Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism

 __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 (and no consensus with regard to the issue of renaming this WikiProject). Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism


WikiProject Conservatism is at its root undesirable because its scope is undefinable. The terms "conservative" and "conservatism" have been used to describe people and concepts which have flip-flopped over time between liberal and conservative. For instance, the concept of a free market, free of government restraint, was once a liberal idea but now it is part of Reagan- and Thatcher-style conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Disregard above !vote per: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. (WP:AFDFORMAT)– Lionel (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This an unusual step for a WikiProject, but it is a step that should be taken. The Project is undesirable because it cannot be defined and because it causes divisiveness rather than cooperation. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How duplicitous you are Binksternet. You constantly troll the talkpage badgering, baiting and inciting members and then you come here and cite "divisiveness"? The only divisiveness is the disruption you constantly generate.– Lionel (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not duplicitous, just very, very concerned about the Project being a used for advocacy. Per WP:NOTADVOCATE, Wikipedia should not be used to promote political aims. This project was constructed from the get-go for political purposes, not for dusting off and polishing articles about Edmund Burke or Joseph de Maistre or Prince Klemens von Metternich. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "constructed from the get-go for political purposes"--stop lying--stop the personal attacks. You know that I founded the wikiproject. I resent you accusing me of politically motivated editing in violation of wikipedia policies and to the detriment of the encyclopedia. – Lionel (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "very, very concerned"? Then why didn't you mention it in your nom, or in your !vote, when you had the chance? Are you just throwing stuff against the wall to see what'll stick? Or just piggybacking other editors' arguments? – Lionel (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Get back to me after you delete all other pages dealing with fashions or using titles whose meaning differs over time.  The only thing divisive here is the POV nomination for deletion.  The usefulness of this project is based on the needs of its self-identified users. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that the topic is ambiguous and therefore the scope is unclear. However, since the vast majority of articles edited by members of the project relate to modern American conservatism, I suggest that the project be re-named with that limited scope.  TFD (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't that be a "Move" rather than a delete? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects don't need a clearly defined scope. They don't have any official jurisdiction, so precisely what they claim as their domain is not really important. If there's actual evidence that the project "causes divisiveness rather than cooperation" then that needs to be presented very clearly presented in the nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The area is certainly broad enough for a WikiProject, and appears to have a range of members. Including TFD (who !votes to Delete, of all things.) Any project with over fifty members is presumably one of interest to Wikipedians.   And there are a great many "broad" WikiProjects - including ones on Anarchism, LGBT, Philosophy, History,     Political Culture, Bacon and many more -- this is actually one of the more limited topics as a matter of fact.  In short - no reason to delete, and by convention at MfD, default to Keep.  If TFD wants to rename it, then the proper place is on the WikiProject talk page, not by a !vote to delete.  Note that I am not a member of any political projects at all.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do think a change of title would be helpful, as well as a narrowing of focus (a problem which also plagues WikiProject United States), but I don't see any policy-based reason for deletion. If the project attempts to take undue control of articles with multiple-project jurisdictions, or acts as a support system for biased editing, those problems can be dealt with through normal dispute resolutions means, up to and including Arbitration, which can result in sanctions on the Project.  Deletion of this project on the grounds provided would likely lead to MfDs on other projects, a morass we would do well to avoid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You've-got-to-be-effing-kidding-me-keep - Some people are just scared of a WP that improves conservatism-related articles, I guess. Killing a WP that covers 3000+ pages helps nobody.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, Toa, why is the Cold War a conservatism-related article? How about ?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any editor can tag any article for any project. Only when that article is discussed on the talk page can a determination be made whether or not it should be included. This applies to every wikiproject, not just Conservatism.– Lionel (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to WikiProject:American social conservatism. The scope of this project is unclear. Almost every article can be tagged with this project: United States Constitution (???) Cold War (??????). I don't know what is the purpose of this project, except perhaps mass canvassing? For example, for months there is a message on the top of the project and project talk page: "Southern Strategy is really biased against the Republican Party". So, I wonder, is this project dedicated to conservatism or to the Republican party and social conservatism in the United States? If you need more canvassing examples, see thread on AN/I about Militant Atheism. To conclude, this project from the start is not about conservatism (and i don't think that such project is possible because the topic is too ambiguous.