiple RS have speculated that there is liberal bias. It then offers policy-based solutions for dealing with NPOV. From WP:ESSAY: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor" and "Essays that ... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Our policy, and our longstanding tradition, provide great leeway for essays in userspace. Bottom line: the nominators rationale is defective. It doesn't show that the essay violates any policy, and does not address the leeway provided to essays in WP:ESSAY. This essay passes WP:ESSAY. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 21:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My position is that this essay does not violate our policies. WP:NOESSAY warns that "Wikipedia essays" which "overtly contradict policy" are candidates for deletion. However it goes on to say that "Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays." Now I'm not saying that this essay violates policy, but even if it did this is permissible as a user essay.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It that case, it violates all three criteria: 1) Promotes claims expounding "liberal bias" from conservative pundits outside the site. Does not help aid Wikipedia, but aids culture warriors outside looking in 2) Promotes battlefield behavior and encourages discord 3) Contradicts NPOV and is "intended to undermine" it. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that this essay contains poor advice and reflects the ideological-battleground attitude of its author, but those are not necessarily problems to be solved by deletion. MastCell Talk 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. So it is acceptable for a user to start an essay about "Countering Christian bias", or "Countering Irish bias", or "Countering Mexican bias"? Is this what Wikipedia has become?  If so, you might as well redirect the entire site to Conservapedia and call it a day. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Should ideologically driven battlefield essays be allowed? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They do exist (though the term "battlefield" I fear is inapt here and making a judgement intrinsically on the essay), and are allowed as long as no editors are personally attacked. I would point out such userspace essays are usually left alone as simple courtesy (lots of precedents at MfD for this position, by the way). And as I noted -- deleting them is far more apt to cause a battle than anything else one might do. And in fact is, it is by not censoring essays that Wikipedia establishes NPOV as its rule - not "any unpopular essay will get chucked because we don't like it." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Multiple RS have covered liberal bias. This essay addresses what RS have described. This essay is about neutral point of view--nothing more, nothing less. The essay does nothing to forment a battleground--this wild allegation is ridiculous.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those aren't reliable sources, and this essay contradicts NPOV. We don't give equal validity to minority points of view. "Liberal bias" is an American code word for "any view I disagree with or that criticizes my pet theory about reality".  The essay only seeks to promote and encourage a battleground atmosphere by encouraging users to fight against liberals, liberalism, and "liberal bias", even though it can't produce a single example. This is a call to arms for WikiProject Conservatism, and a bugle call for them to start edit warring and disrupting the encyclopaedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources that this essay uses for its premise are reliable:
 * The Christian Post
 * National Review
 * Human Events
 * These sources are used in our very own article Criticism of Wikipedia. Really, Viriditas, your wild accusations of a "vast right wing conspiracy" are becoming tiresome, bizarre and shrill. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources for "countering liberal bias on Wikipedia". You're just doing what you always do, misusing sources to push a POV.  How many times have we been over this and how many times have you refused to correct your erroneous view of how we use sources?  Yes, I have been shrill about that point.  Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for you to use to disseminate propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're just flat wrong. Our very own article Criticism of Wikipedia states "Another criticism is that a politically liberal bias is predominant" and then provides reliably sourced discussion. You'll never admit you're in error, but everyone else can see it. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 23:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of criticism doesn't make it true. It is, as you just, just another criticism. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't paying attention. Read again: there are no reliable sources for "countering liberal bias on Wikipedia".  Do you understand the difference? Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're having difficulty keeping up. Let me guide you through this so you can understand. This essay quotes our very own article in stating that Wikipedia has been criticized for having a liberal bias. There are multiple RS that have lodged this criticism. The essay then provides relevant policies for dealing with the bias which has been criticized by multiple RS. But this is an essay. Essays do not even have to use a premise substantiated by RS. Essays do not have to comport with our policies. In fact, they may even contradict our policies. The fact that this essay uses a premise grounded in RS is just good composition, extra credit as it were. Bottom line: this essay is my opinion. And opinions--even those which contradict policy--not that this does--are allowed in userspace. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're on pretty weak ground with the "RS" argument. The sources in question are written by partisan writers and published in partisan outlets. Moreover, they focus on intelligent design and climate change - two areas where the scholarly, scientific understanding of reality differs from conservative ideology. It's not surprising that conservative ideologues would perceive scholarly coverage of those topics as "biased". In some ways, it's confirmation that we're appropriately representing expert opinion on those subjects. But you're correct that essays - especially those in userspace - are venues for opinion, and are often given great latitude in that respect. I think the opinions you're expressing in this essay are unconstructive and promote a divisive, ideologically driven battleground mentality, but that's on you. I don't think deleting the essay is going to solve that problem. MastCell Talk 00:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove: I'm not sure what legitimate purpose it has.
