Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 01:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Intros of the 2020 & 2016 US presidential elections.

Separate discussions, concerning the intros to the 2020 United States presidential election & 2016 United States presidential election articles, are currently happening. Editors' input from this WikiProject, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#RfC regarding the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox template

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#RfC regarding the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox template. feminist (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding whether political party should be listed in Sheriff David Clarke's infobox

There is currently an RFC at Talk:David Clarke (sheriff). The RFC reads:
What political affiliation should be listed in David Clarke's infobox? Should it be "Democrat" or just left blank?

Option 1: List "Democrat" in the infobox

Option 2: Leave the infobox blank.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKaatFan (talk • contribs)

Trump Turnberry

Somewhat related to the above discussion on excessive links, additional input would be appreciated at Talk:Turnberry (golf course)#Russia and remuneration controversies. Many thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What source for California State Assembly election results?

I was researching Wikipedia for California state legislative election results and trends. Wherever I looked, election results were given with no sources! See, e.g., 2018 California State Assembly election, 2012 California State Assembly election, California's 10th State Assembly district, Marc Levine. This seems a striking departure from Wikipedia's requirement of citing reliable sources for content, and especially for information about living persons.

In addition, as these same examples show, the same election results are apparently entered by hand in multiple articles. This seems like both extra work, with no gain in content for Wikipedia, and an increase in the likelihood of human errors. It would be a better practice to have this information in one article, with pinpoint internal hyperlinks in other articles to which it is relevant. I welcome your responses.—Finell 05:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline spam in see also sections

Several article are getting spammed with links to Timeline articles by X1\. Generally it is most or all of these.

• Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)
• Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017)
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)
• Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)

Some of the articles that seem to have it are Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Oleg Deripaska, and Sergey Kislyak. Though there appear to be tons of articles bombed like that. Should they remain and should some of those timeline articles be merged and condensed? PackMecEng (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This phenomenon is an abuse of the "See also" sections and should be curtailed. To the more general point, debate on the scope of those timelines has been raging ever since they were created; I don't think there is any way to obtain consensus there. But the spamming must stop. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I partially agree. If a person's name is mentioned multiple time in in these timeline articles, it is very appropriate to link them in the see also sections. An alternative would be a navbox. That said, I think there should only be one timeline article per timeline subject and the content should have to meet a minimum inclusion criteria per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The merging/condensing/spam stopping could be submitted to a centralized RfC is someone can come up with a set of clear inclusion criteria. We were able to (partially) solve a similar issue with political endorsement lists with WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue there is most of the people from what I can find are just listed in the "Relevant individuals and organizations" section which appears to be copy pasted between articles. I like the centralized RFC idea, I am just terrible at wording those. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The ones I checked had at least there mentions of the name. I don't know why there needs to be a listing of the names in the articles anyway. wikilinks would tend to serve the same purpose. - MrX 🖋 16:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

For example Sergey Kislyak is listed only once in Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016–election day), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018), Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2018), and Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020). All in that relevent individuals section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the first article, he is mentioned three times (by last name only) in addition to the one time he is listed in the list. I haven't checked the others. - MrX 🖋 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was only searching full name. Where would be a good centralized place for a discussion on the merge and condensing? PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Possibly here, with notifications on all of the affected pages. It's probably not of broad enough interest to have it at the village pump. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What about in the mean time, while we get that ready, we replace all those links with a link to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which links to all those other timelines and gives more information? PackMecEng (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess that's fine. - MrX 🖋 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

JFG Would you be okay with that as well? If so I will start tomorrow with replacing them. PackMecEng (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. Go for it! — JFG ^talk 04:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't spamming. These articles are related. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

See related context of inclusion v. exclusion at May 2019 DRN also. X1\ (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: see Talk page history for discussion of the epic-ness of this topic. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have participated on the talk page. I abandoned all hope when I realized that I was outnumbered by editors who think we need exhaustively detailed timelines. I don't think that level of detail belongs in an encyclopedia. - MrX 🖋 21:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: the "Relevant individuals and organizations" transcluded list was created long ago to avoid errors and repeating info. X1\ (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, it won't be fine as has already been discussed. Individuals are mentioned in different segments of the continuous Timeline (broken into segments due to Special:LongPages). The current name of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is intended to be renamed Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before July 2016, which is a highlight of why it is inappropriate (wrong segment of the Timeline) to "consolidate" to that segment. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

