Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Congratulations CharlieEchoTango!

Member CharlieEchoTango's request for adminship was successfull! The vote was 85-2-1. As he embarks upon his new role we wish him every success. If you want to drop off some Wikilove, you can find his talk page here. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

News Suggestion

The one year anniversary of Kathy Dunderdale being sworn in as the first female premier of Newfoundland and Labrador will be this Saturday December 3, 2011. Since being sworn in last year she has gone on to become only the third female in Canadian history to win a general election, and the only one to have been leader of a conservative party. I forgot to bring this up when she won the election but I thought now might also be a good time for a news article on her. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a good fit for The Right Stuff, but the anniversary would work for the Conservatism portal. Go to the Newsroom here and add a news item to the "In the News" page, for example something like this: [1]. Then see how it looks on the portal here. By the way you are doing a fantastic job on Canadian politics. Keep up the great work! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, the greatest Brazilian leader and stalwart conservative is now a FAC

Sabará (pictured) was one of the towns Caxias marched into in order to put the libs in their place.

It's with pleasure that I'm here to inform everyone that Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias is now a FAC. If you are interested, please read the article and share your thoughts on its nomination page. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is wonderful news. Note that any editor may participate in the FAC of this High-importance article. Good luck, Lecen. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: after 10 days the FAC is 2-0 for Support. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article in project

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity BigJim707 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats Eisfbnore

Member Eisfbnore reached Round 4 in the 2011 WikiCup competition. He was the only member involved in the WikiCup, an annual competition based on skill of editing. An article he created which is within our scope, Nils Vogt (journalist), earned him 5 points in the competition. Vogt was a Norwegian journalist who founded the Conservative Press Association. WikiCup is currently accepting participants for 2012. Keep up the great work Eisfbnore! – Lionel ^(talk) 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Project logo

I know that Burke as the father of conservatism is dear to us all. However, he may not be the best logo for the project. I was fooling around on commons and came up with the image to the left. Admit it: it's kinda cool. The downside is that the present logo, the square engraving of Burke, is recognized throughout Wikipedia, even the world, as the logo of WPConservatism. Another downside is there are no white people depicted in the group. Keep in mind that Burke is still proudly displayed on our prestigious and highly saught after barnstar: the Burkie. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other--but I think the conversation will provide a much needed break from the non-stop fighting.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The blue flag alone seems best, compare with socialism (red flag), liberalism (yellow flag), etc. (Although Burke is an inspiration of modern English conservatism, he had little influence on conservatism in other countries or even in England before the 19th century.) BTW I would be curious to know in what way he has influenced you. TFD (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A simple flag would be best, but it should be 'conservative blue' not 'European blue'. The British Conservative party uses Pantone Process Blue if we want to follow their usage. BTW there is an interesting WP article about Political colour. --Kleinzach 07:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We should consider using the shade of blue used by French conservatives, who were called the bleus. (Quebec priests said "Heaven is blue and hell is red".) I am not an expert on colours, but it seems that the traditional conservative parties of Europe and the Americas use different shades of blue, and of course many use white. TFD (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

UMP? But their colours are blue — and red. (BTW the Brit Conservative web colour is R:0 G:135 B:220, so it's lighter than the European flag Lionel suggested.) --Kleinzach 05:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the flag logo as proposed by Lionel. As for which blue, it doesn't really matter, let's just go with #0000FF or a slightly lighter variation. It's blue, it's simple, it works. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting #0000FF[2]? This is a completely different shade from either of the other suggestions! Is there a rationale? BTW the reason this does matter is that colour coding/symbolism is used for many purposes not just politics. You can't just hoist a blue flag and expect everybody to know what it means! --Kleinzach 01:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, the UMP (founded in 2002) is a union between conservatives, Christian democrats, liberals, radicals and socialists. My suggestion was to use the color of the conservatives, not of the Christian democrats, liberals, radicals and socialists, who are not traditionally considered to be conservatives. TFD (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. What is the colour of the conservatives? --Kleinzach 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless any of you are a graphic artist, we're stuck with the colors on commons. How about this:
– Lionel ^(talk) 07:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'waving' flag colours are graduated which makes them difficult to adapt. The Dodger blue version suggested by Lionel is in fact much closer to (Brit) Conservative blue than the first example so it might offer a workable compromise. --Kleinzach 04:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think plain blue (#0000FF) is best. It is currently used for the European Parliament charts[3] and it seems that different conservative parties have used different shades of blue. TFD (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The official 'European Conservatives and Reformists' colour is here: [ file removed ] This is not #0000FF - it's less strident. --Kleinzach 04:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the file with the colour was removed by a DASHBot. Odd . . . --Kleinzach 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the 'European Conservatives and Reformists' colour is 0066CC. --Kleinzach 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:People waving blue flag.png was ruled out above, wasn't it? Both the blue and the coloured people, no? --Kleinzach 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like myself & CharlieEchoTango like it. You & TFD don't. Regarding the shade of blue for the flag, it does seem to appear that my suggestion, Dodger Blue, is preferred. We have to consider that the portal currently uses a blue flag and the project uses Burke. That was done intentionally so that the project & portal would not be confused. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I was bold and changed the flag to DodgerBlue on the portal, and {{Conservatism}} and {{Conservatism footer}}. IMO I think the blue flag by itself is preferable for article space, and something different for the project.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, no consensus then. We should ask for other opinions. --Kleinzach 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Different project pages have different definitions of the project's scope.

• WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism.
• WikiProject Conservatism documents the conservative movement, and the people, groups and events that have shaped that movement.

