Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References

 __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. A consensus to delete this page has not been established. A project having a list of project-related references is within the scope of a project. Should inapproriate references be added to articles, that is an editorial issue that can be resolved in the articles. Some of this discussion is trending towards if the project as a whole is appropriate, but that is well above the scope of a list of references. — xaosflux  Talk 14:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC) —  xaosflux  Talk 14:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism/References


This page is a collection of sources for "conservative" content, defined largely in terms of present-day conservative politics in the United States. There is nothing wrong in principal with having a WikiProject resource subpage with sources about political or other content, but this page rests on the basic assumption that some sources carry a "conservative" POV and thus are listed, whereas others that have opposing POVs or are simply NPOV should not be included. The edit history of the page shows that non-"conservative" mainstream reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times were repeatedly deleted by the now-inactive editor who founded the WikiProject. Although it could be argued that a more balanced selection of sources could simply be added back to the page, there is no reason to do so for this Project other than to remove the appearance of a POV. The page rests upon a basic assumption that there is such a thing as "conservative" source material that is also compliant with Wikipedia policies, and as such, really cannot be fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've notified the WikiProject. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Lists of sources about a subject or lists of publications that promote a particular point of view are best presented as articles or parts of articles. There is for example Bibliography of conservatism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States.  It appears the purpose of this list is to help conservative-minded editors find sources that will present the views they think articles require to counter Wikipedia's "liberal bias."  Certainly this approach is not beneficial to the project.  TFD (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an issue for the WikiProject, not for random editors. I don't see any problem retaining this list, especially as Wikipedia probably lacks conservative viewpoints needed to be truly "neutral." Really, this is another element of countering "systemic bias" eg leftism found in en-wp. I'd also like to point out, if you want to delete this get ready to delete WikiProject LGBT studies/Resources, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of having a conservatism project is not to ensure that conservative views are recorded in Wikipedia but to help improve articles about conservatism. Similarly we could have a project about fascism and its role would be to improve articles about fascism, not to ensure that fascist views are represented across a range of articles not specifically about fascism.  TFD (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out to Chris Troutman that I am not a "random editor" and that WikiProjects do not get to carve out a space where Wikipedia policies do not apply to them. If Chris Troutman sees the purpose of the nominated page as being to counter systemic bias, then that is exactly equivalent to arguing that its purpose is to push a POV. I do realize that every POV disagreement involves two POV "sides", but even if there is a need for editing to counterbalance an existing POV imbalance, the solution is not to designate a page where sources are cherrypicked. The nominated page is contrary to policy, and no WikiProject can exempt itself from policies. (The LGBT page is WP:OTHERSTUFF.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per TFD. "Balancing out bias" is essentially WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and entirely inappropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the article does it state its intention is to "balance out bias". Please read the article that is being discussd for deletion. --Pudeo' 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know who created the page? Have you seen this essay he wrote? He mentions in that essay that this page that is up for deletion can be used as a source for what he calls "alternative references". His intentions were made very clear in that essay, and with this page. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the history of this "project", but this is just one in a long line of serious problems with "balancing out bias". RGloucester  — ☎ 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please let us not begin this tired argument of attacking this WikiProject and editors who have contributed to it, and evaluate the subject of this MfD on its own. It shouldn't matter who created this list, the question is can it be useful to editors?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is purely WikiProject Conservatism's issue (of which I'm not a member of). That Wikiproject should achieve consensus on what kind of a resource list is useful. It should of course consist of RS sources, but it's not a problem if those sources have conservative slant. Contrary to what some editors above me write, it is actually useful to collect sources for opinions too: in many articles a "conservative" and "liberal" opinion are both due so there's no reason why it would be forbidden to search for RS sources specifically from conservative publications. As for Wikiprojects being used to gather "same-minded" editors it's probably true - that's what I dislike about their idea - but that's not limited at all to WP Conservatism nor this references list. --Pudeo' 21:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we very much disagree as to what policy allows