 * Is it intended to be published into public space? Is there a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of this happening?
 * Will it be referred to as a private essay? If so, to what end?
 * Is it a set of instructions to aid people in violating WP:NPOV by adding conservative bias?
 * I can see negatives, but I just don't see any positives. Perhaps it would help if the author explained his intent so that we don't have to try to read into it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The author has already explained his intent John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are finding inapplicable faults for essays in userspace. There is absolutely no requirement that a userspace essay be a mainspace article. Period. Hundreds of essays are referred to every day on Wikipedia - so that cavil is futile. Nor on its face dies it seek to violate Wikipedia's pillars. So you do not like it. That is what we are left with. Meanwhile from the Washington Post blog by Suzy Khimm (a reporter listed as Suzy Khimm covers the budget, economic policy, and financial regulatory reform. Before coming to Washington, she was based in Brazil and Southeast Asia, where she wrote for the Economist, Wall Street Journal Asia, Slate, and the Christian Science Monitor) states:
 * Northwestern’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed a decade’s worth of Wikipedia articles on U.S. politics and found that only a handful of them were politically neutral.
 * Wikipedia is less biased and partisan than in its early years--when the site’s political entries leaned Democrat
 * IOW, there had been a strong element of political bias in the past noted by researchers. There are, without doubt, areas where "highly interested parties" seek to dominate an article or group of articles -- in a few cases, the arbitration committee has basically "tossed the lot out", but that does not mean that have done a full job sweeping. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked the author to explain, so neither of you qualify. None of us can know for sure what he was thinking, only what he did. And what he did was to write an inflammatory pamphlet telling people to add conservative bias to articles and instructing them on how. As this is directly against a core policy, it's just the sort of propaganda that we shouldn't be hosting.
 * I'm suggesting we WP:IAR and do the right thing. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again the author did explain himself to repeat this earlier in this disscussion "this essay first establishes--from our own article--that multiple RS have speculated that there is liberal bias. It then offers policy-based solutions for dealing with NPOV. From WP:ESSAY: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor" and "Essays that ... are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." Our policy, and our longstanding tradition, provide great leeway for essays in userspace. Bottom line: the nominators rationale is defective. It doesn't show that the essay violates any policy, and does not address the leeway provided to essays in WP:ESSAY. This essay passes WP:ESSAY. – Sir Lionel" your not reading the article see: WP:IDHT John D. Rockerduck (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true, the essay violates the NPOV policy, encourages editors to violate it, and attempts to rally the troops to engage in battle with "liberals". This is the kind of essay that needs to be deleted on sight, but unfortunately, most admins don't have the courage of their convictions and are little more than button pushers. If the community is going to tolerate this kind of overt lobbying from Conservapedians then the policies and guidelines mean nothing. The essay claims "When viewpoints expressed by opponents and critics of liberal ideology are in the minority, they must still be given appropriate weight".  That statement directly (and quite purposefully) contradicts the WP:VALID clause of WP:NPOV which says, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented..." With the NPOV policy contradicted, the essay then goes on to claim that "when a liberal point of view is challenged or contradicted by a reliable source, that opposition must be reflected in the article".  Another false statement.  "Equal validity" is against policy. Furthermore, there is no definition of a "liberal point of view" nor could there be, because a "liberal view" is just a euphemism for anything that criticizes or contradicts conservatives or conservative concepts.  In other words, the essay states against policy that conservative minority viewpoints must always be represented. That's the exact opposite of what the NPOV policy says. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas--I take exception to your bandying about the "C" word. The label "Conservapedian" at Wikipedia is intended to be derogatory. I am not a Conservapedian and if there are any Conservapedians here it has nothing to do with this MFD. You obviously are using that label in a manipulative manner. You are a veteran editor and I expect more. I strongly suggest you delete. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In 2007, Conservapedia sold itself as a "much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American." When you say you are "countering liberal bias" on Wikipedia, what you really mean is that you are countering what you perceive as "anti-Christian and anti-American" bias.  In other words, your goal is identical to the goal of Conservapedia, except you've brought your culture war to Wikipedia itself under the cover of a WikiProject. What's the difference between your essay and Conservapedia's coverage of the topic? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me try to make this clear so you can understand:
 * I am not a Conservapedian
 * I don't know anything about the goals of Conservapedia
 * I don't care about Conservapedia
 * I am a proud  Wikipedian  who is here to expand and improve THIS encyclopedia and who has the bronze stars, green plusses and purple questionmarks to prove it
