Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.

New article Lunch pail Democrat (USA) - push for DYK?[edit]

After hearing the term during the MSNBC analysis of the Biden-Ryan US vice-presidential debate, I whipped up a quick Lunch pail Democrat article. The term refers to working-class members of the Democratic Party, and politicians that court them. I reckon it'd be good to strike while the iron is hot, and put this up for WP:Did you know? on Monday or so; I posted it today and there's a 5-day limit for DYK, as well as other items to meet on the checklist.

If anyone is interested in helping out, this could be a really topical DYK given the usage in front of so many MSNBC viewers last night. Happy to share the banners and wiki-love for any other substantial contributors if this hits DYK and gets enough views to be awarded.

Thanks for any help or suggestions! MatthewVanitas (talk)

Forza Italia[edit]

Hello everybody! I'm an italian user, I wanted to inform you that the "new" Forza Italia party of Berlusconi is not an opposition party yet. If Berlusconi will not be pushed out from his seat (an improbably but possibile thing), he can chose to remain in the government coalition. Also, FI has got one vice-minister and one secretary in the italian government! For now, then, it is better to correct the voices about Forza Italia, the parliament and the Letta 10 days will be all more clear. Bye for now! --Franci---juve 21:46, 20 nov 2013 (UTC)

Natural and legal rights RM[edit]

Opinions at Talk:Natural and legal rights#Requested move would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for input at Talk:Potential superpowers/GA1[edit]