These are rather different scopes. If I understand correctly, the conservative movement is a specifically American phenomenon starting in about 1950, whereas conservatism is a broader term that encompasses much more than just the American conservative movement. For consistency, I propose we use the first one wherever a definition is required.   Will Beback  talk  07:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the latter was an attempt at a "Vision" which fell prey to an early bout of talkpage bickering if you recall, but I agree that we should use the former.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The first definition is circular i.e. conservatism defined by conservatism. As I've said before, this is unsatisfactory. --Kleinzach 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My assumption is that the first line defines the scope as everything mentioned in the Conservatism article. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think it more accurately characterizes the scope then "the conservative movement", which has a specifically American meaning with a 60-year history.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's only an inference that the article defines the project, it's not specific. --Kleinzach 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We lost our way a long time ago. A wikiproject is not a collection of articles. It is not a well-defined scope. These characterizations go against the spirit of the wikiproject as outlined in WP:PROJGUIDE. A wikiproject is a "group of editors" who work on articles in a topic area. That topic area is not a WP:stand-alone list which conforms to a rigid set of inclusion criteria, or in project-lingo scope. Moreover the guideline states that the scope "need not be elaborate or detailed." Whether the scope is detailed or vague, per wikiproject guidelines, this group "cannot be forced to support any article that they do not wish to support, or prohibited from supporting any article that they wish to support." If we do not want to support KKK we do not have to. If we want to support Cold War then it is our right. In the end, regardless of the scope, the group has the right to include or exclude any article based on consensus. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This 'group of editors' does not have an agreed position on what to include or exclude (via the project banner). Lionel may wish for a kind of 'dictatorship of the group', but in practice it won't work. Other projects define their scope as clearly as possible in order to decide which articles to put banners on. --Kleinzach 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no other way to say this: your insinuation that I "wish for a dictatorship" is completely out of line and a personal attack. I have always strived for consensus: and I have the diffs. Your problem Kleinzach, which I will once again repeat for those who have missed my previous statements, is that your arguments are weak, your positions are weak and your reasoning is weak. And your assertion that "other projects define their scope as clearly as possible" is completely misleading besides being OTHERSTUFF. Most of the 2000 wikiprojects do not have a clearly defined scope and furthermore nowhere in the guideline does it require a clearly defined scope. To the contrary the guideline states that successful "WikiProjects have a ... broad scope." So just stop already. You're wasting my time and everyone else's with this nonsense. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your blood pressure. Please read what I wrote: "a kind of 'dictatorship of the group ' " (emphasis in italics). --Kleinzach 02:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there common threads in conservatism?

This is not directly related to the above proposal to rename the project. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Which of these describe the majority of conservatives?

1. Maintain the status quo or return to conservative values.
2. Focus on fiscal responsibility.
3. Return power to the states.
4. Maintain peace through military strength.
5. Focus on individual responsibility to maintain civil society.
6. Focus on family values
7. Anti-abortion
8. Limit marriage to male-female partnerships

Second list, neoconservatives

1. object to increasing secularism
2. object to illiberalism masquerading as liberalism
3. oppose the destructive effects of the couterculture
4. opposed to relativism
5. patriotism is good
6. world government is be rejected might lead to tyranny
7. clearly distinguish between friends and enemies in foreign policcy
8. moral clarity
9. The world is adrift, but for our safety it needs to be moored
10. Neoconservatives refuses to sit back, but step forward, because someone has to, and because it is the right thing to do.

(feel free to add more)

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss below

Note for other wikipedians: This section was for talk of User:DonaldRichardSands original topic regarding American conservative issues, further RM discussion is probably best made above in the RM section. -Kai445 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2. to 8. are temporal positions, they could equally apply to socialists in past decades, and may no longer be considered conservative in future decades. Equally they could describe the positions of the current Democratic administration, although less so the Conservative government in the U.K. Only 1. is applicable. But is maintaining a modern liberal status quo really conservative? And saying conservatives support a return to conservative values is a tautology, what are these values? TFD (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does this have to do with this WikiProject? This talk page is a place for collaboration, not a forum. Toa Nidhiki05 20:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that it is not a forum, but where can an agreement on what is conservatism be discussed. The question is should the project be limited to just the USA and not include the world. My question is: how is the USA type of conservatism different from other types of conservatism? This list is intended in the context of that question. What do the conservatives of Europe hold to? What about Asia, Africa, the Middle East? Is there a common thread to all conservatives? Thanks for your comments. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• The values listed have been taken from online sources. I could provide the citations if that will help. These are not my opinions. Rather, those who write about conservatism list these values as I have listed them. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. conservatism differs from conservatism elsewhere in the world because conservatism is founded on the basis of protecting tradition, specifically monarchy, aristocracy and the established church. American conservatism on the other hand is about supporting liberalism, i.e., limited government, capitalism and separation of church and state. While the decline of medieval institutions has moved the two ideologies closer, conservatism and liberalism remain separate, organized into separate parties with different outlooks. TFD (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Change the name! US Conservatism v. Worldwide

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism → Wikipedia:WikiProject US Conservatism – Read below, talk page, does not adequately address the difference between conservatism in the US and abroad, and clearly has a US centric bias. A distinction should be made.

I've tried to come up with many different names. From US conservatism, to liberal conservatism, to American-style conservatism. I don't want to harm the scope, but what to clarify what type of conservatism is being talked about.

• Support This project doesn't address the fact that "Conservatism" in the United States is very different from Conservatism abroad.