 * Do not tell me "what you really mean" do not tell me "what you perceive" do not tell me what "your goal is" when you have absolutely no fucking idea and STOP this personal attack NOW!– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 09:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Trotting out the old "I am not very familiar with Conservapedia" line again? Tsk, tsk. You've used that one up a few too many times. Where to begin?  In your essay you write, "Andrew Schlafly created Conservapedia because of his perception that Wikipedia contained a liberal bias. Conservapedia's editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia." So, your claim that you "don't know anything about the goals of Conservapedia" appears to be bogus.  Oh, and remember User:LioneltBot, the joke bot you proposed would replace all Wikipedia articles with articles from Conservapedia?  Good times. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your using that joke out of context and unfairly, Lionelt likes to joke around like that thats kinda his thing, thats why he added evil genius to his name now your just grasping at straws here John D. Rockerduck (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an essay in userspace. It reflects the user's opinions about the extent to which Wikipedia may not be achieving one of its core content policies and what to do about that. This essay may not be to everyone's taste but it is not so inherently problematic that it needs to be deleted altogether. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable essay. It is reasonable to attack Wikipedia's "liberal" policies and guidelines from a user essay page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is. This is an essay, not a an official guideline. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)  07:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not a Wikipedia essay, it is a user essay in a user space subpage. Per Wikipedia essays, "user essays have a purpose similar to essays placed in the project namespace; however, they are often authored by only one person, and may represent a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or do not contain enough advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors to be considered a Wikipedia essay." Needs only be a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia and the user essay appears to be that. Also, WP:UP mostly is for information not related to Wikipedia. This page directly addresses Wikipedia and no one has cited anyting within WP:UP as a reasonable basis to delete the page. Also, battleground is being misapplied. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest that UP is involved. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here that violates UP. In particular, the essay specifically warns against edit warring, saying, "If your changes are reverted, per the BOLD-revert-discuss cycle you should avoid edit warring and start a discussion on the article talk page in order to form a consensus." Nor does the essay advocate, encourage, or condone vandalism, copyright violation, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, or acts of violence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As you might have guessed, I disagree. The advice about edit-warring was along the lines of how not to get caught. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is about repeatedly override another's contributions. I only found single edit suggestions in the essay: "Be bold in editing pages that are biased." "The recommended method for achieving neutral text is to rewrite it." The user essay also says, "If your changes are reverted, per the BOLD-revert-discuss cycle you should avoid edit warring." OTOH, The user essay was created via a single edit. Was there a previous version of this user essay someplace else? (I found User:StillStanding-247/countering liberal bias (which lacks attribution) when trying to answer that question). Also, is there any arbcom decisions in this area (e.g. liberal v. conservatism)? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a user essay it is a statement of an opinion. That being said, this is the first I have heard of it, and it states not to advocate a position, but rather a call to look to make article more neutral in regards to a perceived liberal bias, as has been verified to be perceived by some readers of the articles, and as stated above studied to have been more prevalent in the past. And it is an opinion, but there appears to be an opinion by some editors (and as with opinions, other editors disagree with their opinions) that there are still bias in some articles out there. As this is a user essay, it's not really up to other editors to edit what that user believes are good tools to bring an article to more closely follow WP:NEU, even if we may have our own opinions on how the essay should be improved or disagree with our opinion of the users intent.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mastcell. The article is an ideologically driven personal essay of an editor who perceives neutrality as bias. It uses unreliable partisan sources to justify the position that bias exists. None of this seems to be a reason for deletion though. As we all know "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there's very very little in here after the copied-from-Conservapedia criticism section (oh, the irony, by the way) which actually says anything that actually relates to liberal-conservative editing. If you removed the "if you get stuck, canvass post a neutrally-worded message at WP:TORIES" and the two see also links under the "Article" subheader you'd have a perfectly neutral essay on NPOV. That is exactly what people should be getting pointed to when they get into this sort of debate. From the above comments I wonder if people (supporters and opposers alike) have actually read anything past the first two sections on the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the nomination and found no reasons for deletion. I noted the location, and skimmed to check that the content was project related and not horribly offensive in some way not mentioned by the nominator. Is there something I should read? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't read the essay as an "attack" at all, beyond the silliness of the second section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You must not have actually read the essay or the discussion up above. The essay very clearly says, "When viewpoints expressed by opponents and critics of liberal ideology are in the minority, they must still be given appropriate weight" and "when a liberal point of view is challenged or contradicted by a reliable source, that opposition must be reflected in the article".  