--  В и к и  T   19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mass canvassing? The project has been up for 8 months and those are the 2 best examples you can come up with? Since when is a poorly worded POV check mass canvassing? And after all these months did any canvassing occurr? No. Militant Atheism? What a lame example. A nonmember tagged the article, and a nonmenber put the notice on the wikiproject talkpage. And a member quickly deleted it. What is the problem? – Lionel (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no. I am a bisexual atheist.  What possible interest do I have in American social conservatism?  Next you'll be saying Cain is a racist, no?μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Proposer's rationale has no foundation in policy. The scope doesn't define a project, the members do. The WikiProject Guideline states, The scope is fine. Certainly a Wikiproject should not be deleted because of it's scope. The Guide places far less importance on the scope than the proposer. The WikiProject Guide states:  The only real requirement for the existence of a Wikiproject is that enough editors want it. From WP:WPPRP: This project has about 55 members which is more than enough to justify existence.– Lionel (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Lionelt, can you please explain is there some criteria for tagging articles, like here? Will you tag whole wikipedia?-- В и к и  T   20:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since policy does not require a detailed scope, the final decision about article inclusion is determined by consensus of the members on the talk page per guideline:


 * Keep This is an odd nomination, I don't see any evidence presented here that this project is causing harm to Wikipedia. If members of the project are misbehaving they should be sanctioned, but even if they are that's no reason to delete the project itself. Conservatism is a very broad category, so a project specifically focused on American Conservatism may make sense. However, that's an issue for the talk page, not MfD. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The project currently has only 3410 articles. To split off American conservatism would leave behind 2 projects which would be too small to be viable. Burkean conservatism and American conservatism can both reside in the same project. – Lionel (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep No good purpose would be served by deletion. It would merely serve to tick off those who have been working to improve articles on conservatism. I would like to see the scope better defined, but until it is, there is no basis for moving to a new name. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to WikiProject Fusionism. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an active project with a number of initiatives. What will happen to the departments and resources of this project? For example this project has a portal, an incubator, and a newsletter. There is also a branch of this project on commons: WPConservatism on Commons! Should all of those be deleted too? – Lionel (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: While I haven't signed in as a member, I've been more active in the project than most "members". I think that there is a significant problem with trying to define "conservatism" across multiple political traditions and eras. (In Russia today, the 'conservatives' are the ones who want to go back to Communism.) Some of that conflict is being discussed right now on the project talk page. I cannot support delete, because I don't think active projects should be deleted unless there are exceptional circumstances. But I do think that the scope of the project is fundamentally flawed. I endorse proposals to move, rename, or otherwise turn the bulk of the project into a "U.S. conservatism" project or task force, or something similar.   Will Beback    talk    21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently if there's a question about an article being within scope we discuss it on the talk page: just like every other project. It's been working fine. There are several members who are interested in British conservatism. If they want to work with editors interested in American conservatism, and the American editors welcome them, what's the problem? Afterall a project is a function of it's members, not it's scope. – Lionel (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the scope cannot be changed at MfD. There is no authority granted to this venue for that. The scope is the exclusive purview of the members. – Lionel (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From the WProj Guide:


 * Lengthy comment: I don't see a problem with scope. Or rather, the scope is poorly defined, but I don't see that as a reason to delete the WikiProject. There are other projects with vaguely defined or amorphous scopes - WikiProject Medicine comes to mind as I'm a member there. My larger concern - and the reason I've considered MfD'ing this WikiProject myself in the past - is related to the inherent problem of a WikiProject organized along the lines of a political ideology. Particularly early in its life, this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda. If you look at the most active members of the project, you'll find them more often than not heavily involved in advancing a U.S.-conservative viewpoint on culture-war topics like abortion and gay marriage. I think, but cannot prove, that the project's AfD and RfC noticeboards have led to instances where members of the project turn up as a group and influence Wikipedia's processes in service of a political agenda. It's instructive to look at some of the reasons cited by project members for joining, for example:
 * "Enlightening conservative people & topics in a world darkening with liberalism."
 * "The Wikipedia is full of Fabian gradualists and Alinskyite confrontationalists, so when they push left, it is good to be among editors who push right back."
 * "Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes."
 * "... interested in improving Australian conservatism-related articles and clearing up policially correct and leftist-dominated claims and analyses."
 * "I am a conservative interested in conservative heroes such as Ronald Reagan and Andrew Breitbart a conservative pioneer in citizen journalism on the Internet."
 * "I am a Republican Precinct Committeeman in Maricopa County, AZ and webmaster for the Maricopa County Republican Committee."
 * "I am most certainly Conservative, and I'm willing to help with whatever I can do."