I'll take this the context of the United Kingdom, sfince I live here at the moment. Politicians that would be called "Democrats" or "Liberals" in the United States are in fact more or less center-right by European standards."Liberals" in Europe also primarily refers to free-market, classical liberals, whereas in the United States it refers to social liberals. "Conservatives" in the United States would be considered right by Europe, whereas say the UK conservative party is roughly center-right (but much more left by American standards), i.e. equivalent to the American democrats in many ways (Maintain a large welfare state i.e. National Health Service, National Insurance, subsidized university fees, etc, while still promoting different styles of relationships with the EU, less regulation etc).

Labour in the UK is NOT the equivalent of the Democrats in the US. It is much further left, what the Europeans would call center-left. The Lib Dems are roughly in the center. In other words, conservatives in the US don't really have an equivalent major party in the UK (or other European countries).

I could go on to other countries, or the talk more about the Liberal Democrats or Labour, but I don't think that's necessary.

What I am trying to say is, this project should really change its name to US Conservatism, or something along those lines. Because it really doesn't address conservatism anywhere else the way it is meant to be addressed. And even if the name can't be changed, then it should make it VERY CLEAR that there is a difference between these two types of "conservatism".

They can't really be all lumped together. RGloucester (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I would like to mention that my requested move is requested because of stuff like the discussion User:DonaldRichardSands started below. It says the "the majority of conservatives" but then lists AMERICAN issues. This project clearly doesn't adequately represent a worldwide view, and should hence be qualified as American. Such is an example as to why a move has been requested. RGloucester (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Which of the list provided are not of a worldwide nature for conservatives. "Focus on fiscal responsibility" is certainly broader than the USA, isn't it. States' rights is USA. Anti-abortion? It may be worthwhile to examine what common traits are part of all conservatives, everywhere. I would rather see conservatism remain broadly defined. The conservative movement is larger than just the USA. Is this recognized? English speaking countries seem to have shifted to conservative interests. What about France, Germany, etc.? How does conservatism show itself in those countries? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Conservatism as a whole, and especially in Europe, has its roots in movements to prevent the liberalisation of the economy, and political system. Hence, it was the realm of the aristocracy in Britain and elsewhere Europe. It wasn't about fiscal conservatism (in fact there was plenty of profligate expenditure involved) though that may play a part in some modern conservative movements. That's what makes American "conservatism" very different. Because liberalism has always been accepted as the norm in the United States, so the conservatism in the US is really a form of classical liberalism. There was no aristocracy or traditional, non-liberal, system to support.Conservatives elsewhere are usually centralist, that is they do not like devolving power to states or other subnational entities. Maintaining peace through military strength has nothing to do with conservatism anywhere. Individual responsibility to maintain civil society is a feature of all political movements in Europe, left and right, because of a stronger traditional of loyalty to the state. "Family values" are associated with Christian democracy, not really conservatism. Anti-abortion is a non-issue outside of the states. Limiting marriage is a non-issue in Europe. Conservatives in Europe accent civil partnerships, marriage or some form of that as the norm. It isn't a debate. There are many, many differences. RGloucester (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• You wrote: "does not adequately address the difference between conservatism in the US and abroad... A distinction should be made". Why must a distinction be made? Who says that this is mandatory? Are we violating some policy? Noone has to join this group who doesn't want to. If you don't like the comingling of American and other conservatism, then don't join. It's really quite simple. If you're interested in American conservatism then join. If you're interested in European conservatism, you can join too. You know, if you're interested in any kind of conservatism, this is the group for you. Why do you find that so threatening? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• A distinction should be made, because otherwise, it is essentially MISINFORMATION, and since this is an encyclopaedia, it should not promote misinformation. It should represent a worldview, not just the United States. Conservatism in the United States, and conservatism outside, ARE VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS. Almost entirely different. Ask any political scientist, as they categorize them differently. Instead of continuing to promote the idea that conservatism in the United States is even remotely similar to that in the UK or otherwise, it would be more wise to promote the truth that there is NO ONE "CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT". That's why. RGloucester (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• This project is not part of the encyclopedia. It is not in article space. We do not present "misinformation" because we do not provide any information. You must look to the articles for that. We do not promote any ideas and we certainly do not promote any "truths" of any kind.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The majority of reliable sources group American conservatism as a form of liberalism. See for example "Party Identifiers Across the Ideological Spectrum": "the American Democratic Party would be considered a left liberal party and the Republicans a right-liberal party."[4] As Bernard Crick wrote, "It is more than a mere matter of the different American usage of the word 'conservative': the American democratic-liberal in not having a conservative tradtion to attack, so as to explain the contradictions in his own world, is forced to invent one. What is now interesting is that this tactic has been pursued so successfully that those who were attacked as conservatives are now wearing the false appellation openly and proudly. ("The strange quest for American conservatism", 1955)[5] As Friedrich Hayek wrote, "what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense" ("Why I Am Not a Conservative", 1960).[6] TFD (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I believe that neither the American Democrats nor Republicans can be considered "Liberal" in a worldwide context. But the RM is a good one, and the issues listed below were clearly American ones. I hope you don't mind me moving your support into the proper section. -Kai445 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is neoliberalism, an abandonment of social liberalism and a return to earlier liberal principles. Liberalism is a broad concept but in most of the world it refers particularly to economic liberalism, which emphasizes the reduction of welfare and government intervention. TFD (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. Thank you for the more detailed explanation of your thoughts. -Kai445 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Support The project appears quite US-centric to me, and conservative means different things in different places. -Kai445 (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Of the articles already included in this project, are there any about conservatism outside of North America? Notice, I assume that Canada and the USA have similar conservative issues. I don't know about Europe, Asia, Africa, or Australia, yet. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• See my comment above. But actually, conservatism in Canada is very different than the United States because of Canada's strong British ties (it wasn't until the 1982 Canada Act that Canada could alter its constitution without the consent of British parliament). It was and still is to a degree associated with strong ties to the Monarchy of Canada, and Britain as opposed to a more North American outlook. It is rooted in the original liberal v. conservative stuff that I mentioned above. Canadian conservatism can be considered a branch of British conservatism, more or less. RGloucester (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose does this have to come up every freaking month? Additionally, you are attempting to change the de facto change the scope of this project, which is a task for the members of this project alone. Thus, both RGloucester and Kai445's support is invalid, as neither are members.