This essay proposes that minority views must be represented and opposing views should be given equal weight.  The NPOV policy says otherwise.  This essay is an attempt to counter the NPOV policy and encourages conservative editors and members of WikiProject Conservatism to violate that policy. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not helping with childish "I know you are but what am I" comments. There is nothing wrong with the statement "when viewpoints expressed by opponents and critics of liberal ideology are in the minority, they must still be given appropriate weight", so long as one understands that appropriate here means relative to their minority position. The only contentious thing is that "when a liberal point of view is challenged or contradicted by a reliable source, that opposition must be reflected in the article" should be changed so that the second clause states "it is appropriate to include such challenges in the article if they have had a significant impact on the subject". The majority of the essay after the second section is fine as it is, and if the polemic before that were removed it would be exemplary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's quite a lot wrong with the statement "when viewpoints expressed by opponents and critics of liberal ideology are in the minority, they must still be given appropriate weight". There's no "must" about it and NPOV is clear on this: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented' along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nitpicking. We're not talking about an Internet Request for Comments where  and   have rigid and enforceable meanings, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would truly care which one a user essay used anyway. I came to this MfD expecting for the linked essay to be some sort of bad-faith cheatsheet, and that's how half of the comments here read. What it actually is is a pretty good (although not perfect) guide to "battling against liberal bias" by... following the well-accepted procedures that we have for countering bias in general, with very little in the way of language that would support or encourage improper editing. Editors concerned about the drama surrounding its author and his pet WikiProject should be doing their best to steer editors thus inclined to following these guidelines. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) @V: Are you suggesting that "conservative" views are, in your view, WP:FRINGE in Wikipedia? Seems that such is the path to getting yourself noted as non-collegial from the start - the essay's wording there is correct per ArbCom statements, per Wikipedia policy, per Wikipedia guidelines, and per community consensus. The idea that any editor can, with a straight keyboard, assert that "x-ist views" of any sort should not be given due weight is contrary to the very Pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, specific conservative views can be fringe. For example, conservative Christian viewpoints that dinosaurs lived alongside people etc are fringe views. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not fringe among Christian conservatives in the United States, come visit the Creation Museum.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry my point is that the views of US christian conservatives can be fringe, even if prevalent amongst US christian conservatives. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your point is still good, sorry. And your example is very fringe among Western nations.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice tangent there, guys. The problem is Vir's claim that there is no need to balance articles with any conservative political  viewpoints which are widely held and notable.  I did not read any of the discussion being about theological creationism etc. as being "conservative" or "liberal" in the essay.  Collect (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is the requirement for the existence of articles, not for article content. We should not be presenting political viewpoints in general except for describing the political views of a particular individual. This isn't wikinews, nor is it debatapedia; we just need to discuss topics neutrally from reliable independent sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Not must" is not the same as "must not". Viriditas is plainly not making the argument that you're putting in his mouth. Let's not let this devolved any further into ideological quibbling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Viriditas is missing a minor word that might be causing all this misunderstanding. "All viewpoints, no matter how crazy, need to be given appropriate weight". And the belief that Aliens came down to Earth in 1765 to plant dinosaur bones and infiltrate the USDA with Lizard people" is a belief that we give appropriate weight to. Namely, we don't mention a damn thing about it. Achowat (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I withdraw this nomination.  It's already snowing, anyway. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Its a personal essay.  Its allowed to be wrong, its also allowed to complain that since the world is more liberal than one segment of modern American conservatives in 2012, Wikipedia has a "liberal bias."  Debate is almost always better than shutting down debate.  And speaking of debate, I can also understand why Viriditas started this discussion.  Wikipedia is not the Huffington Post, organized political factionalism like this is somewhat new to me on Wikipedia, outside the classic debates of Saintly Inclusionists and Evil Deletionists, as well as feuding over the most ridiculous things among Balkan subjects.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no better way to identify an agenda-driven ideologue than to allow him to speak his mind. Skinwalker (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Outside Perspective - It appears that WikiProject Conservatism has been organized for purposes, at least in part, of !vote-stacking and WP:CANVASSING to create false consensus at targeted articles as well as article for deletion discussions. Just thought that any admin looking this over ought to be aware of that. Organized POV pushing is not fair or proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk • contribs)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.