Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 13

Nomination of Portal:Donald Trump for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Donald Trump is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Republican Party of Puerto Rico (1903) that would benefit from your input. Please come and help!  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  20:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about POV of an article about an Italian politician
See Talk:Susanna Ceccardi, if you can leave your comment that would be apreciated--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about POV of an article about an Italian politician
See Talk:Susanna Ceccardi, if you can leave your comment that would be apreciated--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest
The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest
The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Assessment request for Conservative Revolution

 * German national conservative movement, prominent during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933). See talk page for to-do list and potential improvements. The article would need a reading by native English speakers & German speakers for the sources. Azerty82 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turning_Point_USA#RfC:_Should_Charlie_Kirk_have_his_own_article? This RfC] may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest
An RfC which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-wing_populism#RfC:_Is_this_material_linking_right-wing_populism_with_fascism_UNDUE? here]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

CGCN Group
There is a request of mine to update outdated information at Talk:CGCN Group. As you gather from my username, I have a Conflict of interest; I am an employee at the Republican advocacy and strategic communications firm.

Thank you, Lauren at CGCN (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X components
Hello! I'm requesting feedback for WikiProject X components usage. Your project is using templates related to my proposal and your feedback would be really appreciated:. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk:RedState
Would y'all be willing to edit the article? 49.36.9.241 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Assessment request for U.S. presidential impeachment

 * deisenbe (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

National Association of Scholars - Your thoughts requested on Talk page
I created a section on Talk:National Association of Scholars titled, NPOV January 2020. Would you share your thoughts on the article there? (Or edit the article to improve it.) ¶ I read a Commentary in the Wall Street Journal Opinion section today that included this sentence: "Wikipedia describes us as a 'conservative' organization." That mention prompted me to look at the article. I did not know about the National Association of Scholars before today. I reviewed other Wikipedia articles about nonprofit (or trade union) educational organizations and none of them used an adjective denoting a political ideology in the article's short description or in the lede (introductory paragraph). Calling the National Association of Scholars a "conservative" organization struck me as neither consistent nor neutral. What do you think? (Please discuss at Talk:National Association of Scholars—not here—so we're all on the same page.) Thanks! ¶ Citation: Peter W. Wood, "‘Cancel Culture’ Comes to Science", Wall Street Journal (January 13, 2020): A17. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  11:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on political party of David Clarke (sheriff)
Please see here: Talk:David Clarke (sheriff). Your opinion is appreciated. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

PragerU being rejected as a reliable source - Your thoughts requested on talk page
Hey awhile ago I came across a thread started by another user on Turning Point USA's talk page with regard to "bias". I tried to support the point with a citation from PragerU, stating "Thousands of educators and university professors utilize PragerU videos as teaching supplements in their classrooms; with over 3 billion video views, they are a prominent source of conservative information." From my perspective, PragerU meets the WP:VERIFY and WP:RS guidelines; but other editors have commented that PragerU lacks fact checking and accuracy, is not a reliable source, and therefore cannot be used. Has anybody run into this problem before? If you could visit the talk page and put in your thoughts. --MaximusEditor (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

National Rally (France)
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Political appointments by Donald Trump
It would be much appreciated if editors would watch and periodically update Political appointments by Donald Trump and its sub-articles. This is a useful article, but it's neglected and becoming very out-of-date. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Racial views of Winston Churchill
This AFD has been opened and may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR
I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Turning Point USA
An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Project Veritas
Please see the RfC here, which may be of interest to members of this project. (Disclosure: I am employed by Project Veritas.) Sal at PV (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

On Expanding the Template
Hello,


 * In going over the People subsection of the Conservatism ideology template, I noticed only four people are listed; Burke, de Maistre, Chateaubriand, and Metternich. I have zero contention over whether those four belong there, rather I was astonished to find they were the only ones there. It would be a matter for case-by-case deliberation on each page/person, but I am of the mind that this subsection could be vastly and judiciously expanded to include a greater field of representative conservative figures. As it stands, only four men, as grand as their import might be, feels implicitly reductive of the conservative intellectual legacy. Whereas the Liberalism or Socialism templates provide extraordinary surveys of important minds, the Conservatism template appears to operate at a deficit. I would be interested to know whether this might be regarded as a reasonable undertaking on behalf of providing readers with a stronger notion, depth, and breadth in this area, and therefore worthwhile.