This is an article that focuses on three potential superpowers that could dethrone the US: China, India, and the EU. (I think China's the only one of these with a realistic shot, but that's beside the point.) These three are all well-substantiated, but as far as I can tell, there are no sources that list all three of these as the, and the only, potential superpowers. As such, I raised a concern while reviewing it for GA status that other countries with some discussion as potential superpowers (mainly Russia, and to a lesser extent Brazil) ought to be given real estate somewhere on the page, because it seems artificially black-and-white to focus on these three, and only these three, nations. The community cannot come to a consensus on whether this is appropriate, and the discussion has whirlpooled into a bizarre debacle involving IPs and accusations from both sides of nationalist bias. I'm asking here because I'd appreciate input on whether - and, if so, to what extent - coverage of countries besides the big three is appropriate. Tezero (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I must add that there are really RS for Russia's support being potential superpower (book called "Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower"), but it has been denied to be "reliable". I must thank User:Tezero for his valuable input in resolving the tension. He proposed to remove the map from the article and list countries based on RS they have (as I understood this). I think that this can actually resolve the tension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effervescency (talkcontribs) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I think you and I Tezero are quite happy about your suggestion of a section where we can include commentary on other countries (Russia and Brazil etc). Nobody else has expressed their opinion on it yet. As for the IP -now known as Effervescency above- I have already contacted the admin (The Bushranger) who is familiar with his disruptive behavior. He agrees this IP and the previous IPs are suspiciously similar (arguing for the exact same pov on the same article, the exact same language style and both say they need the article for their "research paper"!), however, the admin expressed he had little time to deal with matter at the moment -due to real life issues, hasn't been active for a few days- and suggested that for the time being I collapsed the IPs comments, which I probably should do at this stage. Furthermore, the IP unwittingly provides more evidence he is the same disruptive IP when he starts negatively referring to my edits of the article back in January of this year! Note that back in January, the only person who objected to my edits was the disruptive IP. Obvious WP:DUCK. As The Bushranger said with regards to the IPs edits; "your behavior has been such that any edits by you are de-facto disruptive". Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It wasn't my suggestion - it was suggested by Tezero, which I actually didn't support. I support his suggestion about removing the map. Read carefully.
  • I have no idea about what "IPs" you're talking about, I've stated two times already and I state again: I've never been in discussion about superpowers, nor I was trolling GA review. If there was person who tried to push Russian POV in the past - I don't care, if he was actually doing his own research and used this as argument - I don't care. It wasn't me.
  • I was, I am and I will negatively refer to your edits, if I would be feeling that they were made with bad intentions. Anyone can go to the Talk page and see themselves - I've colored it in red. I consider them as a proof that you're pushing non-NPOV, and that your words should not be trusted. I don't trust your words anymore.
  • Admin didn't say this about MY edits, if he said that about someone else - again - I don't care. Effervescency (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Antiochus the Great, I don't see why it matters whether the IPs are the same person, as far as the validity of everyone's points is concerned. What if I'm one of them? What if Jimbo Wales is one of them? We're looking for solutions that make sense, and those can come from anyone. I don't care what The Bushranger thinks unless he (?) can give reasons why countries outside the big three should or shouldn't be covered. Tezero (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, however there are certain policies that need to be upheld. The IP has abused proxies for starters! With which he has avoided countless blocks and bans for his behavior. Even after warnings, blocks and bans the IP persistently vandalised articles for months on end! Good-faith no longer applies, perhaps if you knew the details as well as I or The Bushranger do then you would view it differently? I am sure you can understand my reluctance to put any trust in the validity of this IPs comments, especially as he continues to try and hide the fact he is the same person.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Tezero, you've probably noticed the IP likes to post comments with sentences in bold? Well that's another trait exhibited by this disruptive IP, and yet another strong indicator that they are both the same person. Scroll down to the bottom of this articles talk page to see what I mean. Notice any striking similarities between both of their language style and tendency to type in bold?Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose users with histories of vandalism are more likely to deliberately reference Wikipedia policies in a misleading way during talk page discussions, but so can anyone. It just serves as a reminder that we should be vigilant in assessing the validity of these arguments. And I'm well aware that these users do have histories of vandalism, but a good point can spring from them at any time, possibly without them realizing. Tezero (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Antiochus the Great: As I said - I've never been in this article, I've never talked to you before June, but when I did - you've insulted me and see no reasons why you try to excuse yourself with jumping around, showing links, trying to make similarities based on fact that this guy used "bold" (it's not even funny). I may just say, that there are at least two people (yeah, again, this guy you linked - isn't me) in this project, who think that you're bad person, and that you're trying to push anti-russian non-NPOV. I don't understand why you published links which proves this (but no one will read them anyway...). Tezero, I think this is going to be endless, what's your decision about removing the map and listing the countries based on RSs? - (Also, I hope term "big three" won't be used in the article, since I'm completely opposite to it) - it was real proposal or just a thought? If real proposal - I'd want to continue with this.. Is there any deadlines for waiting user contributions? Effervescency (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Effervescency, I can't make a decision yet because this discussion hasn't been open long, and maybe there are users who would be interested but who haven't shown up... That being said, I'm leaving on Wikibreak pretty soon, probably within the next day or two (I'm really just waiting on a GAN of my own finishing up), so if nothing's happening, I'll pass it either without an "other countries" section or after cobbling together a quick one. Tezero (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And no, rest assured I wasn't planning to utilize the term "big three" in the article - in fact, I meant it slightly sardonically, as there's nothing special about those three besides them being the three most widely covered. Tezero (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this has gotten way out of hand. Some IP keeps decrying the quality of the article and insisting that I'm Russian and don't know what the word "current" means. It's gotten disruptive; I can't pass the article like this. Sergecross73, any ideas? Tezero (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP does have a point, mentioning any discussion on Russia being a current superpower is probably inappropriate. Firstly, we don't have any reliable scholarly publications that refer to, or argue in favour of Russia being a superpower. Secondly, the statement is only supported by two online news aggregators which merely quote the words of two politicians seeking political favour from the Kremlin. Hardly reliable, as politicians will say literally anything if it suits. Also, Hugo Chavez has a notoriously pro-Russian bias. I totally agree with you regarding the IPs behavior, from reading his comments I get the feeling he has a bit of a battleground mentality. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments made by politicians, diplomats, scholarly publications, presidents regarding Russia as a superpower are appropriate and valid facts for support for countries on potential superpowers, not just one country but all countries.-- (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please check out[edit]

