Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

FAC of Vladimir Lenin

Hello there! As members of this WikiProject, you may be interested to see that the Vladimir Lenin article is currently undergoing an FAC here. If you have the time and inclination then it would be great if you could come along and offer your views on whether or not it meets the criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD Austin Petersen

Austin Petersen is currently subject to AfD here. LavaBaron (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding Hillary Clinton

See Talk:Hillary Clinton#Conspiracy theorist category and Conspiracy theory. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Hilary Rosen career section?

I recently came here looking for assistance regarding an update to the Hilary Rosen article.The first edit request has been answered, so I've posted a second edit request regarding Ms. Rosen's career. Is there an editor who is able to help implement my proposed text as appropriate? Please see the edit request for details and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This request has since been answered, and last week I posted another one relating to Ms. Rosen's career in politics and media. If anyone here finds this message and is interested to give it a look, I'd appreciate it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Right

Wrong venue. Please move to the article talk page.

The page presents a biased account of the article "Is Black Genocide Right?" Anyone who reads the article will admit that is an attempt to draw attention to the problem of "White Genocide" in South Africa through a hypothetical consideration of Black genocide. I suggest we change the content to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustus September (talk • contribs) 03:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Augustus September, you would be best to raise the issue on the talk page of the article in question before raising it here. Cheers, Graham (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section

Wrong venue. Please move to the article talk page.

Seems to me the criticism section could be rewritten/revised. It does not sound professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.6.123.137 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure as to what article you are referring, but you would be best to raise the issue on the talk page of the article in question. Cheers, Graham (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Taco trucks on every corner

I started Draft:Taco trucks on every corner recently. Do project members think this phrase may be notable enough for a stand-alone article? Please feel free to discuss on Draft talk:Taco trucks on every corner. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No; if we had an article for every stupid thing said in an election campaign, I think the internet would probably run out of space. Number 57 15:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Best to keep the discussion on Draft talk:Taco trucks on every corner. Personally I'd be more swayed by discussions that involved wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Graphs of votes or returned seats

Is there a template that is recommended for generating percentages of vote/returned seats at an election? For example, the German project has a template that does so (e.g. see Politics of Weeze for the template in use). I looked around the WikiProject's Templates page, but could not see such a template. Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 28 April 2024

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:First Spouse of the Philippines#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Political party categorisation

Following a discussion on my talk page, I thought it would be a good idea to bring this here for wider discussions. The question is whether extant political parties should appear in the top-level category for political parties (i.e. Category:Political parties in Fooland).

When I started editing, I was led to believe this was correct practice, so have continued to do it. Another editor contends that it isn't. Personally I can see the benefit of doing so; defunct parties are grouped in Category:Defunct political parties in Fooland, so it makes sense (to me at least) to have somewhere in the category tree that allows identification of the extant parties (List of political parties in Fooland would be another place, but these lists are often well out-of-date as many editors do not update them when updating a party's article). This is specifically an issue where there are subcategories (e.g. based on ideology), as they contain both extant and defunct parties; if they have been removed from the top level category, it means extant parties' status cannot be determined in the category tree unless it's a process of deduction that they do not also appear in the defunct category.

There does not appear to be a uniform approach to this on Wikipedia at present; for some countries, all or most extant parties are in the top level category, for others, many are only in subcategories. What do other editors think? Cheers, Number 57 14:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To take the discussion to a concrete level, every single political party in Romania is under a subcategory of Category:Political parties in Romania, except, rather whimsically, fifteen parties of ethnic minorities. This situation is clearly absurd and can be remedied immediately by removing the parent category - since they obviously fit into Category:Political parties of minorities in Romania, where they already are. Of course it might be nice if we could come to some agreement regarding this issue on a global level, but on the matter at hand, affecting one country alone, surely there can be no serious, policy-based disagreement? - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the alternative is to add the main category to the articles that aren't in it, rather than leaving the minority parties solely into a category that is a mixture of extant and defunct parties.

