Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Politics / American (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by American politics task force (marked as High-importance).

Donation = Endorsement?[edit]

At Maine gubernatorial election, 2018, User:MAINEiac4434 contends that a donation from an individual to a candidate equals an endorsement and thus should be included under that section on the page. I contend that an affirmative statement by the candidate or endorser is necessary to include the article and that including donors as endorsers is a violation of BLP. What are your thoughts?

RfC: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party[edit]

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

City council template[edit]

An editor has swapped out {{Chicago City Council}} for {{Chicago City Council since 1923}}, which would be a great move except that the majority of the additional links added were redlinks (presented unlinked). I am not sure if this is what we want so I am getting other opinions of whether this is an improvement and whether it is consistent with what we do in other cities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Where did the swap happen?--Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
On all pages that the former template was on.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I think what has happened is that the template has been expanded to include a majority of non-notable subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
John M Wolfson, can you or anyone else explain to me why we want so many non-notable names (2018 redlinks) added to this template. Current aldermen are marginally notable. Not too many of them are in the history books.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey TonyTheTiger, I only swapped out the templates for aldermen that were no longer in office and kept the {{Chicago City Council}} template for current aldermen (which I believe have both templates last I checked). I think that the {{Chicago City Council}} template might be suitable only for current aldermanic pages, and that the {{Chicago City Council since 1923}} would be a good navigational tool between articles on former (as well as current) aldermen (esp. in the case of a non-notable alderman B serving between notable aldermen A and C, allowing navigation between A and C without having to create an article on B, which I believe occurs at least twice in the template). I do understand that the majority of those on the template are currently redlinks, which is why I kept {{Chicago City Council}} on current aldermanic pages, but (ignoring that some of those redlinks can likely be future articles) I count 26 bluelinks in the template that cannot be reached from the articles of current aldermen. I am new-ish here (about 3 months) and I'm just started to get myself acquainted with notability and the like so I could be wrong, but I do think that this template should be kept, at least for now, as a representation of a notable stand-alone list and a navigational aid. --John M Wolfson (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that U.S. Reps should have higher priority (nice work on the template, btw), and was unaware of a debate in that respect. As for the Council template itself, it is transcluded 128 times according to WMFLabs, and by my rough count ~120 of those are on the mainspace, including the 47 current aldermen with active pages, where both templates currently exist (my 26 count from before was for bluelinks that couldn't be accessed by any of the current aldermanic pages by repeatedly clicking on "Predecessor", my apologies for not stating that). However, they are quite outnumbered by the redlinks/unlinks, which I reckon are ~300. In terms of content the template is complete, with no more additions or modifications other than turning redlinks into bluelinks to be made that I am aware of. If there's a consensus against such templates I can put this one back in a subpage on my User page similar to what you've done for the IL Reps, or it could be an article of the form "List of Chicago aldermen since 1923" rather than a template. That might actually work better for redlink improvement/article creation (I'm not saying all of the redlinks will ever become articles, but I'm sure at least a few could), as the first name of non-articled aldermen can actually appear in the text rather than be commented as they are in the template. (For example, "Arthur F. Albert" vs. simply "Albert".) Of course, I'm still fairly new here and I'll leave the decisions to consensus.--John M Wolfson (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
At some point Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes needs to get a lot of attention. The names of the templates should be commonly formatted. Then, we could actually see what exists. There are a bunch of templates that probably don't belong in the cat as they are presented. With regard to your template, any template with 4 bluelinks has a good reason to stay in template space. The question is whether we want to set a precedent for having such templates. BTW, what is the significance of 1923? I don't know how to compel discussion of the U.S. Rep templates. Maybe I should put IL back into template space and place it on all the pages. Then see if there is pushback. However, I sort of think the way to force participation in a discussion is to TFD this and see if we want both of these templates.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
1923 was the year wards started electing one alderman each rather than two and when the number of wards increased from 35 to the modern 50. I could see why we wouldn't want to set up a precedent for less-notable councils; as this is a template, I don't know whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or any other notability guideline) applies. I guess you could try to see whether IL template transclusions create any debate, but a TfD would probably work well to directly start a conversation. I'll keep the Council template up pending such a debate, then. --John M Wolfson (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Another Communist Party of China RFC[edit]

At Communist Party of China opinions welcome so we can settle this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

POLOUTCOMES change[edit]

Based on a variety of recent deletion discussions, I believe WP:POLOUTCOMES no longer reflects the current consensus for when articles on candidates for political office are notable. I've proposed a change at that talk page and will make it early next week unless I get pushback. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Brazil above everything, God above everyone[edit]

As this project is not just about American Politics: pages related to the Brazilian election could use attention from multiple editors. For example, I can't verify that "Brazil above everything, God above everyone" is an "electoral coalition" as the article currently claims; it appears to just be Jair Bolsonaro's slogan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we have an article like "List of street names changed around consular buildings for political reasons"? (or some less-unwieldy title)[edit]

Let me first say I think this is a valid topic because it is "a thing" and not simply a random accumulation of unrelated things.

The issue is in the news as of late because Ankara is changing the street on which the US Embassy sits to "Malcom X Street". Meanwhile Washington DC is goading the Russians with plans to name the street their embassy sits on as "Boris Nemtsov Street" after a whistleblower allegedly murdered by the Kremlin.

Current news aside, there have been a number of similar cases:

  • Tehran changed the street name of the British Embassy to Bobby Sands Street after an Northern Irish Republican politician who died in a hunger strike
  • When PR China had a falling-out with the Soviets, they named the embassy's street Anti-Revisionist Road
  • Glasgow in the 1980s changed the name of the street the South African embassy was on to Nelson Mandela Street

Do folks agree this is a "political practice", such that these incidents can be fairly classified together somehow? And if so would a list of these make for an interesting list-article? Any strong objections? I may knock out a basic attempt and see if it is Prod'ed or no. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made a draft at User:MatthewVanitas/sandbox; I'm going to BEBOLD and launch it tonight if there is no objection/input because this topic is getting a lot of attention in the news today (though only one instance on the list is CURRENT, the others are historical). MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done To heck with it, gonna be bold. Here it is: List of street names changed around diplomatic mission buildings for political reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)