These tag team deletion motions can be interpreted as vexatious, and a disservice to the wp:Reader. X1\ (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Slow your roll X1\, no one here is tag teaming. Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard. - MrX 🖋 21:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

And you, MrX, have been hearing from a "team", on one side (here, until now). See the "team's" history at the Timeline(s), as pointed to above, in my comments. X1\ (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Content discussions should be evaluated on their merits, not by who participates in them. By the way, no need to ping me every time you reply. I'm already here. 😏 - MrX 🖋 21:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies MrX. My intent was to identify with whom I was communicating, and give separation to the potentially different items. In retrospect, I could skip the templates after one, and use plain text that the template would create. My goal was not to barrage you with pings. X1\ (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You threw me, MrX, when you stated Everyone's view of this deserves to be heard and not by who participates in them; but I do agree with the sentiment that content discussions should be evaluated on their merits. X1\ (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue I have is it taking up large chunks of the see also section for largely the same topic. All seeming to fall under Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, so a clean and simple solution would be replace the eight links with one. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• So I replaced a good chunk of them but it appears X1\ has reverted citing Yes, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics#Timeline spam in see also sections an example here. So what gives? Consensus is clear here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  Hardly. X1\ (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  X1\ seems to be suffering from the WP:IDHT syndrome. PackMecEng's suggested course of action is fair and proportionate, and it has been supported by many editors in this discussion (including by several who contributed to building the timelines). Further reverts to re-impose excess links would be disruptive. — JFG ^talk 02:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Retconning JFG? X1\ (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was unaware of this discussion, but saw X1 insertion at Donald Trump Investigations, PackMecEng removal of the 6 hatnotes there (3 old and 3 new), and X1 revert which claimed the new as long-standing. I returned it to long-standing 34 hatnotes and started a TALK thread with pings annnnd X1 Only rereverted ... and indented my thread under his own title/post. Will some others please visit and TALK? I’ll try to unmangle my TALK, but I don’t get the feeling X1 read HATNOTE, is listening to me, trying to find a better way, or at least one acceptable to others. Maybe just a 4th opinion will mitigate behaviour and turn the edit war to something else. The Presidency section condensed timeline to one hatnote instead of expanding, for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• See Talk:Donald Trump#Russian interference (and its article ESs) for a proper description not only of edits, but also the long-standingness (since December 2017). Also see directly connected section (inexplicably created separately by u:Markbassett) at Talk:Donald Trump#Reverted Investigations hatnote sprawl just below the previous section. X1\ (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• The value to the wp:Reader, in not using an inappropriate dab in the style of Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency, is the Reader can find the topic in the vast Timeline better when segment(s) the topic is/are not in are not included. It is a disservice to the Reader just, in effect, saying "you try to find it" in these decades. It is especially better for the Reader when the topic isn't in any of the other (currently eight) segments. The Reader can more easily find the topic in a half a year, than check eight pages, spanning 34 years.
• Something to consider, even though it will be a disservice to the Reader, is to sparringly use the recently created Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia. It covers six of the segments: transition, 1H17, 2H17, 1H18, 2H18, and 2019–2020. If the topic is in all six of these segments, the Reader may get that cue from the "timeline of investigations" dab. They would, disconcertingly, have to make that connection themselves though. This is not a better choice for the Reader. X1\ (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Surely one "See also" Russiagate link is enough per article. Choose one - and only one - article to link to. More than that is just spam. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wishful thinking. History is not that simple. This topic is epic. It isn't a "one topic on one day" situation. See above, and View History(s) of articles, and see the May 2019 DRN, etc ... It would be helpful for the quality of the Timeline to include other major still-active (positive) contributors to the articles to this discussion; for example the major contributors to the "before July 2016" page, besides just Websurfer2, such Arglebargle79, My very best wishes, Valjean, and Soibangla. X1\ (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see the merits of both sides (except for the timeline condensation arguments that have failed to achieve consensus on the timeline talk pages). I suggest using the navigation template {{Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections}}, which includes links to the timeline articles, instead of listing the timelines individually in the See also section. Websurfer2 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• While I do see the logical argument of which includes links to the timeline articles; that only says to Reader, in effect, "you may look somewhere somehow-related in the group of wikilinks, you may see". See my response above, for a counterargument of drawing the Reader to the relation of the topic to specific segments in the Timeline. It helps show how the related-topic fits into the context of history (the Timeline). X1\ (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I see merits in PackMecEng's idea above: "...we replace all those links with a link to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which links to all those other timelines and gives more information?"