I think it should also be noted that only these minority parties in the top level category because Biruitorul removed several other parties from the main category in the fifteen minutes before posting the above comment.[1][2][3][4][5] Number 57 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to stoop to discuss at the level of who did what how many minutes before etc. I'm interested in first principles:

• Is it common practice (not universal, common) to categorise political parties primarily by ideology or other type, regardless of whether they are defunct or not, leaving the top-level category empty or nearly so? Yes - as I've shown, most major European parties are treated in this fashion.
• Is it common practice to avoid mingling defunct with active entities, or to retain top-level categories for active ones? No, there really isn't any evidence for this, at least in the political-party realm. Nor is it set down in any guideline, anywhere.
• Is there a list of political parties in Romania that makes very clear the defunct/active distinction, and works in tandem with the categories? Yes, there is, and the fear expressed that it may become inaccurate at certain times is largely groundless, for the simple reason that political parties don't crop up or shut down every day - these things happen at a very manageable rhythm in reasonably mature democracies like Romania.

So, are we done beating this particular horse, or must we subject it to another round of abuse? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I would not have had to "stoop" to pointing out that you had deliberately emptied a category if you hadn't brought it up as an argument in your favour.

But anyway, the analysis above is classic cherrypicking. There are numerous countries where extant political parties appear in the top level category as well as ideology-related subcategories, the United States being one high profile example. Also, it's nice that the Romanian political parties list is up-to-date, but that's a fairly rare exception in my experience, even for "mature" democracies (and of course many countries do not fall into that category). Number 57 16:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't cherry-pick at all - I selected a perfectly rational criterion, namely "parties in the European Council". Sample size of 28, so fairly decent, and also countries that have a fair amount in common. Come to think of it, as there are three independents on the council, we may as well extend our analysis to the largest parties in their countries' parliaments, in the process picking up another two "not in the top level" parties - the Croatian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party (Romania). That makes 20 of 28 or 71%, a clear majority of EU governing parties.

Need I point out the obvious, namely that when a party is dissolved, its defunct state isn't automatically reflected via recategorisation, but must also be changed manually?

So in conclusion, here is where we are now:

• It's common (not universal, but standard) practice to categorise political parties primarily by ideology or other type - at least in EU countries. It's also common to ignore whether said parties are active or defunct, and to try and subcategorise as much as possible.
• It's also the case that categories work in tandem with lists that explicitly divide between present and former parties, and that both need maintenance as parties are dissolved or arise.

Are there any more objections, or can we wrap up this already sterile discussion? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of bringing this discussion here was to get views from the wider community, not for you to arbitrarily make your own decision. And please tone down the dismissiveness. Number 57 21:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Of 43 threads started here between April 9 and August 18, 3 had more than one participant; an overwhelming 93% went nowhere. So in the real world, "the wider community" isn't going to be saying anything. (I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm being realistic.) I would like to move ahead with my goal of a less cluttered Romanian political party category system.

I have shown that the approach taken for most countries in the EU is to subcategorise as much as possible, without regard for whether the party is active or defunct; and to use lists to clarify that distinction. I have also shown that this approach is used for every other Romanian party - or, if you insist, every one but a handful that I recategorised during this discussion; same difference.