 * "I'm an across-the-board conservative Republican living in Blue State Connecticut. For now, I'm just interested in getting involved with the WikiProject in general." (since removed)


 * In other words, a sizable number of project members seem to view it as a means to promote conservative ideology - or worse, as a staging ground to combat the "liberal bias" that they perceive themselves surrounded by. As a result, I think that this project contributes substantially to the use of Wikipedia as a ideological battleground. As examples, the project seems prone to canvassing on culture-war topics (e.g. ) and to threads that bemoan the dominance of the "liberal media" (because reliable sources don't say what project members wish they said). In the end, it needs to be clear that this project is dedicated to improving encyclopedic coverage of conservatism, rather than promoting and advocating a conservative social and political agenda. I think thus far the project has come uncomfortably close to the latter objective. It's interesting to note that Conservative notice board was deleted by a landslide as a "vote-stacking engine". I'm concerned that here we have essentially the same proposition, but with a bit more window dressing. Arguing against deletion of the project are the huge amounts of work invested by in its creation, and the increasing level of participation by less partisan editors. MastCell Talk 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to express a personal bias, which we all have, and a completely different thing to canvass and votestack. This project has been up for 8 months. There has been no canvassing. There has been no votestacking. Every project is a group of editors interested in a particular topic. By your reasoning evey project is a potential canvassing platform. This is why we have WP:AGF:assume good faith. We should not act upon this group of editors until they canvass or votestack. To do otherwise violates our fundamental policy AGF.– Lionel (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But there are already instances of using the project to inappropriately canvass. I presented one above, and I don't think it's unique. I think you probably understand why this project is different from, say, the Mathematics WikiProject in its potential for abuse. By coordinating editors on the basis of their political ideology, there is a serious potential for abuse - a potential which the project leaders have yet to even acknowledge, much less deal with proactively. MastCell Talk 22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The post was completely appropriate, the sarcasm not so much. One example, with 3000+ articles, and 50+ members, and an 8 month history, does not a vote stacking operation make. Partisanship has never been a problem, and never will be a problem. The membership is too diverse for that, and too many eyes watching who are not conservative. – Lionel (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that you'd likely find similar 'bias' in WikiProject U2, WikiProject Britney Spears, or WikiProject The Beatles. You likely would find similar 'bias' in those WikiProjects.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  22:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For a point of comparison, the religious wikiprojects also share the same potential for votestacking and canvassing, perhaps even moreso. To my knowledge those projects operate without incident. So has WPConservatism in the past and so it will into the future. And let me be clear: WikiProject Conservatsm has been operating for 8 months without incident. – Lionel (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your concerns MastCell, you have given the members much to think about. At this point, until a pattern of improper behavior is firmly established, and based on an exemplary 8 month record, I have to state that these issues fall under WP:AGF. We cannot punish and sanction an entire group of editors for something that may or may not happen. It is contrary to the our fundamental policy assume good faith. – Lionel (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing to "punish" anyone, nor do I necessarily think the project should be deleted. I do think that the project needs to face up to the fact that a significant number of its members seem to be motivated primarily by a desire to use Wikipedia as an ideological battleground in the fight against "leftists" (see diffs above). If someone flat-out tells you, without prompting, that they're here to use Wikipedia as a battleground, it's not a violation of WP:AGF to take them at their word. But you guys have your heads buried in the sand, with silly apples-and-oranges comparisons to the Beatles WikiProject, so that's not very encouraging. MastCell Talk 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its entirely relevant, MastCell. The Beatles WikiProject openly calls them "the quintessential pop/rock group, indisputably the most celebrated and influential in history and, arguably, the most popular (as measured by several metrics: number of #1 hits, total sales, Beatlemania, etc.)", and when you look at the members, many call themselves Beatles fans. Is fans of a band joining a WikiProject about that band any different than adherents of an ideology joining a WikiProject about that ideology? Unless it is WikiProject Conservatism, evidently not.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's the battleground issue. Do people join the Beatles WikiProject because they want to fight the pernicious and pervasive influence of Rolling Stones fans? No. But people sign up here because they want to use this project to "expose leftists" and set right a world "darkened by liberalism". I think you have a number of people (not just me) telling you that there's a real concern here. People lining up along political battle lines is much different&mdash;and much more harmful to the project&mdash;than people lining up as fans of a specific band. I understand a certain level of defensiveness about a project into which one has sunk considerable time and effort, but surely you grasp this on some level? MastCell Talk 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't join to stop the Rolling Stones fans, but might join to embellish The Beatles and to fight any details critical of the band. I grasp the concept of bias, but oppose your interpretation of it, as WikiProjects are essentially places for people of a similar bias to join together on that common bias.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me reiterate my appreciaton for expressing these concerns, MastCell, and invite you to seek input at the project talk page where they can be fully addressed. – Lionel (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think MastCell expresses legitimate concerns, and he doesn't limit them to this Wikiproject. Partisanship is an obvious issue with a political Wikiproject. The mechanisms are necessarily those of politics itself, such as enlisting and organizing volunteers. It doesn't matter whether it's Conservatism or any other political "-ism". Politics, unlike popular music or most other fields, is a "zero-sum game". Sports also has only one winner but nothing written on Wikipedia is likely to have much effect on the field. But Wikipedia articles could effect political races. That's why the members of political projects should avoid any partisanship in their activities or statements.   Will Beback    talk    09:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like the Mathematics project can be used to canvass in civility disputes, so perhaps it should be deleted as well?? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A neutrally-worded notice to a non-partisan audience is not canvassing. A biased, leading message posted to a partisan audience is canvassing. This distinction is outlined in WP:CANVASS, which may be worth (re-)reading. MastCell Talk 17:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. MfD is the wrong way to go about this. There is clearly an encyclopedic topic area covered by this project, and there are clearly editors who want to improve content in the topic area. And plenty of those editors are acting entirely in good faith. So keep, full stop. But I agree that there is reason to be concerned that this project has become a club for civil POV pushing. I've been watching closely since the project was created, and I urge other editors to watch it also. In time, there will probably be dispute resolution examining some of the most active project members, and, I'll wager, an arbitration case. But Wikipedia benefits from letting a wide swath of the public edit, and we should not be looking for shortcuts to get rid of people who piss us off, lest someone pissed off with us try to get rid of us. In the mean time, I strongly urge the editors who participate in the project to edit, always, as though their edits are being closely scrutinized. Because they probably are. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding advocacy. Move or rename suggestions are said by some here to be outside the scope of MfD, but they are constantly seen at AfD. Rather than get ruling on this, I argue that if the project were renamed or moved to something more Amero-centric, its problem of political advocacy and vote-stacking would not be addressed. Deletion is the one answer that will address advocacy issues. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no problem of "political advocacy." There is no "vote stacking." Stop misrepresenting. This project has been operating for 8 months and there is no pattern of such behavior. – Lionel (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that there are several places in the discussion, including here, where the idea of renaming the project or redefining its scope is brought up. On the basis of the rationale for the deletion argument, doing this would actually be counterproductive. If the problem is that some editors are pushing a particular POV, the solution is to counter that POV through editing, working towards NPOV. If one defines the project as actually being about that POV, then that would actually make it easier to POV push, the opposite result to what is intended. Editors in the project should be held to editing "conservatism" as it is broadly defined by reliable sources. If they do that, good. If they only focus narrowly, then that will be all the more apparent. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tryp has hit the nail on the head. Let me be candid: a project called "American conservatism" would potentially become a magnet for every far right user. A bastion for extreme POV edit warriors.
