Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 40
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Merge discussion
This merge discussion may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC on Stateless nation
An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found at Talk:Stateless nation#RfC_about_listing_Alsatians_as_a_Stateless_Nation. ImTheIP (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Needs attention from someone uninvolved. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
First-past-the-post voting
Hi, can some of you help me take a look at First-past-the-post voting? In the past month a huge number of changes have been made, primarily by one single user who seems to have a bit of an WP:AXE to grind. In particular, he's greatly expanded the "criticisms" section with dubious claims backed up by sources that are of questionable reliability or just a case of WP:SYNTH. I've gone through already and removed some statements that are clearly WP:OR and WP:SNYTH, and there are other disputed changes that you can see on the talk page. Sadly this user is edit warring pretty significantly and finding it difficult to engage as per WP:BRD (and is even deleting messages from his talk page that are trying to discuss it with him). Anyway, I'm trying to work through the criticism section and trying to determine which statements are legitimate and with are SYNTH, but it's slow going. Extra help would be appreciated and will be rewarded with barnstars. — Czello 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- No barnstars needed, but I did go to the page, and it has obvious enough problems that I quickly made a minor effort. There are a lot of poorly cited facts, and I agree with Czello, someone has an WP:AXE to grind. It deserves attention, and I will be back. Rklahn (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- At a superficial glance the article appears unbalanced as the benefits section is much smaller than the criticism section. However, this is actually probably a fair representation as the flaws of FPTP are numerous and the advantages relatively few. However, it undoubtedly needs tidyup (the "Manipulation charges" and "Smaller parties may reduce the success of the largest similar party" would be covered under a "spoiler effect" section that covers both unintentional and deliberate spoilers).
- I think we also need to come up with an alternative to "Purported benefits" and "Benefits". The former is a bit weaselly and the latter is a definitive statement when in reality it's a viewpoint. Is there an appropriate antonym to "criticism"? Number 57 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- One person on the talk page suggested "advantages" and "disadvantages", which seems fairly balanced. — Czello 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think "advantages" is just as problematic as "benefits" as it's only a viewpoint that the things listed are advantages. It should be something more direclty in contrast to "criticism" (which I think is exactly the right term for that side of the argument). Perhaps something like "Praise". Number 57 22:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- One person on the talk page suggested "advantages" and "disadvantages", which seems fairly balanced. — Czello 22:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have some very thick WP:EXPERT blinders here because I study exactly this topic for a living, but in my opinion the pov-pushing becomes really obvious when you look at the sourcing. Pretty much all of the sources in the criticisms section are from anti-SMD lobbying and advocacy groups. I think those are mostly reliable sources, but they can't be the whole story. It also has to be said that the conclusions are mostly not wrong, but there are thousands of academic studies that say the same sorts of things in much more measured and precise ways. I'll try to make time soon to actually do something about that. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I regret to inform everyone that the same user is back, and is re-adding a lot of content that is considered WP:OR. Instead of addressing my edit summaries he's just undoing them with the claim they're "unjustified reversions". I'll start a talk page discussion on each section (not that I expect him to engage), but I thought I'd let you all know too. — Czello 09:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunate. Maybe this is a little obvious, but it may come down to request administrator assistance. Until then, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing should be closely followed. Rklahn (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm on the verge of raising an AN/I post, but I thought I'd give him one last go at engaging. He's also being disruptive on 2019 United Kingdom general election, and once again pushing an anti-FPTP agenda (though not nearly quite as bad as the main article), but he's at least making a small effort to reply on the talk page there. Barely, at least. — Czello 11:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Assessment section, updated
Greetings, for Politics WP, I added wiklink to "Popular pages". JoeNMLC (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Long-term abuse by sockpuppets
I'm bringing attention to the account Buzzards-Watch Me Work[1], which has likely been operating many sockpuppets on pages related to US congressional politicians. I'd really appreciate if you'd take a look at pages of US politicians to see if accounts edit in a similar way as these socks. Many pages on House reps are poorly patrolled, which means that a well-organized sockpuppet ring (I strongly suspect WP:PAID) can do a lot of harm without anyone noticing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think you are in the wrong place, unless you are simply soliciting others to notice what is going on. If you have sufficient proof, you should take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Rklahn (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm raising awareness. The sockpuppetry has been confirmed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Best of luck. Time permitting, Ill take a look myself. Rklahn (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Revamp of Political colour
Hi all,
So I started started a thread on the talk page for political colour suggesting it was time for a big revamp. What original started as an article that documented the colours of ideologies, movements, and notable symbols has grown into a bloated behemoth of bland and boring bullet points. We have such insightful statements as "In Greece, red is the colour of the Communist Party of Greece.". Well, quite.
One other user has helpfully agreed, and even suggested starting the article from scratch.
Sadly this is an article that doesn't have much oversight and yet gets continual additions. By this point it's undeniably turned into an indiscriminate collection of information. So, for this reason, I come to you all to see how best we can drag this article into a more acceptable standard. If you're interested in helping out, please reply to my thread on the article's talk page. — Czello 15:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Oregon v. Mitchell: "mainly" moot
Elsewhere (Twitter in particular), my neutral point of view has been called into question on my edit in 969695589. While its true that my motivations were perhaps less than pure, I think my neutral point of view remained intact. Others may disagree, and in an effort at full disclosure, mention it here. If any editor disagrees with my edit here, I invite you to undo it. I would, however, appreciate a mention here or on my talk page. Thanks. Rklahn (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards)
More input is kindly requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Comment. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 03:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Splitting Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present)
Have a look at the link here to comment on the proposal to split the article into two pages. Llewee (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Should the politics and racism concerning Formula One in the 2020 season be covered in the 2020 season article? It's been high profile and official F1 sources have promoted antiracism this season. An editor stated that because it isn't part of the racing, and doesn't affect who wins the championship, then it shouldn't be there. But this seems to restrict sports articles to sports only, even though, this isn't a sports encyclopedia. Some of the Arab Spring affected Formula One articles also seem to suffer from this deficit in coverage of non-sport related effects in Formula 1. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
state-based political party discussion
Hi, your participation is Talk:Charles Kruger (politician)#Party registration requested as part of dispute regarding whether to link to the state-based party or the national party on state legislature articles.--User:Namiba 12:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Requested move for a political blog
There is a move request at Talk:Hungarian Spectrum#Requested move 5 August 2020 about moving an article about a politics blog to an article about the creator and main contributor of the blog. Outside input is appreciated. — MarkH21talk 23:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose to merge Foo into Bar. I think that the content in the Foo article can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and the Bar article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. 79.71.75.40 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC) ==
Merger proposal
I propose to merge Performative activism into Slacktivism. I think that the content in the P.A. article can easily be explained in the context of Slacktivism. 79.71.75.40 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
FAR of Elagabalus
I have nominated Elagabalus 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. T8612 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And see the talk page. It just needs watching. I'm walking away from it and swearing off politics. ;) Mobi Ditch (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I see that it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial views of Joe Biden, but now it's back again. 20:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobi Ditch (talk • contribs)
Succession boxes of Democratic & Republican presidential, vice presidential nominee' spouses?
Howdy. Aren't we getting a bit carried away with some of these succession boxes, which list spouses of Democratic & Republican presidential, vice presidential nominees? GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)