At Template_talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC_regarding_ceremonial_seniority_position I started a discussion about adding ceremonial seniority to the succession box at the bottom of American politicians' biographies. Needs some more viewpoints expressed. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Defunct political party categories[edit]

Currently Category:Defunct political parties by country is largely a collection of "Defunct political parties in Fooland" categories, but includes the odd "Political parties in Fooland" for now-defunct states. I have a slight issue with this, in the fact that not all those political parties are actually defunct, as they continued to exist in successor states (e.g. the Czech Social Democratic Party, which is in Category:Political parties in Austria-Hungary, which in turn falls under the defunct category tree).

I have three suggestions for how this could be resolved:

  1. Do nothing and have some miscategorisation
  2. Create new "Defunct political parties in Oldfooland" categories for each historical state, put the majority of relevant articles into those categories, then put these categories in the defunct category tree instead of the current ones.
  3. Create a new category named "Defunct political parties from historical states" and add parties from historical states that are actually defunct to it, then remove the "Political parties in Oldfooland" from the Defunct political parties category tree

Thoughts? Number 57 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarchy and Stateless society[edit]

FYI, the scope and purpose of these articles are under discussion, see talk:Anarchy -- (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability of political parties?[edit]

I recently started United Independent Party, a small independent party in Massachusetts which is running Evan Falchuk for Governor in 2014. The article has since been nominated for deletion despite multiple sources confirming its existence and covering its goals and Falchuk's run for Governor. It seems to me that if a political party registers and runs a statewide candidate AND multiple secondary sources cover it, the party should be notable. What are your thoughts? You can comment directly on the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Independent Party. More broadly, however, we need to define notability guidelines for political parties.--TM 16:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested review of proposed revision for Heritage Action[edit]

I see that this WikiProject is semi-active, but I wanted to post here about this in the event that this page is being watched by interested editors.

I'm looking for editors who can review a proposed article revision I have prepared for the Heritage Action article. Though this WikiProject is not listed on the article's Talk page, I believe Heritage Action would be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

As part of this request I would like to acknowledge my conflict of interest with this topic. I have prepared the revision on the organization's behalf and, due to my relationship with the subject, I am requesting that editors review the draft I have prepared and provide feedback so I can improve my draft.

I've left a more detailed message at Talk:Heritage Action, as well as brief notes similar to this one at two other WikiProjects, but have yet to receive a response from editors there. Thanks! Morzabeth (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Campaign website links in election articles[edit]

A discussion about whether or not external links to official campaign websites should be included in election articles is underway on this page; I invite anyone with an opinion to comment. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice re film discussion underway[edit]

Discussion regarding a recent documentary film is underway here: Talk:America (2014 film). – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

West Germany and East Germany[edit]

Germanies, West and East have been requested to be renamed to their official names of FDR and GDR, see talk:West Germany for the discussion -- (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This closed as not moved. A discussion is continuing at Talk:East Germany -- (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The new discussion has been closed -- (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Presidency of Shimon Peres[edit]

The article Presidency of Shimon Peres needs a lot of work. As this term is now in the past, it's a good time to work on it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism FAR[edit]

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Local Election Results (Particularly in Wales)[edit]

There are a decent amount of articles in Category:Council_elections_in_Wales that are all local election coverage, where the politicians being elected do not meet WP:POLITICIAN and the sources for the election are generally either WP:ROUTINE or a single primary-ish source that just lists the raw election results for every election for every year. (Many of these articles are from the 1800s and early 1900s)

As a trial baloon, I nominated one of them for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pontypridd_Urban_District_Council_election,_1898 which came up delete/redirect/merge. Additionally a good number of the articles were created by a single user who was prolifically WP:SOCKing and is now indeffed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Macs15/Archive.

I plan on nominating the WP:BUNDLE for deletion, but as its a large number or articles (~180 recursive) I thought I would get some feedback from here first. In general are local (city/county) election results notable enough for individual year article coverage?