Sincerely,

D.S. Morgenbesser (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of "Lists of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus against Global Warming."
Hello. I was a frequent editor of an article entitled "Lists of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus against Global Warming." Over the course of approximately a year, I researched and found seven additional scientists that met the criteria to be added to the list, bringing the total to approximately 80 scientists. Scientists on the list include members of the National Academy of Science, Chairs of Atmospheric Science Departments of major universities, Nobel Prize winners and scientists that assemble the temperature record for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, or "NOAA."

Despite that, on the Seventh attempt over a 12 year period, the article was deleted by an administrator named "Bishonen." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

His stated reason was that he saw no value in a list that combines the qualities of being a scientist, in a general sense of the word, and disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. My retort is that "climate science" does not adhere to the scientific method, and who better than a scientist to identify its flaws.

Specifically, the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis, develop a test of the hypothesis, report on whether the hypothesis was proven or disproven by the test, and then publish the findings so the conclusions can be validated and the test can be repeated. Certainly, there is a theory of global warming: That increasing CO2 is responsible for the warming of the last 50 years, and that if CO2 continues to increase, the temperature will increase 1.4 to 5.8 degrees celsius by 2100, which will lead to all sorts of extreme weather and rising sea levels. But that seems to be where the scientific method ends.

Academics publish climate models that project what templates will be in another century, but the models are presumed to be true, dispensing with the need to actually test the hypothesis. If the models are a test, they are failing (40 years into the 120 year projection of climate model, actual warming is lower than 100 of 102 models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). And it seems that any naturally occurring event (from a starving polar bear, to a sea lion jumping off a cliff (a recent David Attenborough documentary) to bush fires in Australia) is proof of global warming. Scientists use proxy data of questionable accuracy (for example, since we don't have real temperature data from centuries ago, tree rings are used as proxies) to generate questionable graphs that are not subject to inspection by peer review (i.e., Mann's Hockey stick).

This matters to conservatives because the proponents of Global Warming are anti-capitalism and anti-industry. And it matters to humanity because without industrialization, poverty will persist in third-world countries (I would use the euphemism "developing" countries, but without cheap energy, they really aren't . . . .)

I don't know if there are any administrators on this page that would be interested in disputing the decision to delete the page. But I thought I would check. Kolg8 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're probably unfamiliar with the AfD (articles for deletion) process, but the closing admin merely summarizes the discussion that took place on the question. In that AfD discussion, many editors weighed in with their opinions on whether it should remain an article, and the consensus was that it should not. Please note that the closing statement also says No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This page is not a place to WP:CANVASS so-called 'conservatives' to aid your cause. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you RGloucester. I was unfamiliar with the "WP:Canvass" policy. For a wiki with no rules, there sure are a shit-ton of rules.Kolg8 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good news. I found the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

On Expanding the Template, Updated
Hello,

In reading over the requirements for updates to the template, it has come to my attention that 9-10 articles seem to be eligible for addition to the People section. They are Benjamin Disraeli, Winston Churchill, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Michael Oakeshott, Roger Scruton, Louis de Bonald, Hippolyte Taine, Russell Kirk, Adam Müller, and Friedrich Hayek. In my judgement, Oakeshott, Scruton, Kirk, Coleridge, Disraeli, de Bonald, and Müller are musts for the time being. In light of the exceptional 84 or so names on the People section of the Socialism template, I might also suggest an expansion of the number of permitted articles in the Conservatism portal's People section beyond a mere 20. Reasonable minds may differ, but 50 or so might be optimal. I welcome any sincere consideration.