 * "American conservatism" would be extremely unpopular in the community at large. Imagine what would happen if there was a "WikiProject Pro-Life?" We would be subject to endless bickering all the way up to ArbCom.
 * Having the Brits, Canadians and Aussies adds diversity to the membership. They tend not to be so hung up on social issues and can temper the Americans' proclivities. (I'm not referring to nationality, but to editing preference.)
 * And what about the Brits and non-Americans? There are insufficient non-American members and articles to sustain a standalone project or taskforce. They would be left without a group, no place to call home.
 * The present configuration has been working fine for all members except for Binksternet, and TFD who joined just days ago. And we all now know exactly what is Binksternet's motivation. All that is needed to end this drama is merely a tweak to the scope, along the lines of "the scope includes Burkean and American conservatism." – Lionel (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My motivation is to prevent advocacy and keep a neutral encyclopedia. I am proud to declare this to be true. The 'drama' here is intended to prevent the WikiProject from being used as a gathering place and noticeboard for advocacy. My motivation is pure. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Deletists are right that some articles have been tagged that shouldn't have been, but that is no reason at all to delete the entire WikiProject. The purpose of deleting articles is to improve Wikipedia. Deleting this WP would do the opposite. I find it odd that Binksternet would take this step without first looking for solutions on the project talk. He has done nothing but complain instead of offer solutions to the issues, which should always be the first step in such a major project or article. Lack of criteria and too broad of a scope can be very easily remedied by the members. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deleting an active and populated WikiProject is a pretty serious step. To support that, I'd need to see clear evidence of a problem. I haven't seen that. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename if necessary to reflect the actual scope of the WikiProject. As several people have noted, "conservative" means different things in different places. If the WikiProject deals with things related to American-style conservatism, rename it to WP:Wikiproject American conservatism. If it deals with British-style conservatism, rename it to WP:Wikiproject British conservatism. And so on and so forth. (FOR THE RECORD - I am a liberal.) — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There is definitely a place for this project on Wikipedia. There may be some gray area for the related articles, but that can be decided on a case-by-case basis whether the article has had enough of a conservative impact for it to be placed within the project's boundary. To counter a point made at WP:RFAR about this project and the lack of other ideologies having their projects, WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism is fairly active and I would have no issue with WikiProjects devoted to competing ideologies (provided, of course, that the projects don't become tools for bias).  Them From  Space  04:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The major problem is that the project is primarily about American conservatism, yet American conservatism is not considered to be part of world conservatism. Conservatism refers to an attempt to retain medieval institutions while U.S. conservatism refers to attempts to preserve classical liberalism.  Apparently Franklin D. Roosevelt called his opponents "conservatives" as a slur and they adopted the term.  But the attempt to combine the different ideologies is confusing.  TFD (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but suggest a move to something like "American Conservatism" or some such. Term used is too vague from a world-wide viewpoint (the Russian one being an obvious example). Hobit (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As a possible solution, I've proposed creating a sub-project or task force for modern U.S. Conservatism. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism.   Will Beback    talk    08:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly. If it is a specifically US project it might benefit from a change of name to make that clear, but the various different strands and developments within the political Conservative movement over the years make for a an area worthy of study from those specialising in the subject. Per contra the original nominator I would say the fact that the political philosophy of Conservatism has changed makes it more appropriate for a Wikiproject, not less. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepThis is obviously a hostile move by a biased person, to shut down the project based on weak argument. Even if we further "define" our scope or change our group name, I'm sure they'll try very hard to get us on something. If they have issues with our articles, then that's to be dealt with separately. jjrj24 (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - If a Wiki-project has an ill defined scope, the solution is work with the other project members and fix the problem... ie come up with a more clearly defined scope. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "Conservatism" can be defined for this WikiProject, but how it should be is a matter for the project's members to decide. So deleting the project itself because this hasn't yet been done is just nonsense. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep  - Wow, I see that I've been tagged under “It's instructive to look at some of the reasons cited by project members for joining.” –  "I am a Republican Precinct Committeeman in Maricopa County, AZ and webmaster for the Maricopa County Republican Committee." and in your view this in some way taints my qualification to comment on conservatism.  Reminds of the conservative joke about the liberal in the hot balloon asking for directions because he is lost and somehow it all the conservative's fault.