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Category:English_local_elections,_2011 with 151 articles for a single year (and other years with a similar pattern) Category:English_local_elections_by_yearGaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, you might do best to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. I certainly can't see any justification for individual articles myself, though merging some of the data with our article on the relevant local council might be an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump Thanks. I had notified wikiprojects Wales and England, but Ill do the one you mentioned as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a worrying development if articles are deleted on the basis the events happened a long time ago. I would think that if important council elections (such as county/city level) receive plenty of news coverage today (they do) they would have received plenty of attention 120 years ago (though admittedly less people would have been eligible to vote, or stand for election). WP:POLITICIAN covers notability of people, not of major events. Mind you, when it comes to town council elections, such as the example AfD'd, the argument becomes more tenuous. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly I don't believe the WP:POLITICIAN argument is justifiable reason for deleting election articles. Politicians and elections are markedly different things and have different levels of notability. A good comparator would be sports teams and players - semi-professional sports clubs are deemed notable, but the players are not. In this case I believe the same applies to local elections and politicians.

Secondly, I don't believe the outcome of the AfD in question is representative, as the most relevant WikiProject (WP:Elections and referendums was not informed. This was largely due to the fact that the article alerts feed for election and referendum hasn't been updated by the bot since late July. As as result, I'm going to ask for it to be reopened so that project members can comment.

A general comment is that these election articles have been around for years without being deleted - I wouldn't be surprised if there had been previous AfDs that resulted in a keep (no idea how to find out). Although I haven't created any myself, I'd feel very sorry for the editors (particularly @Davewild:) who have spent thousands of hours compiling detailed articles (which have until now been considered perfectly notable) only to see all their work deleted in a bundle. Number 57 23:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are 3000 counties in the US. There are ~6000 state districts on top of that. UK has 326 districts, 80 odd counties, etc. Theoretical full coverage of this topic worldwide would be hundreds of thousands of articles, per year. The vast majority of which will never be viewed, and have no content that isn't just copied out of the primary source. If someone wants obscure election results, they can read the primary source. 99% of the value of these articles can be provided by a single table or graph per locale showing the shift in votes over time. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Taking a couple at random, Leeds City Council election, 2000 was viewed 69 times in the last month, whilst Hertsmere Borough Council election, 2002 was viewed 43 times. The articles are clearly being used by readers. If it's a noteworthy topic, the fact that there may be lots of articles created is not a reason to be concerned. Number 57 10:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated parliament diagram tool![edit]

Hi all,

I've put my parliament diagram tool up on Wikimedia Labs, with a new, easier interface. Please let me know if it works for you - I need some testers. The source code is now also hosted on github. --Slashme (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename proposal if a high-profile topic[edit]

Please see Talk:Freedom#Requested move Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:New Democratic Party (Canada)‎[edit]

Category:New Democratic Party (Canada)‎ has been proposed to be renamed -- (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive3[edit]

Please come comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families#Neutrality[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families#Neutrality. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

United States: (Losing) Presidential Electors[edit]

For a person who would have cast a vote in the Electoral College if the other (major) party had won their state:

  • Is it proper to call them a Presidential Elector (for the purposes of Categories)?
  • Is it proper to say "Smith was a Presidential Elector for the party name ticket of Foo and Bar in 1946" (which although lost their state, may or may not have won the presidential election).

Assume the person is otherwise Notable (Was former mayor of largest city in state at the time).Naraht (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Note, the ultimate solution to this would be to have both "Whig United States presidential electors, 1896" and "Losing United States presidential electors, 1896" and have the first as both a subcat of "Whig United States presidential electors" and "United States presidential electors, 1896" and the second subcatted into Losing and date.Naraht (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured topic candidate[edit]

I have nominated a politics-related topic for featured topic status here. Any constructive comments there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Just stopping by to let someone part of the project here to reassess Progressive Labor Party (United States) in its class rating. It is undergoing some changes at the moment due to the lack of sources, wp:soapbox, and POV problems that plagued the article before. xcuref1endx (talk) 14:52 19 September 2014 (UTC)