Yours,

D.S. Morgenbesser (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * With the exception of Taine I agree with your choices for addition, but bringing up the Socialism template is irrelevant and kind of ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a political battleground and we must be wary of language that suggests we view it as such. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * I wasn't necessarily proposing him (Taine), just remarking that he was technically eligible and might bear consideration secondarily to the articles I specified to be musts in my view. If I seemed to insinuate a politically adversarial motive for my judgements, I sincerely apologize. The idea in referring to the Socialism template was more so a point of reference for the depths to which other political ideologies are documented in terms of establishing an adequate wealth of information on each relevant school of thought. A political documentarian's zeal, rather than a partisan's.

Respectfully yours,

D.S. Morgenbesser (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Get Woke, Go Broke
Sourced material about the phrase "Get Woke, Go Broke" keeps getting reverted in the Woke article. I see it has been moved to a 'reaction' section. Is anyone in the Conservatism group interested in contributing to the discussion on the talk page?174.0.48.147 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation
Could I get some assistance with negative POV on this article? It's not hugely important, so I'm having trouble getting people interested. Check in the history for 03:05, 20 September 2020‎ for my recommended revision. Apparently there is resistance to any kind of editing to extend it or improve the POV, and 3 of my revisions of the article have been reverted. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Need assistance on Reliability section at Dominion Voting Systems
Editors are making unreasonable demands for sources after technical review white paper sources and popular media both confirm features the Trump campaign is suggesting were used in the election. Please join the discussion on the Talk page. I could use an administrator, as this approaches edit warring. Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sidney Powell
Could use assistance at Sidney Powell, too, who is being framed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Pkeets (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way do you think she's being "framed"? It seems like reliable sources clearly identify Powell as an exponent of elaborate right-wing conspiracy theories. For example, she, and was , and , and by implicating Republican officials in Georgia, and  (New York Times, 22 Nov 2020). Politico described Powell as "a leading proponent, on cable news and in op-eds, of a conspiratorial narrative advanced by the far right". She is identified as "the lawyer behind wild voting conspiracy theories" (New York Times, 23 Nov 2020). She  promoting election-related misinformation (MarketWatch, 23 Nov 2020). She  (Guardian, 24 Nov 2020). She  (Associated Press, 23 Nov 2020). She made  about the election (BBC, 23 Nov 2020). She made  (Washington Post, 23 Nov 2020). And so on. Please consider the possibility that other editors are attempting to accurately convey the content of reliable sources, as required by policy, and that you may be obstructing them. MastCell Talk 20:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Your repeated calls for "assistance" from members of this WikiProject borders on canvassing in my view. In particular, as the call for help doesn't relate to conservatism (e.g. settling a dispute on how to describe ideologies) or something non-ideological (e.g. fixing templates on pages related to conservatism), but rather in getting the numbers to overturn an existing consensus to stick to reliable sources on the page of one conspiracy theorist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * She is not being "framed". Just take her words and actions as proof. She's too much of an outlier to be on Trump's legal team. She tried to connect an electronic voting system to Hugo Chavez (who's been dead for 7 years), communism, George Soros and the Clinton Foundation, among others. I'm surprised she didn't start talking about the role of Hollywood pedophiles in the election. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. Jake Angeli Expert needed to understand if this person is really important and worthy of having a Wikipedia article on them. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Deplatforming
2021 deplatforming may deserve its own article or perhaps list article or navbox. I just created Draft:Deplatforming of AR15.com but I don't know if there are other existing articles in this space. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , we do not appear to have an article on AR15.com. I would be extremely hesitant to say that its deplatforming is independently notable if we can't even bring to bear a main article on the site? Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps been difficult for people to go through the WP:RFUP hoops to create the article because it has been salted since 2012. And the deplatforming may have given it the boost to notability. Anyway I believe that the deplatforming may be notable though the site is not ... there is precedent in various places e.g. the exemption to BLP1E where a person is non-notable but an event is (e.g. Killing of Rayshard Brooks). ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we follow this to its logical conclusion, is every deplatforming notable just because it's covered in the news? Is AR15.com's coverage significant? I feel we also need to take into account WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS.
 * I wish you all the best in having the article promoted to mainspace, but (golly a 9-year salt!) good luck having it survive the gauntlet. Elizium23 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it will be uphill. That's why I came here to see if anyone else was aware of deplatformings with significant coverage that could be used as RSes for another article title such as 2021 deplatformings of conservative media or something like that. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it will be uphill. That's why I came here to see if anyone else was aware of deplatformings with significant coverage that could be used as RSes for another article title such as 2021 deplatformings of conservative media or something like that. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Bob McEwen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape compared to Nazi symbol
A RfC has been opened at Talk:Conservative_Political_Action_Conference. The question is, "Should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" Springee (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape - at Odal article
A RfC has been opened at Talk:Odal_(rune). The question is, "Should the article mention the that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal?". Springee (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Bricker Amendment for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC))