 * Let me put this way, go over to WikiProject Medicine/Participants and tell the doctors there that they cannot comment on WikiProject Medicine because they are doctors and that fact might taint their comments on that project.  My bet is you will be laughed right off the page.  Phoenician Patriot (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That last bit is not relevant. Nobody here is saying that conservative-minded editors cannot edit in the Conservatism Project, stepping down in favor of non-conservatives. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why was I attacked? I am listed under  “instructive to look at some of the reasons cited by project members for joining.”  That sir, is an attack.  I was attacked because I listed myself as a conservative and for no other reason.  Now that I am willing to fight back you try to backpedal by saying the that my example isn't relative, but it is because doctors know about medicine and Conservatives know about Conservatism.  I believe most people know this.  Sir, your hypocrisy meter is pegged.  Phoenician Patriot (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Doctors go through rigorous training. Conservatives likely do not, and the ones that go through lengthy training in conservatism are also taught about liberalism, fascism, libertarianism, communism, etc. In that regard, liberals who go through lengthy training are also well versed in conservatism, nazism, socialism, etc. All I'm saying is that medicine is a different beast than political culture. Being conservative does not render one an expert in conservatism. And being liberal does not render one irrelevant to conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Spoken as a true politician you expounded on everything but the question that I asked, “Why was I attacked?” What is the justification for attacking me, I want to know.  Phoenician Patriot (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not involved with the above listing of your project-joining statement, so I am purposely staying away from offering conjecture about it. I have no idea why MastCell listed your statement; perhaps you can ask MastCell directly. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Well, Well, Well, Well, Well, now you are taking the coward's way out. Binksternet, you started this fiasco and in the real world you would be responsible for all its content and you should have revered the attack on me when it appeared.


 * When MastCell attacked me on this deletion action I do not know what was going through his mind but I'm sure he didn't have a clue that he was putting a burr under the saddle of a bible thumping, gun carrying, motorcycle riding and duly elected official in the county of Maricopa with a pension for fighting illegal alien invaders, open boarder freaks and anarchists on the streets of Phoenix and in the Legislator.
 * Here in Arizona we do not have a problem getting our hands dirty but we also take responsibility for our actions, as should you. My recommendation is for you to remove this “pagelinks|Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism” request.  You are obviously are not responsible enough to own it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenician Patriot (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response is out of proportion with the tone of MastCell's post. Per WP:TPO, I cannot in good conscience remove the comment as an attack—to me, it is not an attack but an explication of a particular viewpoint. At best, the post is borderline, but not a certain attack. Borderline posts are not to be removed per TPO. Yes, you should keep your powder dry, but it's not raining here. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is convenient. But I won't be jumping off that bridge.   Phoenician Patriot (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I concur with User:Phoenician Patriot, also being a member of both WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Conservatism. Medicine and Conservatism, are notable topics with a general article that covers the major concepts discussed in each article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree that the project is the heir to the snow-deleted Conservative Notice Board - not because of a natural tendency in a politically themed WikiProject, but because its active members have deliberately attempted to make it so - but MfD isn't really the venue for this. It'll probably come up at ANI or somewhere eventually - the fact that it pretends to be a WikiProject means it's not as easy to delete at MfD as it was back when it actually called itself a noticeboard. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the nom's rationale unconvincing, and don't see a reason to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - because - its potential for abuse - Tendentious editing - Sayerslle (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that "Conservatism" is somewhat ambiguous is actually a good argument to have a centralized place to resolve disputes related to the term's use in articles. If some editors are being disruptive instead of discussing sensibly, then the corrective measure is to sanction them individually. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support the suggestion to create more narrowly defined sub-projects (like "U.S. conservatism") or WP:Task forces if those involved find it helpful. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider Merge - there's nothing inherently wrong with a Wikiproject focused on a political ideology. We've had WikiProject Socialism and WikiProject Feminism for some time without any problems. On the other hand, I notice that at some point WikiProject Liberalism and WikiProject Fascism were both made into task forces of WikiProject Political culture. That seems to be a sensible move in terms of reducing the potential for political factionalism, so perhaps it should be considered here as well. Robofish (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of this project, in and of itself, should not cause problems for the general Wikipedia community or the content of the encyclopedia. If the scope is too broad, all that means is that other articles will have more editors looking at them, which is not a bad thing. (To use a nonpolitical example, Judy Garland is covered by WikiProject Cape Cod and the Islands, even though the article mentions no connection between Garland and any of the places covered by that project. That may not be useful, but it doesn't make the Judy Garland article worse.) If editors use WikiProject Conservatism to try impose a POV or otherwise act improperly, that can be dealt with when it happens. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or check for POV: Based on what MastCell has provided, it seems the people running this project are mostly just interested in focusing on (and promoting) modern Angloshere politicans rather than historic conservatism. In addition, there are clearly POV reasons for including United States Constitution in the project. I think is the Project can't be deleted, it should at least be tagged for POV. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The flimsy objections raised having been answered, this move seems little more than a partisan attack on those trying to contribute in a real way to Wikipedia. Soonersfan168  (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Request Snow Keep Support for Keep is overwhelming and decisive. A few editors suggest renaming: however there is nothing approaching consensus for this, furthermore "sole and absolute authority" is vested in the wikiproject.– Lionel (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have declined the request for a snowball keep at this time. Let this discussion run for the full seven days and we'll proceed from there.  Horologium  (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - from your 'unveiling'  - your 'new style guide' - to 'help standardize editing - ' it focuses on concepts, people and organisations from a conservatism perspective..'   - what about editing all political articles you touch from a 'seeking to improve the artticle, NPOV perspective'?  a 'standardized  conservatism perspective ' style of editing sounds like the kind of thing to be avoided - or go to conservapedia  Sayerslle (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I almost snowed this, but I'll assume good faith from some of the editors who seem to oppose the existence of this project on ideological grounds; I'll leave it open and add my observation instead. There is nothing wrong with the existence of the project or its scope. If there is a problem with editing from some of the members of the group, then open RFC/Us on them and deal with the problem through policy rather than trying to fix the problem in this manner, which gives the appearance of an ideological vendetta, even if that is not the motivation behind it. And for the record, I am not a member of this or any other politically-aligned WikiProject.  Horologium  (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is obviously worthy of being a WikiProject. If it's too broad, then sub-projects should be created, as some have already suggested. First Light (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep if a group of editors want to work together on some subject matter, that's their prerogative. They can choose to define that scope however broadly or narrowly they choose. I've never understood why some people get all up in arms about wikiprojects they don't wish to participate in. If other editors want to create a project, and they are editing constructively, what's to bother me about that? Lady  of  Shalott  04:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope that nobody else at any WikiProject thinks that "...WikiProjects are essentially places for people of a similar bias to join together on that common bias." I'd figured WikiProjects were groups interested in a common subject (such as conservatism) or a common wiki process (such as working on images). Am I being naive in this expectation? Cloveapple (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - (final) comment - yes, that is naive imo - politics is different to other projects, like medicine or film, imo. Deriving from the ancient greek word for a citizen, polites, I think  editors who say they are citizens only 'interested' in looking at the world from one perspective, or here, editing aticles looking at the world from one perspective are more than likely going to be POV ish, (and narrow minded, herd-able citizens)- and a lot of the words that accompany votes for'keep' above prove that,   - I think politics articles will get degraded further by this kind of Project for those 'interested' in Conservatism - the point is citizens,  democratic citizens, (and , good wp editors), have an interest to be 'interested' in various political creeds and philosophies - , to be an educated political citizen in the various political cultures of their countries and times, and not a machine for spewing out bias and propaganda. i think 'an American Politics Project' or a 'British 19th Century Politics' project etc is better - ideological political projects should be 'unique' cases imo and not given the oxygen  of publicity, or even the oxygen of oxygen. People who underestimate the potential for abuse as this group of 'interested' editors   watch 'their' Project  pages, the ones they are 'interested' in, they are worse than naive  Sayerslle (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nominator failed to cite any WP policies that the project may or may not be violating. No Harm, No Foul.  Keep the durn thing and lets move on to more important stuff.  Veriss (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am a member of this WikiProject, and I have so far created three DYKs on Norwegian conservatives. Why not give me some more time to churn out a few more articles rather than whining about US bias? Eisfbnore   &bull; talk  13:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great work Eisfbnore! And don't worry... As long as I have anything to say about it Nowwegian conservatism will always be a part of WPConservatism. We will never abandon you. I have been working on categorizing conservative Norway articles. Unfortunately this trend to delete anything conservatism-related has reached even categories! See . Feel free to add your DYKs to the portal here. No surprise, the portal is also up for deletion.– Lionel (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is no so-called "bias" under the sun that can't be handled via proper application of Wikipedia policy as the situation arises. Targeting a project as broad as this is more likely to cause problems than solve them.--WaltCip (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - No policy/guideline based reasons for deletion. Moogwrench (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Request Snow Keep (2nd) per massive, gargantuan support for "Keep". The community has spoken. A wikiproject is a group of people, not an article. Right now there's a pall hanging over these people. Let's wrap this up so they can get back to doing what they do best: improving conservatism-related articles. – Lionel (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Lionelt; consensus is massive and basically beyond any real chance of changing at this point.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to circumvent process. There's no evidence that this group is being harmed by this MFD; if anything, it's getting publicity (I hadn't heard of Wikiproject Conservatism until today).--WaltCip (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the fact that one group of people has tried to stop another group (a valid WikiProject no less) from legitimately collaborating on Wikipedia is both great theater and great publicity. If someone wants to nominate WikiProject Plants for deletion on grounds that its scope is too large, please do so. Just look around you - plants are everywhere! And the definition of a plant has also flip-flopped over time (see fungi and algae). Surely that WikiProject should be deleted.... First Light (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the Department of Fun WikiProject - its scope is ridiculously broad (covering all things 'fun') and it dares to define it's activities as 'fun'! Or what about WikiProject Tree of Life, which covers pretty much every living thing?