This project has faced a failed deletion attempt, so I guess the next logical step is to reduce its scope - and alienating the many members of this project that are interested in conservatism worldwide must seem like a great first step. However, unless you are a member, you cannot attempt to define the scope - and clearly, that includes moving the entire project to a more specific name. I would request this be removed immediately, as the requester has no ability to define scope. Toa Nidhiki05 20:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The problem here isn't really about scope. The problem is that conservatism in the US isn't really conservatism anywhere else. Studying conservatism anywhere else in the developed world is relatively similar, but the United States is an outlier. Hence, using the American definition of conservatism, and then attempting to represent all the conservative movements of the world is a false categorisation, which is misleading to anyone not from the United States (hell, it seems to be misleading to people FROM the United States) or a political scientist. Perhaps you could change the title to "Social conservatism and classical liberalism" or something like that and then study the world over. But you can't properly call it "conservatism" without being extremely vague. Whilst I understand your sentiment, I'm just trying to make life easier for other people who browse these pages, and preventing potential misinformation. RGloucester (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - We can and we have, since the time of creation and into the deletion debate. Broad WikiProjects are acceptable - WikiProject Socialism has many more pages tagged than us, and other ones like WikiProject:Tree of Life and WikiProject:Medicine are broad as well. This is entirely about scope. Our project has aided many other countries besides the US, such as Norwegian conservatism and British conservatism. The fact that you don't like our scope or feel that conservatism is not a worldwide movement is not reason to move or change this project. Toa Nidhiki05 21:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't about being broad, or about scope. It is about clarifying WHAT YOU MEAN by conservatism. Clearly, the American definition is what you hold to be true. That's fine, but it doesn't apply in the rest of the world. Conservatism is a "worldwide movement" in the sense that the word is used around the world, but it means VERY DIFFERENT THINGS in each part. I don't think you identify with the aristocracy or a monarchy, do you? Well that's a very important part of conservatism right across the world. Instead of calling it "US Conservatism" perhaps you can call it "American-style Conservatism" or "Conservative Liberalism" or "Classical liberal-social conservative" or various other things. The scope can be maintained, while giving it a title that fits what you are trying to do within the project, and isn't a misnomer. RGloucester (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the scope cannot be maintained if it is moved. Read the scope:

Q: What is the scope of this WikiProject? A: As stated on the main page of this project, we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism.

Once again, you are, by proposing this move, basically trying to adjust the scope - by complaining about what we cover, you are complaining about our scope. If this works, you would remove this project's support of international articles, and alienate the members of this project that edit mainly there - and who might have no other project to go to. Our left-wing counterpart, WikiProject:Socialism, is similarly broad - it covers everything from social democracy to communism, both of which are rated as top importance. Toa Nidhiki05 21:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, what I am trying to do, is clarify what the project address. It is clear that this project defines conservatism in the American sense. What you should do, then, is to explore this "type" of conservatism across the world, while being aware, of the difference. If you a name change is not accepted, then the this must be clarified by the project. What do you mean by conservatism? Because it is never really properly defined. Do you mean social conservatism? Do you mean economic conservatism? Do you mean European conservatism? The little box that says "This page is a part of WikiProject: Conservatism: a project that attempts to document the conservative movement": What does that mean? What is the "conservative movement"? The difference between WikiProject: Socialism and this one is that socialism can be clearly defined in a similar definition throughout the world, whereas conservatism is NOT consistent throughout the world, as I've mentioned. RGloucester (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No. It not true that "this project defines conservatism in the American sense." This project uses the definition of conservatism found in the Conservatism artile and covers the topics presented in the article. The primary source of articles for the project is the category:conservatism category. Your points in no way reflect the nature of this project. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you accept the "Burkean" definition given, then you accept the following statement: "the liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith, but thought that economics should be kept subordinate to the conservative social ethic, that capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy". That doesn't sound right, does it? If you mean "fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism, bioconservatism" - then you mean the American version. There is a clear, very marked difference. Very marked. That is where the confusion lies. RGloucester (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Observation