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC
Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Assessment request for Louis de Bonald

 * I've been trying to improve the article on Louis de Bonald. Before I got to it the article was in fairly bad shape, especially for a thinker who should be more appreciated by contemporary conservatives.

In summary I added much more information about his life, and added more information about his ideas. I used for my sources "Critics of the Enlightenment" by Christopher Blum and "The Historical Thought of the Vicomete de Bonald" by Mary Hall Quinlan. I also re-edited the text so that his life now reads in chronological order; before I got there much of the information wasn't even really in a coherent timeline. Also added the pictures so the article looks a bit nicer. I also added a few names to his "influences" and "influenced". I think the page looks much nicer and more developed since I've given it a good go over. There are a few sentences I think could user some clarification, and I would also appreciate if there's anything else I should add or go over. I haven't really been editing wikipedia all that long and would appreciate a more trained eye's assessment. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC) LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson as conservative thinker
What criteria does Jordan Peterson meet to be included as a conservative thinker in this project? --Tsavage (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The Polyester Prince article independent assessment request
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WaTErMelON690 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Category:Criticism of political correctness
There is a request for comment at Category:Criticism of political correctness. Please see the discussion if you are interested. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Mike Cierpiot
Mike Cierpiot, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

RFCs on Talk:Éric Zemmour
I would like to alert you to the RFCs currently active on Talk:Éric Zemmour. Fresh eyes would be helpful and this Wikiproject is relevant. Munci (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

General Convention of Rastriya Prajatantra Party (2021)
I would like to request help in publishing General Convention of Rastriya Prajatantra Party (2021) based on Rastriya Prajatantra Party, the largest conservative party of Nepal. I found it in draft.103.10.29.116 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC Notice: Wall Street Journal editorial stance on climate change in the lead
Should the lead of the WSJ article include the following statement, "The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos." Discussion here: Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal Springee (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category: [[Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network) articles needing expert attention]], which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. 69.58.113.50 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) The Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network) page seems like a good candidate for the WikiProject Conservatism. The page incorrectly identifies the organization as Catholic when it is ecumenical, and any changes or additions to correct it are reverted quickly. Care Net, a similar organization, is already on this project and has a much more neutral and comprehensive page.
 * It is an article, not a category. If changes are supported by reliable sources, they are unlikely to be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed "Catholic" to "Christian" citing the organization's website (diff). In my edit note I wrote: "It started out as a primarily Catholic organization but that apparently changed over the years and they are now ecumenical." I changed the short description from "organization" to "International Christian network of pro-life pregnancy resource centers". ¶ The article is still quite biased, in terms of the tone, language, and imbalance (it's one-sided). The criticisms seem valid on cursory review, but it needs work on how the information is presented. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Further discussion and edits have taken place. Apparently, a major problem is a lack of reliable sources that are not critical of Heartbeat International. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC notification
A request for comment that may interest members of this project has been opened at. –– FormalDude  talk  19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Assessment request for Somoza family

