Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about politics, political groups and politicians are updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments on RfC Donald Trump requested
There is currently an RfC about the outcome of the presidential election here. Participation would be appreciated. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposed Kennedy task force
Hey folks, I want to float the idea of launching a task force dedicated to the political careers and exploits of members of the Kennedy family. Anyone interested? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I started the recent RfD discussion, which is relisted: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11. I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
More opinions needed at Requested move Nineteen Eighty-Four → 1984
It would be really helpful to get more opinions here. I'm sorry if this post seems unrelated for this project, but Orwell's 1984 is listed as being in the scope of this project, and we could really use some opinions (that are based on WP policies and guidelines). Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Changes to the election infobox to support two-round presidential elections
Hi all, I've recently suggested some changes to be made to the election infobox, to better display two-round elections such as those in France. I thought members of this project would be interested in commenting over there. Quantum Burrito (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Redirects to "Politics of the Republic of China"
I started discussion on the following redirects targeting Politics of the Republic of China: politics of Taiwan, Politics of taiwan, and Politics in Taiwan. I invite you to the RFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
redirect proposal
There is a proposal to redirect the recently created Far-left politics in the United Kingdom. Contributions appreciated [Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom here] ----Snowded TALK 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Seeking AfD discussion participants...
... at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands (2nd nomination). ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Czechslovakia and OECD
If anyone has knowledge on the status of the Czech Republic and Slovakia with regards to the OSCE, please input at Talk:Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe#RfC about the map in the Participating states section. CMD (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The redirect, Communist era, is currently under discussion, recently relisted. I invite you to the RFD talk. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Infoboxes of West German, East German & German Presidents
How should we present these offices in their respective bio article infoboxes? I'd recommend we go with President of West Germany, President of East Germany & President of Germany per WP:COMMONNAME. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- GoodDay and I have had a discussion about this on his talk page and I think we should go with President of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) for the Presidents of the Federal Republic before 1990, Presidents of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Presidents of the Federal Repubublic after 1990 and President of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) for Wilhelm Pieck, the one and only President of the GDR. This would avoid confusion, because the "east or west-question" is answerded for every president in the time of german seperation and also reflect on the fact, that after reunification, the Federal Republic kept on existing enlarged by the five new german states, constitutionally spoken (while the GDR was abolished). GoodDay's proposal may look less garbled, but transportates a wrong and unscientific concept of german history: the reunification did not create a new german state and therefore no new office of president, to which we should refer with a different title. In my opinion West and East Germany should maybe be written with "...", even in my proposal, to underline the fact that these are only colloquial names for the two german states, which never named themselves so, but I won't insist on that.Alektor89 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with GoodDay. We call the countries East Germany and West Germany, so usage elsewhere on Wikipedia should reflect this. Theresa May's infobox doesn't call her the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it matches the commonly used United Kingdom. Number 57 11:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- You can't compare that. "West Germany" is the current Federal Republic, we have to reflect on that! A possible compromise between GoodDay's and my proposals could be President of Germany (West) before 1990 and President of Germany after 1990 (and President of Germany (East) for Wilhelm Pieck). I would be ok with that, if this really finds a consensus. We have to show somehow that the Federal Republic kept on existing in 1990 and no new german state was created...there were only five new states joining the federation.Alektor89 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I also agree with GoodDay, as West and East Germany are the common terms and will be more recognisable to the readers. If the intention is to educate them on the legal continuity of German statehood, technical names will not help with that. They're not going to see a difference between "Germany (West)" and "West Germany" either. CMD (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- You can't compare that. "West Germany" is the current Federal Republic, we have to reflect on that! A possible compromise between GoodDay's and my proposals could be President of Germany (West) before 1990 and President of Germany after 1990 (and President of Germany (East) for Wilhelm Pieck). I would be ok with that, if this really finds a consensus. We have to show somehow that the Federal Republic kept on existing in 1990 and no new german state was created...there were only five new states joining the federation.Alektor89 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