WikiProjects to be able to do. And I find it significant that none of the discussion so far disputes the fact that the nominated page reflects a deliberate POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's inevitable due to their nature, and policing them outside in cases like these doesn't seem like a good idea. But really: "List of conservative periodicals" could even warrant a Wikipedia entry. Exactly what is the problem with WP Conservatism listing conservative periodicals and Internet sites? You make it sound like that page said "Wikipedia has non-conservative bias! Always use these sites!" which it doesn't. It's just a list. I agree that it's almost completely US-centric, but that's their issue. --Pudeo' 22:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way that I would put it is that it says that edits should be made in an organized way to either correct a bias or to create one (depending on one's perspective). If, hypothetically, there were a project that would also draw upon liberal-leaning sources on pages with a conservative POV-imbalance, as well as drawing upon conservative-leaning sources on pages with a liberal POV-imbalance, that would be very different than what we have here. When the intention of the edits only goes in one direction, then we have WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this would be a useful topic for WP:CSB. I am sure there are many articles with a liberal bias, as there are some articles with a conservative bias. However, that is not what this discussion is about.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is well within project scope. Perhaps a few annotations have a little POV peeking through, but the general idea that a sub page of a project page should be stricken because the sources listed are almost all from a single ideological tendency is mistaken. Similarly, if the Socialism or Christianity or Feminism or any other project did something of this sort with focused sources, there should be no rational reason for objection. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a distinction between sources that are about conservatism, which would be fine, versus sources that are about a much broader range of subjects but with a conservative POV. If other projects were advocating that content should reflect a Socialist or Christian or Feminist POV, instead of NPOV, that would be just as inappropriate. It's one thing to refer to the editorial page of a conservative news source for conservative opinions, but it's quite another to selectively refer only to conservative news sources for pages about events that have happened. When we have, for example, a biography page about a conservative politician, we ought not to rely only on conservative news sources for content about that person's political career. When we have a page about an election, we ought not to rely only on conservative news sources for content about that election. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Carrite, they are not sources for conservatism, they are sources for a "conservative" point of view for general topics. How does having a list of sources that can be used to contest "liberal" views on global warming, tobacco, evolution, etc., help people in the project improve articles about conservatism?  In my example above, while it is useful to have a project about fascism, it would not be helpful for it to list sources that members could use to inject a fascist point of view into articles that had nothing to do with fascism.  TFD (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, a list of reliable sources which any editor can use to find articles, papers, and essays to verify content within an article. Sure some of these sources could be argued as being WP:BIASED, but so can mainstream sources such as HuffPo, NYT, MSNBC, Fox News, Brietbart.com, and WSJ. But let us look at what BIASED says:
 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."


 * As editors, in order to provide balanced view points to a subject, may find it difficult to find these sources, this collection of links maybe useful to editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Brietbart.com is a mainstream news source, comparable to The New York Times?? I wouldn't have nominated this page here if it were simply a list of RS that could be used to WP:V, and I agree that biased sources can be cited in unbiased ways. The problem lies in having a list of sources with one consistent bias for the purpose of skewing content. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I hope that the closing administrator looks at the arguments in terms of policy, and does not simply count !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete In principle, lists like this can be useful if maintained in a NPOV; this one isn;t, and  is not likely to be. This sort of question is one which is absolutely not the sole domain of a Wikiproject--no wikiproject can override general consensus--its proposals are subject to the acceptance or at least tolerance of the community as a while.  DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not an NPOV violation for WikiProject Conservatism to have a list of conservative reliable sources. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fox News and CBN listed as reliable sources?! Max Semenik (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A source's bias doesn't make it unreliable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well within project scope. Any difference over whether this source or that is "reliable" is (a) a matter of opinion; and (b) an editing matter, not a fundamental matter as to whether this listing is useful to project participants and within scope. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Whoops, sorry, I see I've already given a recommendation above. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the rationale for my nomination is not about WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


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