• There is a subset to the conservatism project called 'conservatism in the United States': Compare that with Portal:Conservatism and this Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. This last Wikipedia component includes this category: Category:Conservatism by country It seems obvious to me that the Conservatism project cannot/shouldnot be reduced to simply USA conservatism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The premise upon which this move is based is false. A wikiproject is a group of editors who work in a topic area. This group is made up of editors who work on British conservatism, Canadian, Brazilian and yes, American conservatism. The present group formed 9 months ago and has been working together ever since. It would be one thing if this was brought up when the project was forming. But 9 months later, with 70 members, 4000 articles and a portal. It's too late for this. This move would fragment the group and break it in half. And why would we break up a group of 70 people? Because RGloucester thinks that "They can't really be all lumped together." That premise is false. It has already been disproven. We can be lumped together. That reason is not sufficient to break up this or any group of editors.– Lionel ^(talk) 23:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment For the final time, this is not about limiting the scope or breaking up the project, but more clearly defining the definition of conservatism that is being put forth. Judging by the articles and conversations here, it seems as if the "American-style" definition is such. It should hence be called "American-style", "liberal conservatism", "Socially conservative liberalism" or something along those lines. You can't claim to truly represent a worldview when you broadly follow the American definition of conservatism. RGloucester (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Who mandated that we follow a worldview? Is that a policy? We follow an inclusive view. Inclusive of all forms of conservatism, even if they aren't ideologically compatible. Why are you dictating terms to us? And please be honest: moving the project will result in the loss of the non-American articles and potentially non-American members. We would go from 4000 articles to 2000 articles, and from 70 members to 35 members. If you didn't realize this when you proposed the move, you know now. Now that you know the effect of your RM, are you still interested in this move? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• A worldview is necessary for an encyclopaedia open to everyone. Regardless, if you are going to be "inclusive" you should do so in a way that makes sense. Break up your project into subcategories and CLEARLY DEFINED TYPES that everyone will understand. And on your portal, mention that conservatism is an amazingly broad term that can mean many different things, and say what those are. Promote knowledge of the differences of conservatism in different countries, how amazingly different they are. Make sure that Americans, for example, know that the rest of world wouldn't view American conservatism as "conservative". And so forth. But honestly, I still feel as if it would beneficial to qualify the title, and if necessary, break the project into groups. You can all still work in the projects, but it would make more sense to everyone else involved. RGloucester (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you insist on forcing a view the project is clearly hostile to? We do not have to follow any of your 'advice', and we likely will not due to your hostile and, quite frankly, bossy tone. You are trying to force your original research view of conservatism on the rest of the encyclopedia, this project included. If you do not like this project, don't join - and don't try to ruin it for the people who have joined. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is for the greater good, which I suppose is contrary to your definition of "conservatism". Information in an encyclopaedia should be correct. Misrepresenting it is fallacy. It isn't original research. Wikipedia and (I suppose the project) itself makes the distinction in the Conservative article. RGloucester (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is a wikiproject. I recommend that you acquaint yourself with WP:PROJGUIDE. A wikiproject is a group of people. Wikiprojects are not part of the encyclopedia (as in article space). This group is not tasked with presenting the truth of conservatism. We are not misrepresenting anything, because we do not represent anything beyond the people who joined this project. We are not required to have a worldview. We are not required to have a defined scope. This wikiproject as organized complies with all applicable policies and guidelines. Just because this wikiproject doesn't make sense to you is not a reason to break it up. If you object to this group of people pretend like we are not here. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"We comply with all applicable policies and guidelines". Jeez, sounds like something a scam artist would say, or a statement better attributed to someone supporting fraudulent business practices. Regarding the project, I'm not speaking for anyone else, and I'm not saying that people aren't entitled to their own opinions and viewpoints, but if the project appears to be a bunch of American editors primarly editing American-defined conservative issues, then this project should be called "American Conservatism", not "Conservatism". Sure, you can call it anything you want, call it "WikiProject Bubblegum Starship Wiggly Tables" for all I care, but why not have a name that is "best suited" to what the project represents. If a name change breaks up the group and it falls apart, then you must not think much of your fellow contributors... very sad. -Kai445 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so now you attack us for supporting our European editors? Nice. Toa Nidhiki05 03:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can point to where I actually did that, and be less of a douche with a persecution complex? -Kai445 (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There you go again. Toa Nidhiki05 03:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to sweet talk me with some quotes from the great Ronald Reagan? I'm a little turned on now!Kai445 (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think the repeated arguments here demonstrate how difficult it is to make a project about worldwide conservatism meaningful and productive. In my view a smaller, better defined WikiProject US Conservatism, attracting like-minded participants, will be a happier and more cohesive grouping. I hope those opposing will think again and look at the benefits of such a move. --Kleinzach 01:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• No matter what this project is called there will always be efforts to delete or constrict it. This project has no problem attracting like-minded participants: we have 70 members. Apart from yourself and RGloucester, whose account is 4 days old, the only "unhappy" participants are Binksternet and TFD--both of whom nominated/voted to delete the project. It's obvious what their goal is. There are no benefits to the move, except in the minds of those who would break up the group. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Lionel: You have put a huge amount of effort into this, which is admirable, however you've also demonstrated again and again that you don't understand a non-American viewpoint. Speaking as someone who has lived in a number of different countries in Europe and Asia and been exposed to different political cultures, I hope you will reflect on the opposition to your ideas and accept that a clearer and more limited scope will work better. --Kleinzach 01:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why is it assumed I am trying to delete or constrict the project? Here's the deal: I've studied political science in the past, and I've lived around, among other things. Americans do seem to have a very narrow worldview on the whole, and this is often represented on Wikipedia. That isn't their, fault, but Wikipedia shouldn't present views that promote that. Instead, the the differences should be clearly marked, so that everyone can understand so that proper, correct knowledge is spread. This especially applies to the term "conservative" which means terribly different things in the American context than they do elsewhere. Therein lies the problem with equating the term "conservatism" with the US usage, as many of your users and other folk do, when on an encyclopaedia which is supposed to represent all English speakers, and hence, the world. To do so doesn't make any sense, is confusing for everyone using the encyclopaedia, anyone who may want to join the project, anyone who may be a conservative in a country outside the United States, etc. That's why clarification is a good thing, and in this case, is necessary. RGloucester (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• RGloucester, we should always seek to clarify better. I have no problem with a broadly based WP Conservatism Project. When someone from France, as an example, is noted, in France, for being conservative, then let's include their article in the project. If someone from Fiji is noted for being conservative by fellow Fijians, let's include their article in the project. I suspect as we examine the notion of conservatism, we will be surprised to find common threads of thought. Meanwhile, let various societies define their conservatives and let's include all societal groups recognized as conservative by their societies in the project. We don't need to limit the project to one type of conservatism. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Klein will you stop being patronizing. How utterly conceited you are to think that because I disagree with you it must be because I "don't understand a non-American viewpoint." I understand a non-American viewpoint better than you think. Klein: your arguments are not persuasive, not compelling and not convincing. I think that you are the one who has a deficit of understanding. You might also benefit from a reading of WP:PROJGUIDE. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• RGloucester--you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I begin to wonder if you are making this up as you go along. Your generalization about Americans, that they have a "very narrow worldview on the whole" is offensive.