In fact, we should be using "of West Germany", "of East Germany" & "of Germany" for all German gov't offices pre/post-1990. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe we should take a look at the german WP-articles of the Presidents and the Presidency (for example Gauck: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Gauck and Heuss: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Heuss) Here you see very clearly that the Presidency is regarded to be one and the same office before and after 1990. There is no difference, they are all adressed as "Bundespräsident(en) der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (which is pretty much what I propose for the english articles). This is not completely irrelevant, isn't it? I mean, the german articles are really written by people who know much about german polics, history and constitutional law. Because not everybody in the world knows, if the Fed. Rep. is "West" or "East Germany", I make the concession that we should ad a "(West Germany)" behind the titles of the Presidents from Heuss to Carstens (and maybe von Weizsäcker, who was elected in the times of seperation but was president of reunited Germany at the end of his term) in the english articles. I unterstand that you would prefer short and clear titles, but the world isn't always short and clear, and an encyclopedia sometimes needs to reflect on this. I have to repeat it: "West Germany", "East Germany" and "Germany" suggest that the two seperated german states merged in 1990 and created a new german state with a new constitution and new offices (in this case a new office of President). This simply is not true, we have to somehow reflect on that, if we want to keep WP scientific.Alektor89 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Weizesacker should have it shown as "President of West Germany, then Germany", IMHO. Also note: West Germany is not a re-direct to Germany, even though you're arguing to treat them as exact same countries. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- But they should be treated as the exact same countries, which they are constitutionally. I know, I repeat myself, but constitutionally spoken the reunification just meant that five new states joined the Federal Republic. This is basic knowledge of german history, please study it yourself, if you don't believe me. We don't treat the United States as a new country in WP whenever new states join the union, do we?Alektor89 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but that's not how it's seen under WP:COMMONNAME where East Germany & West Germany thus have their own articles, separate from Germany. Thus related political offices should likewise conform. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sadly, WP:COMMONNAME is no god given law and has - like everything mankind created - substantial mistakes as this example shows very clearly. We should not argue about this (I really don't want to look bossy, but regarding everything I know about german history and politics, and this is quite a bit, I think I am right on this point) and better start working, to make WP a little bit better every day ;-).Alektor89 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note that President of West Germany, then Germany would be linked to the exact same article, which covers your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- But my concern is that a country called "West Germany" never constitutionally existed (and therfore no "President of West Germany"), "West Germany" (or "Westdeutschland") and "East Germany" are colloquial terms that are used to describe cultural differences between the two seperated parts of Germany from 1949 to 1990 on the one hand, and cultural differences between the past in these states and the present in reunified germany on the other hand. By the way, no german President would have refered to himself as "President of West (or East) Germany", as both states never officially recognised the other and both claimed to be the only legitimate german state.Alektor89 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I still argue that we use President of West Germany, Chancellor of West Germany, Vice Chancellor of West Germany, President of East Germany, Chancellor of Germany, President of Germany etc etc, for such infoboxes. Best we allow others to chime in, as it's obvious that you & I won't be agreeing on this. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- But my concern is that a country called "West Germany" never constitutionally existed (and therfore no "President of West Germany"), "West Germany" (or "Westdeutschland") and "East Germany" are colloquial terms that are used to describe cultural differences between the two seperated parts of Germany from 1949 to 1990 on the one hand, and cultural differences between the past in these states and the present in reunified germany on the other hand. By the way, no german President would have refered to himself as "President of West (or East) Germany", as both states never officially recognised the other and both claimed to be the only legitimate german state.Alektor89 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note that President of West Germany, then Germany would be linked to the exact same article, which covers your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sadly, WP:COMMONNAME is no god given law and has - like everything mankind created - substantial mistakes as this example shows very clearly. We should not argue about this (I really don't want to look bossy, but regarding everything I know about german history and politics, and this is quite a bit, I think I am right on this point) and better start working, to make WP a little bit better every day ;-).Alektor89 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but that's not how it's seen under WP:COMMONNAME where East Germany & West Germany thus have their own articles, separate from Germany. Thus related political offices should likewise conform. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- But they should be treated as the exact same countries, which they are constitutionally. I know, I repeat myself, but constitutionally spoken the reunification just meant that five new states joined the Federal Republic. This is basic knowledge of german history, please study it yourself, if you don't believe me. We don't treat the United States as a new country in WP whenever new states join the union, do we?Alektor89 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Weizesacker should have it shown as "President of West Germany, then Germany", IMHO. Also note: West Germany is not a re-direct to Germany, even though you're arguing to treat them as exact same countries. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe we should take a look at the german WP-articles of the Presidents and the Presidency (for example Gauck: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Gauck and Heuss: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Heuss) Here you see very clearly that the Presidency is regarded to be one and the same office before and after 1990. There is no difference, they are all adressed as "Bundespräsident(en) der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (which is pretty much what I propose for the english articles). This is not completely irrelevant, isn't it? I mean, the german articles are really written by people who know much about german polics, history and constitutional law. Because not everybody in the world knows, if the Fed. Rep. is "West" or "East Germany", I make the concession that we should ad a "(West Germany)" behind the titles of the Presidents from Heuss to Carstens (and maybe von Weizsäcker, who was elected in the times of seperation but was president of reunited Germany at the end of his term) in the english articles. I unterstand that you would prefer short and clear titles, but the world isn't always short and clear, and an encyclopedia sometimes needs to reflect on this. I have to repeat it: "West Germany", "East Germany" and "Germany" suggest that the two seperated german states merged in 1990 and created a new german state with a new constitution and new offices (in this case a new office of President). This simply is not true, we have to somehow reflect on that, if we want to keep WP scientific.Alektor89 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The office is called President of Germany in the English language; that is both its WP:COMMONNAME and the title of Wikipedia's article on the office. Therefore it should be just "President of Germany" unless further clarification is necessary. For post-reunification presidents no such clarification is needed and we should simply use "President of Germany." For Presidents during the Cold War, we should also use "President of Germany" because that's how the office was widely known in English sources, but add West Germany as a parenthesis, like this: "President of Germany (West Germany)". We should not use "President of East Germany" because no such office existed and because it was never the common English name; the communist world had its own distinct system and titles, and English sources tended to use those titles. In GDR, as in other communist states, the political system also changed a number of times. From 1960 to 1989 the head of state was the Chairman of the State Council. The last head of state was head of state in her capacity as President of the People's Chamber (i.e. speaker of the parliament). She was never "President" in the American sense. We should continue using those titles, as we have always done. There is also no need to confuse the issue of the complex communist titles of the former country GDR, which became defunct in 1990, with the titles used in the very different liberal democratic state that was informally often called West Germany before 1990 and that continues to exist today, now universally called just Germany in English, with an unchanged political system. --Tataral (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Weizsäcker's title in the infobox should be should be shown as:
- President of Germany
- (West Germany until 1990)"
--Tataral (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a point of clarification, but WP:COMMONNAME doesn't focus on article content but on the topic's most recognizable article title. An article title must be recognizable as one of its primary criteria. Usages within the article (including the infobox) however should be primarily accurate and clear. In cases where the common name might be misleading or confusing, editors are encouraged to use a more accurate terminology - even if it is less common.
- But back to the concrete issue at hand: I agree with Tataral's suggestion, but recommend to add an explanatory footnote in all affected articles to explain the state's and the office's continuity. Otherwise the infobox may be misleading for some readers, and wrongly imply 2 (legally) separate entities and offices. Such a footnote only needs adding in infoboxes, where both terms are prominently used in close proximity without explanatory context. In all other cases the usage should be clear enough as is. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't see why we can't use "...of West Germany", "of East Germany" and "...of Germany" for these offices. As for West Germany & Germany, they'll both be linked to the same article. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- But not everyone will click on the link. And the title should be consistent in WP as is has been and is consistent in reality. Tataral's proposal does meet every relevant criteria: It shows the consistency of the title, the continuity of the Federal Republic and it's offices before and after 1990, while avoiding any possible confusion with the GDR (or vulgo "East Germany"). And it is also not garbled in any way (like, maybe, my proposal). Wheras your proposal, GoodDay, has some problems as it uses unscientific terms ("West Germany"), which are not used in Germany in this context, and ignores the constitutional continuity of the Fed. Rep., while it has no advantages compared with Tataral's, as far as I can see.Alektor89 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't see why we can't use "...of West Germany", "of East Germany" and "...of Germany" for these offices. As for West Germany & Germany, they'll both be linked to the same article. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The redirect, Democrat Party (United States), is relisted. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
requested move at Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017
Hi all
There is a requested move discussion open at Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017, which is of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks — Homunq (࿓) 14:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is still not fully resolved; there seems to a clear asymptotic consensus that a move is needed, but not yet clear agreement on what the target of the move should be. Please join us and don't be afraid to be opinionated, in whatever direction; we need resolution, not equivocation. Homunq (࿓) 17:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
RfC on Donald Trump
There is currently a discussion on Talk:Donald Trump concerning the size of the article and the possibility of splitting it up. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
March 4 Trump
I started Draft:March 4 Trump, if any project members want to help expand this draft as things develop. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ongoing RM at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China
The RM at Talk:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China is still ongoing. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Another RfC discussion at Talk:Cold War II
I started another RfC discussion, Talk:Cold War II#RfC: "Novel risks and measures for preventing escalation" section. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Proposal for the infobox of italian parties
Hi, I have started a discussion (here) about the conditions of admission for the template of italian parties and particularly I have also proposed to insert the number of regional councillors in the infobox of italian parties. This proposal has been rejected by 2 users, but their reasons, in my view, are not so valid. If anyone is interested can join the discussion --Wololoo (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)