 * I have been developing this stub over the past few weeks. I have added a substantial amount of content and media so I believe it is time to be reassessed. Lilac Koala (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Nancy Reagan
I have nominated Nancy Reagan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeking others input on Conservatism in the United States template
There is a dispute going on the Oath Keepers Talk page whether to keep or remove from the Oath Keepers page the "Conservatism in the United States"" template. This ultimately may affect other articles on both the "Conservatism in the United States" template and the "Liberalism in the United States" template. Your input requested. Reminder of :WP:STATUSQUO, not to remove unless there is a consensus for removal. Myotus (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Good Article reassessment
Hi there! This is a notice that I have opened an individual Good Article reassessment on the article College Republicans, which falls under the domain of this WikiProject. The review can be seen at this link (Talk:College Republicans/GA2) and any editor is welcome to help fix it up so that it can maintain GA status. Thanks! PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition of fascism
I was shocked on looking up fascism to fact check some research to find that the words "far-right" are in the first sentence of the definition here on WP. The article itself is locked down, and so is the talk page. I don't think it should be labelled "far left" as some do, and I am genuinely surprised to see it labelled as either. Up until a few years ago, that question wouldn't even be brought up. Merriam-Webster provides a more neutral view in its definition, and the funny thing is - looking at the sources referenced on the WP page, I don't see any mention of "far-right" in the sources. Yet some gate-keeping editors there insist they do.

I raise it here as I presume those devoted to presenting conservatism in a fair light wouldn't want right-wing views (even "far" right) inappropriately equated with fascism. I just don't know where else to raise the subject. It seems like left-leaning editors are asserting their control more and more inappropriately.

Apologies if this is mis-placed but if there is anything that can be done, I'd be grateful to learn of it. 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:80EC:3E38:4EC4:2786 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There are sources which categorise it as far-right. Between sources 4 and 7, which cite the claim, I'm counting 13 sources. Additionally please note this WikiProject still aims to be neutral, not to promote conservative views on Wikipedia. — Czello 07:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like you actually looked at the sources themselves. The first of the sources you mention is a book called "Fascism and the Far Right" whose main thesis is to link the two. I don't see how that can be considered neutral. In fact, I would suggest the sources were deliberately picked to promote an agenda. It is not a "conservative view" to want neutral coverage. did you actually look at the book pages specified? Because no quotes are provided from these sources. It is very easy to throw up book titles and ISBNs and claim they say something in the knowledge no one is actually going to find physical copies of the book to verify it.

2604:3D09:C77:4E00:30D5:5066:146A:97CE (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You've criticised the first source but ignored the other 12. And as far as the first goes, I see no indication that it isn't considered reliable by our standards - see WP:RS. Ultimately the idea that fascism is on the far-right isn't at all controversial - frankly, arguing that fascism isn't far-right would be considered a fringe view. If you genuinely think that the "far-right" label should be removed from the article you should take it to the talk page - but I can guarantee you won't have much luck. — Czello 22:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Good Article Editathon event in October 2022
 Hello WikiProject Conservatism:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there! Goldsztajn (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Tudor Dixon
There is a request for comment at that may interest members of this WikiProject. Please participate at the talk page. –– FormalDude  (talk)  21:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment about Kari Lake
There is a Request for Comment at that may interest members of this WikiProject. Please participate at the talk page. –– FormalDude  (talk)  07:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about The Daily Caller
I believe this article needs to be rewritten from end to end. As it stands it is a mess, just a dumping ground of tropes and recriminations. BD2412 T 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have made a few improvements, mostly in the way of layout and wording tweaks. We'll see if anyone else pitches in. BD2412  T 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be more than just the Daily Caller but maybe there is a good start. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is TruthSocial Alt-tech?
Template talk:Alt-right footer has an ongoing, heated discussion about whether Truth social should have an entry in the footer. No progress has been made. One side (the con side) is insisting on RS to demonstrate that TruthSocial is routinely said to be alt-tech, and reverting TruthSocial's placement in the footer.