I DO see that huge group of links as spamming (although I don't think that is the intent, the effect is the same). Regardless of intent, that must stop. The 2016 article links to all of them, so use only it, unless there is a VERY good reason for including one of the other timelines. The fact that a name appears in that long list of names is not a good enough reason. -- Valjean (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you see as the criterion of VERY good reason, Valjean? Please go further than one example. What if the name appears many times, for example? X1\ (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The only alternative, if not adjunct, to the Timeline wikilinks, is to add a sentence or more that embeds the related Timeline wikilinks into context. Laborious, and adds many bytes... X1\ (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

How could Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections cover all that is in the Timelines (eight articles, from SPLITting due to size growth) when it is just one page? X1\ (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the vast majority of cases a single link would suffice and that should be to the top level article on the subject (e.g. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), etc.), not one or more timelines which can easily be reached from the parent article if the "reader" wishes to follow-up. As noted by others, it would also appear undue for there to be a link or links placed in articles that are only related peripherally, speculatively or by vague implication (as they have been at Turnberry (golf course)). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• wjemather, please elaborate on etc. When you say vast majority that implies some where a single link would not suffice: what are those, and why? What are all the top level article[s] on the subject? Or the other side of the coin, what are all the non-top level articles on the subject? If there is a consensus on that exact list, it will avoid future potential confusion; so this is a question to all concerned.
• The Reader must know there is a connection if the "reader" wishes to follow-up., and the Timelimes are there to show the connection.
• peripherally is subjective in such a vast topic.
• None of the links I know of are speculatively, and
• None of the links I know of are by vague implication. All have RSs.
• Trump Turnberry has a paragraph on the connection to the Trump/Russia timeline, as has been pointed out in ES/Talk, and the paragraph is obvious. X1\ (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to be as brief as possible so perhaps my original comment lacked some clarity. As such I'll address those points in order:

1. Vast majority is simply sensible phraseology as it allows for "there always being an exception to any rule" – I cannot think of any, but I'm sure there will be.
2. It seems fairly obvious (especially to those involved) what the relevant articles are from the various lead sections & navboxes, so no, I won't be listing them.
3. Peripherality can absolutely be determined somewhat objectively in the first instance. If something/someones involvement is not covered in reasonable depth anywhere (or at all) in the main top-level articles or timelines, then its/their involvement is probably insignificant and it/they should be assumed to be peripheral unless otherwise determined by consensus. Being part of a long and largely indiscriminate list is not sufficient reason for adding links.
4. Speculatively or by vague implication (or tenuously) relates to the "reliable" sources themselves. Unfortunately given the polarising subject matter, reliability and neutrality in sources is hard to come by. Many will discuss multiple tangentially related subjects simultaneously with the intention of drawing the reader to an implied (but not explicitly stated) conclusion. For example, discussing Trumps finances and the finances of known rogue organisations while also mentioning Trump owns golf courses alongside a picture of him at Turnberry – nothing has been stated explicitly, but we know what is being implied. Further, as an example of speculation, the media speculated greatly on the contents of various subpoenas, sometimes having to correct their stories later [1] (worse, some don't bother issuing corrections).
5. As noted on the talk page there, even the remaining paragraph in the article is not specifically about Turnberry but more relevant to Donald Trump and golf. The same applies, but even more so, to the rest of what you added.

_wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wjemather for your comments are about Trump Turnberry, I both recommend you take them to that Talk page, along with self-reverting there and, if needed, returning to a state before my recent edits (long-standing) so that you follow BRD. Most of the disagreements we have at that article are not related to this discussion thread.

I do not follow most of what you are attempting to communicate, and seem to be subjective internal thoughts, filled with weasel words; so respond at the proper Talk page; so, hopefully we can come to an understanding there.

Regarding your reliability and neutrality in sources comments; no, there are many RSs and they are fairly easy to find. Sure there is a lot of partisan junk out there, but it is not hard to steer clear of the vast majority of those. Quality RSs post corrections as needed (see WP:RSPSOURCES discussions). Your one example is not a reason to assume quality RSs are hard to come by. Facts exist. Avoid unsubstantiated broad generalizations from a tiny sample set. Quality RSs are the bricks that build wp.