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a project is a group of people. this particular group does great work in their topic area why prevent them from doing this. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not believe the a burden of proof has been established for divisiveness. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, no rename This is ridiculous: these users can call the Project whatever they want. As long as the name isn't obscene or fraudulent, who cares? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Should groups have names that aren't actually descriptive? I think it's fair to say that this group is largely about a specific brand of conservatism (American, perhaps British) but not Indian or other English speaking conservatism. I think asking them to rename in that light isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the above exchange regarding Norwegian conservatism? – Lionel (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I tried posting a couple of criticisms/questions to that project Talk page, and they were promptly deleted per the feeble excuse (unproved claim) of violating WP:Soap. However, such deletions merely prove that the project is itself a violation of WP:Soap.  That is, such tactics are standard for anyone who doesn't want an alternate or uncomfortable viewpoint presented.  Like barbarians, they think that only their opinions matter.  Well, it doesn't have to be, but at the moment, it is that way. V (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair your questions and criticisms had nothing to do with the Wikiproject but instead went on about the "obvious hypocrisies of conservatives" in relation to abortion and welfare. JORGENEV  07:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the first of two edit attempts; the second had nothing to do with hypocrisy. Meanwhile, with respect to that first edit, either the claim of obvious hypocrisy is true or it isn't.  Deleting the claim is not the way to prove that the claim is faulty!  I'll get back to that in a bit, after I focus on the rationale for the second (and also deleted) edit.  Like any philosophy, Conservatism must have various foundation elements.  Based on various claims made, it appears that one of the foundation elements of Conservatism is that the world is limitless, in terms of resources that can be extracted, or wastes that can be dumped, or human population that can be sustained.  Well, while such a foundation might have seemed sensible 200 years ago, it is absolutely-and-provably false today.  Therefore it logically follows that any particular aspect of Conservatism philosophy, that still depends on that particular foundation-piece, is fundamentally flawed and must be rejected by everyone, including Conservatives.  Likewise, if there are actual elements of Conservatism which conflict hypocritically, the conflict must be resolved, not buried or swept under the rug (or have text pointing it out deleted) as if the conflict doesn't exist.  It is a simple fact that Conservatism, as its totality originally was, can no longer be entirely applicable to today's world.  Now, I have no idea who is supposed to have the Authority to Decide what changes must be made, for Conservatism to continue to exist as a reasonable philosophy, but I am quite certain that we Wikipedia editors are not them (per WP:OR and WP:Verify, of course!).  So, if you-all want to describe Conservatism as it was, that's fine with me, so long as it is pointed out that all such descriptions are applicable to the past, and cannot possibly be entirely/100% valid today. V (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a specific example of how Conservatism fails to be applicable in the modern world. When environmental scientists first found evidence (about 20 years ago, now!) that human activities had significantly increased the content of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, and that Global Warming appeared to be happening as a result, Conservatives immediately denounced the data as if it was impossible.  Well, if the world is limitless, then such a thing would indeed be impossible.  But since the world is not limitless, it is very possible that human activities can affect the planet.  It has only taken two decades for Conservatives to begin to accept that their initial knee-jerk reaction was wrong, because it was based on a wrong assumption about the Facts of the World.  And, so, 20 years of things that could have been done, to reduce Global Warming, have not been done.... V (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * V, you're the most notorious soapboxer around. Don't cry foul when your rants are reverted. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! I'm quite sure I'm only notorious in the eyes of those who, like yourself, dislike the facts I have on tap, and who are unable to present factual support for the counter-claims they offer.  (Go ahead, I'm still waiting for you to offer evidence for your/Conservatism's claim that human life is intrinsically and not relatively valuable --and I expect to keep waiting, since the facts are on my side, not yours.)  Which means that your definition of "soapboxing" needs work.  Why should it ever be soapboxing to present actual facts, which are independent of anyone's opinions? (--especially, in an encyclopedia, where facts rule, and opinions should always be labeled as such) V (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to articles, not general ranting about the subject of the article. Go write a blog if you want to rant, but don't do it here. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Supervise --per the above collapsed text, note how proponents of that Wikipedia Project reveal that they can act in a very predictable and unethical way. That is, they make unproved accusations that statements they don't like are "soapboxing" or "ranting" or "not relevant" or "off-topic", in order to create an excuse to hide (or, worse, delete) the data they don't like, and don't want others to see.  What I wrote above, and now is collapsed, was written partly to expose that unethical behavior, making it extremely relevant to this overall discussion.  It basically constitutes proof that they are POV-pushing in spite of the formal NPOV Wikipedia policy.  