  The members of this project reflect interests in many national variants of conservatism. See WP:WikiProject Conservatism/About us. They had no problem finding this project. They are obviously not confused. Your statements are false, unsupportable, and you should cease making these generalizations and misrepresentations about Americans and this group of people. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am American, and quite frankly, that is relatively true, whether one likes it or not. I'm not going to try and prove it, because if you want proof, it is out there. Regardless of that, the amount of members of this project from the rest of the world is very small in comparison with the very large readership who might potentially be confused. And furthermore, my statements are not false or unsupportable, the conservatism article on Wikipedia itself clearly states the difference between these kinds of "conservatism". If you want books and references, I can get them. Any "generalisations" I've made are based in fact, i.e. I've read discussions, articles etc. of this project to confirm that fact. Perhaps I should ring an old professor of mine to chime in? RGloucester (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I do not care what you are. Do not denigrate a nationality. We do not permit bigotry here. Get off your WP:SOAPBOX now: this is your last warning.

  I see by your comment, "the very large readership," that you have not read WP:PROJGUIDE and are still under the mistaken impression that this project is part of the encyclopedia and resides in article space. Let me try to get through to you one more time: we do not have a readership. 99.99% of readers will never know that we exist. I begin to wonder is this is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"This is your last warning?" Who are you, the internet police? -Kai445 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Conservatism is not a political philosophy confined to the United States; it is extant throughout the world. Moreover, much of WikiProject Conservatism is composed of an international membership, which works on articles around the world. I might add that WikiProject Liberalism is not confined to a geographical region. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• WikiProject:Liberalism doesn't exist on its own. Actually though, its portal is a perfect example of how to divvy up different forms of liberalism. But furthermore, these are very different subjects. Whereas American liberalism is actually a form of liberalism (social and classical fused), American conservatism is not considered conservative elsewhere, but a variety of liberalism. This was described above. The problem lies within the fact that American conservatism is TOTALLY different from the rest of the world's definition in almost every respect. This is not true of American liberalism. RGloucester (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

RGloucester, please leave. It is clear you don't like this project, so perhaps you should work on one of the other pages this encyclopedia has. You're OR rants on what you define as conservatism or liberalism add absolutely nothing to this project and hold up legitimate work. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Toa Nidhiki and RGloucester. The request to leave doesn't seem needed. Conservatism and liberalism do seem to get mixed as one considers different value systems around the world. However, this conservatism project group focuses on the worldwide conservatism values, as varied as they might be. Rather than requesting someone to leave, I think it is possible to use the points made to strengthen the argument to keep the (conservative) status quo of this project. Why leave, let's examine the points. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks User:DonaldRichardSands, I appreciate the olive branch. The thing is, there are roughly two kinds of "conservative values". There are those of the United States (state's rights/anti-abortion/fiscal conservative/free market/small government etc) and those of the rest of the world, which were described above. The "values" across the rest of the world are relatively similar, but those of the United States are totally out there, a total outlier. That's what makes this weird and confusing. And that's also exactly why I proposed a change to *some* other moniker that better suits it. Apparently, so the story goes, the world "conservative" was not used to described any political entity in the United States until that lovely man we all know and love, FDR, used it as a slur against his various laissez-faire opponents. Just as homosexuals adopted the term queer, so did what are now called "conservatives" adopt that term, despite the fact that didn't actually describe that which they subscribed to. I've got a link to this story somewhere, and I'll get it out in a bit. But it rather interestingly demonstrates how the term conservative is not only fairly a recent introduction to the American vocabulary, but also came about in extremely different circumstances, and means many different things. RGloucester (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment for Lionelt Just to prove my point about the difference between American and other "conservatisms" is a quote from the wikipedia article conservatism in the United States: "The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[18] - I left in the reference number if you want to look it up and find it. There is no doubt about this definition in academia. RGloucester (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Hip hop seems to have no problem functioning, even though there are many different forms and regional varieties of hip hop music - some very different from each other. This project works just fine the way it is, we have no reason to reduce our scope and leave our European friends out in the cold. Toa Nidhiki05 03:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• RGlouceser: you've actually proved my point. The scope of this project mirrors everything in the Conservatism article. Thus this project covers (1) American conservatism, the (2) differences with other conservatisms, and the (3) conservatism in other countries. I hope this helps alleviate the weirdness and confusion you are experiencing. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• But you see, there is a reason this "conservatism" is part of a separate article Conservatism in the United States. That's because it doesn't fit the others. The problem here, is that whilst this project may certainly have some international editors and what not, it clearly is US centric. It primarily uses a definition of conservatism that does not represent the whole world outside the United States. For example, you talk about "the conservative movement" but that has only ever really existed in the United States. Do you get what I'm trying to say? You are claiming to represent the world, yet many articles, your disambiguation page, your little boxes on talk pages etc clearly confuse what conservatism is. RGloucester (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason that Conservatism in the United States exists is not because of so-called ideological differences, but because the US content grew too large and had to summarized. See WP:Summary style. Many topics in Conservatism have been summarized. E.g. Conservatism in Canada. By the looks of it we'll be summarizing the British content soon and creating Conservatism in the United Kingdon. Don't worry, as you become more experienced your understanding of policies such as WP:SUMMARY will increase. We can't expect a new editor with a 5 day old account to grasp all of the technicalities of Wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"The conservative movement" you refer to wikilinks to Conservatism, and thus does not refer to American conservatism. Moreover, this phrase appears on a remote subpage--not on the main project page. I agree that this remote subpage is confusing and have clarified it. I see no reason to break up an entire project because of a confusing phrase on a remote subpage. Do you? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but there is no reason to limit the scope of this wikiproject. --Lecen (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Small comment: "...what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." See the article about Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, he was a 19th century Brazilian conservative stalwart. Don't get surprise if you see that he was an advotate of... Liberalism. In fact, his party (the Conservative Party) had as its foundation the Liberalism. If anyone here wants to explain what means to be a conservative across the world, there is no need to change this wikiproject's name. All you have to do is to start working on this article: Conservatism. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article identifies the principles of the Brazilian Conservative Party as "liberalism, exceptionalism, preserving the authority of the state, and a representative parliamentary monarchy". But the source used identifies them only as "exceptionalism, state authority and a representative, parliamentary monarchy" - does not include liberalism. It also says "Vasconcelos repeatedly made the point that the liberalism of Europe and, especially the United States, was peculiar to the societies and traditions of those nations".[7] Even if there were liberal elements within the party, it would be quite a stretch to call them liberals, unless one believes that rule by a landowning elite and the Catholic Church is liberalism. TFD (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you're insulting me. If you're going to talk about the source, you should read it before claiming that I misrepresented it. Do not the take the quotation out of its context. "His [Vasconcelos'] discussion of the separation of United States constitutionalism owed much to a careful reading of the Federalist Papers ... His discussion of the separation and balance of powers owed much to the estudy of Montesquieu and Benjamin Constant. However, the most infuential theorist for Vasconcelos (and, apparently, for those ho stood with him) was Guizot ... Guizot ... figured in the liberal opposition to Bourbon absolutism ... It was then that he wrote seminal works which the Brazilian liberals probably studied ..." (Source: Needell, pp. 76-77). François Guizot was a conservative liberal as anyone can see on his article here on Wikipedia. What Vasconcelos, the leading ideologue of the Brazilian Party Conservative meant was that the liberal institutions created in other countries to suit these nations' peculiarities could not be simply copied to Brazil. It doesn't mean that he was against liberal institutions. On the contrary, what he said was that Brazil had to create its own liberal institutions.