On first look at "Donald Trump and golf", it was created January 2018‎, while Trump Turnberry was created March 2005‎. As appropriate, items could be copied/moved to the newer article. I will look into it shortly, as I have been unavailable to edit the last couple of days. X1\ (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• As someone who used these timelines for editing, I must say: they are very helpful and provide a lot of important details, exactly as they should.. I think the timeline pages are more concise and frequently even more informative than the actual pages on the subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• So you have no issue with BLP see also sections like these? Dana Rohrabacher, Paul Erickson, Konstantin Kilimnik, and George Nader where the timelines serve no purpose for the reader and take over the whole see also section. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Each of those individuals are in each of those Timeline segments. X1\ (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Many people are mentioned in many articles, you do not put every one of them in their see also section. I will give it about a week more here then make the changes inline with consensus here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Besides my other comments, see this. X1\ (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• That doesn't actually address my concerns or the concerns of anyone here that is opposed to what you are doing. PackMecEng (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• It addresses the logic and justification of my actions. What are your justifications, appearances? X1\ (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let's not go down that road, shall we? It seems to me that consensus here is abundantly clear and further pushing of this would be disruptive. To finish, it should also be noted that some of the use of article talk pages and edit summaries in relation to this topic borders on WP:SOAPBOXing and should also cease. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe you were confused, Wjemather; my indent meant it was a question for PackMecEng.
• Your comment, Wjemather, on my ES selfnote method of memory and editing process is inappropriate. This method is well within the wp culture bounds, your comment of should also cease is not. X1\ (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• The target of the comment was clear and not misunderstood, and questioning of contributors motivations is simply not acceptable. Also not acceptable is using minor edits to soapbox theories & questionable external links in an edit summary – I suggest using userspace if such reminders are needed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng. No, I think that providing links to timeline pages from BLP pages of persons noticed in timelines (and especially such as Konstantin Kilimnik) is helpful for a reader and certainly not a BLP issue. @Wjemather. What consensus, exactly? I have no idea what it might be after quickly looking at this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Well at this point it is you and X1\ infavor of listing all the timelines and me, Wjemather, Valjean, Websurfer2, Thucydides411, Markbassett, JFG, and MrX against. With Websurfer2 offering an alternative of listing the navigation template {{Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections}} instead of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections but still against the timelines individually. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that using navigation template is a good solution, but only if we include all involved people (like Kilimnik) to the template. They are not there. Include all involved people to the template, and I will agree with you. However, if they are not included (as right now), I will agree with X1, although this is not the best solution. Excluding links from both BLP pages and the template has an effect of hiding important information from a reader (i.e. misinforming the reader), in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• You overstate your position again, PackMecEng. It doesn't appear MrX or Websurfer2 are against either. X1\ (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's correct. I am in favor of listing links to timelines in articles in which the subject is mentioned non-trivially on the timeline. However, I still think the timeline articles are far too detailed and would prefer one article only listing the major events. - MrX 🖋 15:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Major events are covered in the one page Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and roughly speaking those with the "minor" events are in the eight Timeline pages, MrX. Editors of the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" use the Timeline to build that page, see Timelines Talk histories. Although it would be nice if this topic weren't so epic and significant, and thus have a short article, but it is, so it is long. X1\ (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

One point that nobody has made is that some "See also" links in biographies may violate BLPSEEALSO. See also sections are actually pretty rare in biographies for the obvious reason that we do not want to make contentious associations.

Devoting too much space for single topic prominently is UNDUE, which cannot be remedied by shoehorning other topics into the section. See also links are not an alternative for proper use of navigation templates or intuitive linking within text. Politrukki (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not contentious in that they have all been backed by RSs. X1\ (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear. I forgot to mention that I was discussing See also links in general, not cases mentioned in the opening post or timeline links specifically. Politrukki (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR

I have nominated Gerald Ford 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of state legislatures in this taskforce

Hi all, I noticed that the Michigan Legislature is included in top-importance American Politics, but those of neighboring states are not. User:Imzadi1979 claims that all state legislatures belong in American politics. Let's build a consensus here! User:Mr. Guye User:Jon698 User:TxStateAlum17 User:MJL User:Ed._Jishnu User:Wei4Green User:Oa01 70.122.40.201 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, all of the state legislatures are major components of American politics. The importance level should be either High or Top. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm for calling the high. There are 50 state legislatures and 99 state legislative chambers across the United States. I'm not of the mind that all 50 are on the same level of importance to this task force as articles like Politics of the United States, State of the Union, etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that they should be rated as high. State legislatures are an important part of American politics and government, but not important enough for top. - Jon698 talk 13:17 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe each congress should be high and each chamber should be mid? Do we include DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.? 70.122.40.201 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