Therefore, their Project, should it be allowed to continue, needs to be closely supervised, to ensure that only facts about Conservatism get included in the encyclopedia, and not opinions. V (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one who collapsed the knife-fight between the two of you, because it doesn't relate to the MfD, it relates to your objections to the project's name. Further, there are no !votes in that section (I would not have collapsed them if that were the case), only a comment about how you felt mistreated on the project talk page, because you were posting arguably soapy comments on a project page. If an editor were to head over to the WP:SOCIALISM talk page, and start expounding upon the shortcomings of socialism and extolling the virtues of capitalism, it's likely that the members of that project would act in a similar fashion. (I'd go so far as to call it trolling.) Your comments were inappropriate for that forum, and removed as a consequence.  Horologium  (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are basically accusing an entire WikiProject of Bad Faith editing. That is, IMO, frankly ridiculous. (Before you go questioning my motives, I am neither a conservative, nor a member of the project; neither would one imply the other.) The collapsing of the off-topic talk was appropriate. Sorry I forgot to sign before; that is my comment. Lady  of  Shalott  19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite willing to accuse an entire WikiProject of Bad Faith editing if most of what they edit is not flagged/marked/indicated as being "this is the Conservatism view of this topic" (or equivalent) --which I'm quite sure is generally the case. They want their edits to to be perceived as being neutral when in fact they aren't.  Only in controversial topics like abortion are they currently forced to accept that their side of the issue must be marked as such, and accompanied by an alternate side.  Finally, because I do strive to be neutral (except where verifiable facts conflict with ideology), I'm quite willing to say that any other politically motivated WikiProjects would be just as likely to do Bad Faith editing, in order to promote their views.  So, if the Conservatism Project should be deleted, then also so should the others be deleted, out of fairness.  But I don't happen to think they should be deleted; I simply think they should be honest, in admitting that any of their views that are not verifiable facts --"opinions", that is-- are indeed opinions and not facts, and be flagged as such, in the encyclopedia articles. V (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts. Simply because certain facts happen to be posted by conservatives does not automatically make them opinions. In any case, your argument is extremely provocative and can serve no other purpose than to turn this page into a battleground. Might I kindly suggest that you drop the stick?--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To Objectivist: You sound awfully subjective for someone who calls himself "Objectivist". What are you really? JRSpriggs (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you really? A wp editor or a right wing ideologue with a sophomoric manifesto for a user page trying to use the encyclopedia to put your views over? Sayerslle (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick look at Objectivist's edit count is rather interesting. Of his 1400+ edits since his first edit in December 2006, only 26 of them are to the mainspace. Of those 26, only 6 were in 2010 or 2011. OTOH, he has over 1200 edits to the talk and user talk namespaces.  Horologium  (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first part of my last post was not as clearly stated as the last part of that post, which specifically focused on the difference between facts and opinions, and that the opinions needed to be marked as such. I fully agree that it doesn't matter who posts verifiable facts, because facts are almost always Objective (most exceptions are to be found in relativity physics).  And as for my choice of places to post in Wikipedia, the Conservatism-ists aren't the only ones who need to be reined-in.  Here's something I wrote on my Talk page a while back: "Since I know that certain changes to [numerous controversial articles] will require that various opinionated toes get stepped on, I see no reason to go out of my way to avoid it.  I can make an effort to do it more gently than harshly, but  it needs to be done  if Wikipedia is to reliably contain facts instead of opinions.  The reason it needs to be done has to do with the problem of:  How can the bad guys, the Opinionated, be held in check?  If they can insert their opinions and not be publicly exposed for it, what is ever going to make them stop, short of banning?  It has been pointed out that some of the Opinionated are popular editors, often possessing relevant knowledge; the likelihood of them getting banned is low.  But if their stated and/or veiled opinions can be exposed as nonsense or non-Neutral, over and over again,  a process that necessarily involves stepping on toes,  perhaps they will finally get the message, that Wikipedia doesn't need that sort of input from them.  When they stop, my objective will have been achieved."  It should be obvious that the actual article space is not the place to put posts associated with that objective. V (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are seeing specific problems (or a pattern of problems) with specific editors, WP:RFC/U is where you want to go. Going to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism and adding comments like and  is not constructive, and it certainly is not discussing an editing issue with other users. You seem to be confusing Wikipedia with a blog, where that type of behavior is either tolerated or encouraged, depending on the forum; that is not the case here. If you wish to flame other people for their beliefs, go elsewhere.  Horologium  (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Horologium this is all your fault. If you had snowed when you had a chance we would have been spared this torture. Now we have to endure V's "philosophizing" for 2 more days. Let this be a lesson to you: if in doubt... snow! (The preceding was intended to be humorous) But seriously, haven't you people heard of WP:DONTFEED????? – Lionel (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The referenced posts were an early attempt to question the validity of the Conservatism Project. The results could be interpreted as evidence that they think they are beyond questioning.  Well, perhaps this page here will encourage them to think differently.  To the extent that it is true that most questions are not stupid, it logically follows that most questions deserve answers, not deletion! V (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to WikiProject:American social conservatism or similar per В и к и  T  . Nominator is making some important points that we have to address. WikiProjects are only useful if the purpose behind them is clearly explained. If they are self-described in a controversial or tendentious way, it becomes difficult to produce properly encyclopedic NPOV articles. It's worth noting that the project is currently defined by a link to a disambiguation page ("WikiProject Conservatism documents the conservative movement"). That's pretty unimpressive! -- Klein  zach  00:52, 12 October 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.