Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism
Become a member!
Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where editors can easily ask questions, meet new colleagues and join A-Team collaborations to create prestigious, high quality A-Class articles. Whether you're a newcomer or regular, you'll receive encouragement and recognition for your achievements with conservatism-related articles. This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian.
- Have you thought about submitting your new article to "Did You Know"? It's the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on the Main Page. More info can be found in our guide "DYK For Newbies."
- We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles. Make a request here.
- Experienced editors may want to jump right in and join an A-Team. While A-Class is more rigorous than a Good Article, you don't have to deal with the lengthy backlog at GA. If you already have an article you would like to promote, you can post a request for co-nominators here.
- Do you have a question?
Alerts[edit]
- Articles needing attention
Today's featured article requests
- 11 Jun 2024 – Ronald Reagan (talk · edit · hist) has been proposed for Today's Featured Article by 750h+ (t · c); see discussion
Articles for deletion
- 26 Apr 2024 – Woke Mind Virus (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Classicwiki (t · c); see discussion (8 participants)
- 22 Apr 2024 – John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by AusLondonder (t · c); see discussion (8 participants)
- 22 Apr 2024 – Ikkjutt Jammu (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Nishalover (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
- 17 Apr 2024 – Ossanda Liber (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by AusLondonder (t · c); see discussion (6 participants; relisted)
- 08 Apr 2024 – Radical pro-Beijing camp (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Simonm223 (t · c); see discussion (9 participants; relisted)
- 03 Apr 2024 – Reformed fundamentalism (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Jfhutson (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
- 15 Apr 2024 – Jack Rankin (British politician) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by AusLondonder (t · c) was closed as delete by Hey man im josh (t · c) on 22 Apr 2024; see discussion (4 participants)
- 15 Apr 2024 – Mark Willis (politician) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hemmers (t · c) was closed as delete by Explicit (t · c) on 22 Apr 2024; see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
- 06 Apr 2024 – Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by TarnishedPath (t · c) was closed as delete by Explicit (t · c) on 25 Apr 2024; see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
Redirects for discussion
- 08 Apr 2024 – Deplorable (talk · edit · hist) →Basket of deplorables was RfDed by Duckmather (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 21 Mar 2024 – Basket of deplorables (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Yoshiman6464 (t · c); start discussion
- 15 Dec 2023 – L. K. Advani (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Magentic Manifestations (t · c); start discussion
Requests for comments
- 27 Apr 2024 – True North Centre for Public Policy (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Fred Zepelin (t · c); see discussion
- 21 Apr 2024 – Free Democratic Party (Germany) (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Scia Della Cometa (t · c); see discussion
- 10 Apr 2024 – Brothers of Italy (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Alexanderkowal (t · c); see discussion
Requested moves
- 24 Apr 2024 – Libertarian conservatism (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Conservative libertarianism by Raydann (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 27 Jan 2024 – Jewish conservatism (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Judaism and politics in the United States by FatalSubjectivities (t · c); see discussion
Articles for creation
- 02 Mar 2024 – Draft:Republican Nomination for the October 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ELECTIONEDITS (t · c)
- 01 Mar 2024 – Draft:Darrell Leon McClanahan (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 50.231.37.122 (t · c)
- 17 Feb 2024 – Draft:College Republicans of America (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 24.92.141.127 (t · c)
- 10 Feb 2024 – Draft:Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Adamplevinson (t · c)
- Other alerts
Conservatism[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Volker Mosblech[edit]
- Volker Mosblech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A member of the 18th Bundestag. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and lacks any independent nongovernment sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Germany. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NPOL presumes notability for members of national legislatures. There's quite a bit of coverage in the German media of his death. AusLondonder (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this proposal is meaningless. per WP:NPOL. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:NPOL and there has been coverage in the German media of his death. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Only the nominator can "withdraw" as such, but there is (and should not be) absolutely no chance of this getting deleted. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I am the original nominator. I just got my username changed per WP:RENAME, while the AfD was active. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Woke Mind Virus[edit]
- Woke Mind Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).
Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?
According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.
I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says,
Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted
, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)- @Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says,
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society.
This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporatesreliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term
titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says,
- Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources,
Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.”
This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)- A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021,
The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021.
There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021,
- A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate)[edit]
- John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. Geotubemedia (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots as a viable ATD. Per nom. and others, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots.GobsPint (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Ossanda Liber[edit]
- Ossanda Liber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable
- Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Radical pro-Beijing camp[edit]
- Radical pro-Beijing camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Tasks[edit]
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
|
This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
|