"... unless one believes that rule by a landowning elite and the Catholic Church is liberalism." I don't remember seeing any relation between the Brazilian Conservative Party and the Catholic Church. Please do not claim something if you don't even know of what you're talking about. In case you don't know, only 15% of the American people voted in the middle of the 19th century. Not every American citizen was allowed to vote. In fact, until the early 20th century, the American people did not vote for senators. These would certainly not be considered "liberal" by present-day standards, but it was then. And guess what: those kind of restrictions wer common not only in the U.S., but in Britan, France, Brazil, etc... --Lecen (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Federalist papers served as an inspiration for federalism in Imperial Germany as well, but that does not mean Bismarck was a liberal. And yes I am well aware that a limited franchise and slavery for that matter are consistent with liberalism. And yes conservatism may contain elements of liberalism. Guizot btw is more commonly described as a "liberal conservative", i.e., a supporter of Louis Philippe rather than Charles X. But what is your point? That liberalism is a form of conservatism and should be included in the scope of this project? TFD (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Change the scope to fit the project, not the project to fit the scope. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly this project is about all types of Conservatism as stated in its goals. The article on Conservatism is not U.S. centric and addresses all types of Conservatism. This seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to refocus the project, participate collaboratively with its members do so. This type of requested move nomination is dangerous to the goals of WP. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - like the other political WPprojects there is no benefit and some harm in limiting the scope of these coordinations. - Haymaker (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It seems clear that the present project is dominated by Americans, that discussions often are about the situation in the US even if this is not made clear at all, and that there is no universal desire to work on conservatism in its world-wide sense. (Given that conservatism especially in the US tends to take the form of national autism, with consequences that are probably better known by the rest of the world than many US citizens, this is hardly surprising.) Many WikiProjects have sub-projects or task forces that are sometimes as active as the main project. It would appear logical to me to create such a taslk force or sub-project for US conservatism and gradually move all purely US-related discussions there, so that editors interested in conservatism in other parts of the world do not unnecessarily feel alienated here. Hans Adler 14:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

good idea. It's hard to see much commonality among conservatism in German history, Russian history, Mexican history, Chinese history and U.S. history. Rjensen (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Still unacceptable, as the de facto result of this would be exactly the same as above. Why can you people not just accept that we work on all types on conservatism, not just a particular regional variety?Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, I'm sorry, but now you're being unnecessarily intransigent. If someone wants to create a task force about U.S. Conservative, he/she should have the right to do so. What's the big issue? --Lecen (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:TASKFORCE - "If you want to create a task force for an existing project, you should gather consensus from the other project members before bothering to read the next sections; they're designed for an existing WikiProject that wants to create task forces, especially the first one". There is no proof the project wants a taskforce on the above - especially given the reason for the creation of one is almost exactly the same as the one to rename it. WikiProject:Conservatism welcomes editors from all countries - we don't alienate anyone. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why can you people not just accept that we work on all types on conservatism, not just a particular regional variety?" I can certainly accept that, provided it is true. #Labelling of foreign political parties strongly suggests otherwise, however, and occurred roughly 1 month after Kleinzach proposed renaming the project to better reflect reality and you responded by proposing an inclusive official scope definition. Hans Adler 17:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans, even if we accept your premise that this project is "dominated by Americans" what does that have to do with anything? In spite of this so-called dominance non-Americans are joining the project, coming here to voice issues about conservatism, and obtaining help on non-American topics. Just in the last month we have discussed on this very talkpage:

• Supporting African David Bahati
• Supporting Belizian United Democratic Party (Belize)
• Lecen announced the FAC for the Brazilian Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias here
• The anniversary of Canadian Kathy Dunderdale was discussed
• We're looking for a GA reviewer for Scottish Conservative Party leadership election, 2011

There are many, many more examples of non-American editors seeking support here and being welcomed. It is obvious that this project does in fact have an international focus. To say that "editors interested in conservatism in other parts of the world do not unnecessarily feel alienated" could not be further from reality. This "problem" of so-called American dominance is no problem at all.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lionelt. --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler's alternative proposal, though attractive, is unlikely to be accepted because it's directed towards those who in denial of the basic issue here — which is that there is no shared understanding about what the project is about, what it covers and what it is trying to accomplish. Perhaps the main protagonists could take a step back, reflect quietly for a couple of days and then tell us how they see this project working during the next year or two?--Kleinzach 08:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Why can you people not just accept that we work on all types on conservatism, not just a particular regional variety?"

Some editors above have !voted to exclude some kinds of conservatism. It's clear that not all kinds of conservatism are being covered in this project. The question is whether to acknowledge that or to pretend otherwise. A core problem is that "conservatism" is too broad a term to make a good fit for a cohesive project. A conservative in Russia has drastically different views than a conservative in Canada, and a conservative Christian has very different views than a conservative Hindu.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, that is your opinion, and it is clearly not shared by the majority of this project. If you have irreconcilable issues with our scope, please leave and let those who like the scope work. Every time you bring up arguments here, it distracts from actual, legitimate work that editors could be doing. Rather than bother us, go do something somewhere else - this arguing is old and is clearly not going to sway the direction you demand it swing. Toa Nidhiki05 22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What is my opinion? That conservatives in different countries or from different religions have significantly different views? I'd be surprised if you disagree but I'd like to hear your case.

I'm not aware that Wikiproject's are empowered to eject members. I've worked collaboratively here and on articles as part of this project, so your hostility is not deserved. There's no rule which says we have to agree on everything.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is that this project has a bad scope; you're argument therefore is IDON'TLIKEIT, since the project has the right to define its scope.

I'm not ejecting you, I'm asking you to leave. You clearly don't like this project, and you disrupt work from happening. Rather than prevent, why not just ignore us and edit the millions of other articles on this encyclopedia? Toa Nidhiki05 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that this project has a vague scope. That's not an "I don't like it" argument.

I've been editing articles within the scope of this project (however defined) for years before you or most of the other posters here began editing Wikipedia. I think it's rather discourteous of you to ask me to leave just because we disagree on the scope of this project. There's no ideological litmus test here. Collaboration can include disagreement.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Editing articles within the scope for years" is not enough. The guideline states

To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members.

This project must foster esprit de corps. When disagreement becomes acrimonious and group morale is adversely affected; this is a violation of the guideline. This group, by consenus, can censure, WP:SHUN, or undertake whatever remedy available to restore morale. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - A disproportionate number of editor on this WikiProject are Americans because a disproportionate number of editors are Americans. We should be working to expand coverage of developing countries, not constrain this WikiProject. As an aside, this - "Given that conservatism especially in the US tends to take the form of national autism, with consequences that are probably better known by the rest of the world than many US citizens, this is hardly surprising." - was neither productive nor appreciated. - Haymaker (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

'Esprit de corps'

I would like Will Beback to stay, as I believe he is making an important contribution here. I would also like to see Lionel set an example of true 'esprit de corps' by reaching out to those he disagrees with, not threatening them — comically — with obscure WP essays! --Kleinzach 01:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing my comments. I did not threaten anyone, least of all those I disagree with. In fact, I made a clear distinction between "disagreement" and "acrimony." Perhaps you missed it. I offered my thoughts regarding members who jeopardize group morale. What's comical about being shunned? It happens all the time here. "Set an example by reaching out?" OK, Klein. How would you like to collaborate with me on:

1. Creating the Ronald Reagan portal, OR
2. Recruiting 14 people for the UK Conservative Party taskforce by searching user pages for the "Member of the UK Conservative Party" userbox and inviting them, OR
3. Each of us assessing 100 articles, OR
4. Submitting a bot request to put the Conservatism portal in the See also section of all tagged articles

Well, what do you say? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions which are appreciated. Re 1. I'm not qualified, and there are problems with portals (there's currently a discussion about this). 2. Why 14 people? Am I missing something? 3. Yes, but there's the scope problem. 4. This reminds me of the new proposal I've drafted which I hope you will support. Details will be posted below.--Kleinzach 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• This section is really long. Unmanageable?
• When we have strong differences, it is good to reaffirm our interest in each person's input. I am new to this group, but would be disappointed if any participant felt unwanted. Shunning is an extreme measure. Only one of my WP friends has been truly shunned (BW) and I felt sad about that. The more I become acquainted with this project, the more I sense its importance to Wikipedia. Many governments and other organizations use conservatism as the foundation of their thinking. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.