So, to repeat: have I addressed your objections? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, not in the slightest; your proposal means there is no way in the category tree to identify which parties are not defunct. Number 57 10:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, it's not a "proposal" - it's the status quo for every single Romanian political party (other than a clutch of basically irrelevant phantom oragnisations), and for most major parties across the EU. The standard approach is indeed to combine active with defunct for ideology categories, while noting which is which in lists. I've shown that repeatedly - this is how things work; the category tree is not the place for showing which parties are active - that is for lists to handle. Have I now addressed any lingering concerns? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But as I've pointed out (a) it isn't standard as in other cases the category tree is used in that way and (b) lists are frequently out of date. It's well established that lists and categories complement each other and it's not an either/or scenario. You're not addressing any concerns in any shape or form here. Number 57 16:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• The extant/defunct categorization is not limited to just political parties. Its by default that Category:XYZs of Fooland contains the extant XYZs and Category:Defunct XYZs of Fooland contains the defunct XYZ. For example; Category:Companies of Canada and Category:Defunct companies of Canada‎. If some defunct entities are lying around in the main category its just our inability to have the category cleaned up. My point; if extant/defunct discussion is not getting any speed here it can also be moved to more broader venue as it should affect not just political parties but many under Category:Disestablishments by type. 14.141.141.26 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I personally do not see any reason whatsoever to categorize defunct entities/entities of certain ideology into the main categories, when they are already in the subcategory. It is the first time I ever encounter an argument that says we should, and I still can't say I understand what, other than a quirk of personal preference, drives this interpretation. Editors have worked on narrowing the categories to where they actually help the reader; and a reader with minimal intelligence, when presented with the spectacle of a subcategory for defunct/socialist/fascist/conservative/whatnot entities, will surely understand that those defunct etc. entities we have entries on are to be found in there not all over the place. Why should anybody expect, let alone prefer, that they (also) find them in the main category, scattered around with the other entities? What purpose can it possibly serve? Dahn (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies if I've misunderstood your penultimate point, but defunct parties should not be in the top level category – only extant ones. The purpose, as I hope was clearly enough explained above, is to help the reader by having some way in the category tree to identify which parties are extant and which are defunct, which there would not be if parties only appeared in the ideology-based subcategories. Number 57 16:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    • If that is your concern (though we have templates that tend to deal with the distinction), allow me to point out that the main category in no way indicates that it is for extant parties only -- anything can be dropped in there by a user not familiar with the tree, while it is unlikely for Category:Defunct political parties in Romania, with its very specific title, to include extant parties. So your duplication of categories actually can't be said to be of help to anyone, because it fails to distinguish what you want it to distinguish. So I can't see how it improves navigation. Dahn (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The issue is things being kept up to date; templates and articles are often not updated (I've found hundreds of articles on political parties that are not included on templates), and in addition, in some countries not all parties are included on templates for size reasons. You are correct that the category is not identified specifically as being for extant parties, but I think "a reader with minimal intelligence" would work the distinction out once they saw defunct parties in a separate category. Plus editors clearly recognise it as such as they are using it for that purpose in several cases. Number 57 16:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Templates are not updated? Neither are categories. You just shift the problem around. Supposing someone were to drop defunct parties in with extant parties for not having noticed the "defunct" subcategory, the reader will be no more served by the category than by a not-up-to-date template. The fact is that there simply is no way to ensure that we have a proper and final of things that are subject to change, like a party (or a person) being still around -- certainly not through categories; we can however subcategorize by ideology, and we can have a surer categorization for those that are definitely dead. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Having multiple complementary systems helps identify these sorts of errors, whether it be miscategorisation, incomplete templates or out-of-date lists. All three can be wrong, but it doesn't mean any should be got rid of. Number 57 17:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
            • How does it help in this situation? Which part of that will ensure that the main category serves the point you wish it to serve? Don't just give me a blanket assurance, state your point. Dahn (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
              • Cross-referencing. Number 57 19:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
                • Yes, well, that's no answer at all, it's just another meaningless concept. In practice, you have no way of ensuring that the main category will remain for just extant parties. You'll just proclaim it, have your way, then leave it to rot in whatever state it gets, resting assured that others will thank you they have more of that "cross-referencing" left to do, all that because you feel that the subcategorizing is unfair to users who may be looking for just extant parties and won't be able to find them in the subcategories. Dahn (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • Exactly the same could be said for the template and lists. All three have to be kept up-to-date by editors. Number 57 11:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
        • You're shifting the goalposts. Initially, your contention about lists was that these are "often well out-of-date as many editors do not update them when updating a party's article". Now, you openly admit that the very same problem applies to categories as well. So I ask: what special properties do categories have that they should be tasked with keeping track of which parties are extant, when not only are they not updated automatically, but they do not even make active status explicit (i.e., it doesn't say at the top of the category page, "look, these parties are currently active") — unlike templates and lists? - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
          • • • • As we stand, I am dealing with users who created the immense and unwieldy Category:20th-century poets, dropped random Romanian (the end that I see) articles in there (just some 20th-century poets, of course), then half-way to it got the idea to create subcats such as Category:20th-century Romanian poets -- but very few seem to have actually bothered putting articles they added to the former into the narrower latter. Same with Category:Male poets (an abomination) and Category:Romanian male poets. They created a mess, somewhat like you propose we do for parties, and I want to bet that they actually think they did a pretty good job, a daring step to a great betterment, let someone else finish it. Dahn (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I'd rather not have this just peter out, and instead would like to see a solid consensus emerge, I hope no one minds if I ping a couple of category experts: @Tim!: @Johnpacklambert: @Od Mishehu: - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, that did nothing, but I still want to come out of this with some sort of finality. I'd say two out of three is a consensus, though obviously I'm not quite an impartial observer here. Anyone care to opine on whether we have consensus?
    • Thinking through this issue, I did notice one possible way forward: Category:Registered political parties in Finland and Category:Non-registered political parties in Finland. We could put all current Romanian parties into two similar categories. Again: thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't believe a discussion with three parties can be deemed a consensus unless all three are in agreement. If the Finland suggestion is the only potential way forward, then it's a good compromise, although it may be easier to simply have one called "Extant political parties in Fooland" as in many cases it's not possible to tell whether parties are registered or not (it's not public information in Israel). However, I think this is unnecessary category creation and I still don't understand the problem with simply using "Political parties in Fooland" for extant parties – this is replicated in other topic areas I work in (with defunct entities in the defunct subcategory). If it's really a problem that it's not explicitly labelled as such (although the name should give it away really), then it's very easy to simply add it to the description of the category (i.e. "This category contains extant political parties in Fooland. Defunct parties are in the relevant subcategory." Number 57 11:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, let's see how this works out. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion

There is currently a discussion at the Village Pump (Proposals) that may be of interest to members of this project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of voter registration records to establish party affiliation?

Hey all, can editors use voter registration records to establish party affiliation? I'm adminning over an edit-warring situation where two editors are having trouble agreeing whether a US political figure is a Republican or a Democrat and one user has mentioned voter registration records. WP:BLPPRIMARY seems to explicitly exclude the use of voter registration records. Any thoughts? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that particular policy, but if it has to be obeyed, then the registration should still be able to be used to settle the dispute on the talk page without having to be used in the article. TBH, having looked the dispute, I'm amazed you didn't just block Honestmedia, as they're clearly acting extremely disruptively. Looking at their edits beyond this, they appear to be an anti-left SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to do anything except advance their agenda. Number 57 20:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I felt that sanctioning Honestmedia would require me to sanction Corky as well, since they were both edit-warring. I admonished Honestmedia, which I think should be sufficient for now. "NOTHERE"s typically don't last long anyway. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: From WP:USINGPRIMARY, Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the basis. Same general idea with WP:BLPPRIMARY linked above. I brought the matter here on the off-chance that there was a local exception for matters political, but I guess there is not. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In this case (Lester Holt) the editor did NOT provide any evidence for the claim about voter records. delete is the answer. In real life, independents will often register for a party they do not identify with in order to have a voice in primaries--in one party areas (as in NY City) the real election is in the primary. Rjensen (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a very good point as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If it still matters, I added that he is a republican to the article: [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is someone's political affiliation (at least people who aren't actually in politics) relevant to an article? Genuinely curious. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I´d say no, in general. In this specific case, meh, maybe. It was a talking point of a presidential candidate, and some newsmedia picked it up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:British independence

There's currently a discussion open at Talk:British independence that may be of interest to members. Please feel free to add your thoughts. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on United States presidential election, 2016 infobox inclusion

There is a Request for Comments regarding threshold for candidate inclusion in the infobox on the United States presidential election, 2016 page. Please add your perspective to the discussion. Bcharles (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorist attacks RfC

There is a discussion ongoing at List of Islamist terrorist attacks on whether to add the July 2016 Nice attack to the list. This wikiproject is listed on the talk page as an interested group. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Regime

The article Regime has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is simply a word with several meanings, not an encyclopaedic subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Color code for National Union Party

Politics editors may be interest to comment on the discussion started at Talk:National Union Party (United States)#Color code, which suggests a replacement color to avoid blurring with the Republican Party in timelines. — JFG ^talk 18:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Iron Lady

Politics editors may be interest to comment on the discussion started at Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Where should the Iron Lady section be placed?, which deals with the placement of the "Iron Lady" section within Margaret Thatcher's article. — JFG ^talk 18:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOVN Discussion Notice

There is currently discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard concerning an article that may be of interest to members of this project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)