The other side (the pro side) is stating that the TruthSocial article seems to suggest, as do its sources, though not in so many words, that Alt-tech would include TruthSocial, along with Gab and Parler, as they all were born of a distaste for the moderation found on Twitter and Facebook. I'm on the pro side, but that doesn't make me right. It's starting to get ugly. Would anyone like to weigh in? Or would there be a general footer (navigation box) discussion page I should go to?-- Quisqualis (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say Lambiam has made it very clear here: There is no good reason for excluding TS given all the other platforms already incorporated there. Hildeoc (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's keep an eye on Truth Social and see how the 'con' faction work that end of the question.-- Quisqualis (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Woman
Hello, would anyone like to get involved in a discussion regarding the definition of woman? If you look at that talk page and the archives it is the same 3-4 handful of users constantly defending that women "typically" have a pair of X chromosomes. I say there is no sources in the article and they are telling me I need to add my own. It might need to be taken to NPOV noticeboards or something. Cable10291 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If there is any interptetation this comment that is *not* a WP:CANVASS violation, I'd be very curious to know what that is. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are assuming without any basis that editors in this WikiProject will think a certain way due to the nature of the WikiProject itself. Every editor thinks for themselves and has their own opinion. Cable10291 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't in any way explain why you chose to notify the participants in *this* Wikiproject. Did you choose the page at random? Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * there are eight WikiProjects listed in the header in Talk:Woman. WikiProject Conservatism is not one of them. Why have you notified this WikiProject and not any of the more relevant and directly connected projects? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Edward Brownlee
John Edward Brownlee has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Houck
I recently created Draft:Mark Houck. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review Liberal Movement (Australia)
I have nominated Liberal Movement (Australia) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reliability RfC
Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the RFC at WP:RSN on whether Fox News should be deprecated for politics. Thriley (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ultraconservatism" has been nominated for deletion.
The "Ultraconservatism" page has been nominated for deletion. I thought some of the users here would be interested to debate if the article should be kept or deleted. I will invite some users who might contribute with additional expertise on the topic: @Kanclerz K-Tech @LongLivePortugal @Trakking @Gondolabúrguer. Not canvassing as following "...Editors known for expertise in the field" rule. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have just posted my opinion at the talk. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

British cultural Marxism redirect
Need your input on where British cultural Marxism should redirect. Please discuss at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Thanks! AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've made this an RFD Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_17 AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"La Falange" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Falange&redirect=no La Falange] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested input on Draft:Parental rights movement
Hello all, I recently began an article Draft:Parental rights movement because I noticed a shift in language used by conservative commentators and politicians using parental rights as a red-herring. I wanted to clear up the space and begin a article to describe the so-called movement. I would like to invite editors who may be interested in this article to weigh in. Thanks! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Timothy P. Carney
I created a draft for columnist and author Timothy P. Carney. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Request to fix inaccuracy on Steve Hilton article
Hello editors. On behalf of Steve Hilton, I am asking editors to consider correcting information in his biography pertaining to Hilton's comments on the 2020 election. In doing so, I used the edit COI template, but was asked by the reviewing editor to first discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area. So here I am. Anyone interested in reviewing the request can see it here. Thank you. SKflo (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Global warming controversy
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Global warming controversy&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for McCarthyism
McCarthyism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Wildrose Party
Wildrose Party has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Conservatism in Norway and Norwegian nationalism
I'm proposing that a Conservatism in Norway page be created if not maybe just a Template, and I'm also requesting that the Norwegian nationalism article, in which I just re-created be added into that template as a ideology. Thank you! Zyxrq (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea. It is well known that conservatism is stronger in Norway than in the other Nordic countries. The simple reason for this is that people who live in mountaineous regions tend to be rightist, conservative, Christian to a larger extent than people who live on the ”progressive plains,” as pointed out by Austrian aristocrat Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Trakking (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are going to cerate A template and a Page, what should we do first? I'm sure you have much more experience than me when it comes to doing this. I'm sure we will have to cerate a Draft article. Zyxrq (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Libertarian conservatism
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Libertarian conservatism that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Libertarian conservatism
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Libertarian conservatism that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)