Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Blue flag waving.svg


Have a question? Just ask

Archives

Banners

Welcome to the Discussion page for WikiProject Conservatism. Here you can find discussions, notices, and requests for articles that deal with conservatism. If you would like to discuss, place a notice about, or if you have a request about, an article within the scope of this project, please include it here. Note that posting here in order to try to recruit editors with a particular political point of view is contrary to the intent of this project. Make sure to keep up-to-date on happenings at the project Watch


On Expanding the Template[edit]

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."[edit]

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)

Kolg8, 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)

On Expanding the Template, Updated[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)