70.122, that sounds reasonable. The territories and DC should just be considered states for this purpose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements in Congressional biographies

Is it generally accepted to put endorsements in biographies of congresspeople or congressional candidates? (endorsements for them, not people they have endorsed)? I'm working on Draft:Nate McMurray. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts legislative districts and sessions

We're having a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts about the naming convention for sessions of the state legislature (currently, e.g., 179th Massachusetts General Court (1995–1996)); and for legislative districts (currently, e.g., Massachusetts Senate's 3rd Middlesex district and Massachusetts House of Representatives' 3rd Middlesex district). Input from WP:AmPol members is welcome! _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 03:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Turning Point USA

An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mormon members of congress

Hey, I created List of Mormon members of the United States Congress today. I found some sources with detailed lists of all Mormon members before 2000 but I'm a little worried I missed a few from the period from about 2001-2009. If anyone knows of any that I missed that would be appreciated. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

House leaders

I wonder if we should have something to different House Majority Leaders from the Speakers of the House? GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

See for example Template: Democratic Party (United States), which lists the House Minority leaders & the House speakers, but not the House Majority leaders. Though this arrangement is understood by Americans in general, outsiders will find it confusing. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Jenny_Durkan#Deletion_of_controversies

Could someone look at the content issues there? Needs more discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant split discussion

Talk:Postal voting in the United States#Split 2020 election section to new article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert Rubin and the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act

The current article about former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin currently contains no mention of his role in promoting the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. On the talk page for his biographical article, I have posted some example sources verifying the fact, and even a short draft of what a section about it could look like. I am looking for help because I have a COI with the topic, as I am working on his behalf to improve the entry. Would any editors here be interested in having a look at this request and weighing in there? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Category for independent politicians who caucus/affiliate with Democrats?

Was thinking maybe there should be a category within Category:Independent politicians in the United States for politicians like Bernie Sanders or Al Gross or Angus King who aren’t officially Democrats but run in their primaries/caucus with them. Thoughts? DemonDays64 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Action plan for tomorrow?

Could we have an action plan to coordinate tomorrow's election? Mr. Heart ^(talk) 14:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of digital ink has been spilled on this topic at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major". Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Territory Leaders

Hi. I just added the territory leaders to the country incumbents section at '2019 in United States' and I was wondering, because there's only one of me, that the Years and Politics communities could get together and help me add the territory leaders to all of the year pages? Will be posting this to 2019 in the United States and WikiProject Years as well.Elipoloos123 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Temporarily redirect Presidency of Joe Biden to Presidential transition of Joe Biden

If you support or oppose this proposal, you are invited to comment here. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for initial review- Trumpism

This article recently received a peak of 8500 page views and is currently averaging 2000 per day. Could someone have a look at it and assign it a class? I am thinking it is maybe a C or even a B due to the high quality of most of the 64 or so citations. Any suggestions for improvements posted on its talk page would be greatly appreciated by our editors there. Thanks J JMesserly (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War has an RFC

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

- continuity - used at this WP article and sisters for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with their respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - 15 Pulitzer history winners

- modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

Comments:

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

New template available to make abbreviations easier

{{U.S. politician abbreviation}} is now available to make it easier to generate things like I‑VT, D‑CA 47th, or D‑TX 4th. Feel free to use it! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Huh.. not a bad idea! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden/Harris and similar redirects

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Biden/Harris about Biden/Harris and similar redirects where your comments are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Economic policy of x

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects_and_categories#Redirect_request:_Economic_policy_of_the_Richard_Nixon_administration. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Recommend adding this project to David Ruggles article

Hello. I've been a long time absent contributor, but recently heard an interview with Jonathan Wells, the author of The Kidnapping Club: Wall Street, Slavery, and Resistance on the Eve of the Civil War on the subject of his book, which included Mr. Ruggles, as he wrote a contemporary artcile on the subject in the early 19th century. I see that the currentle article is not so bad, but still a start up and so am waving it under the nose of projects I thought it would fall under in the hopes that more active contributors might add to it/fix it/etc. IMHO (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on description of Southern strategy in lead of Republican Party

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Southern strategy description in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address Featured article review

I have nominated Gettysburg Address 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

GiveSendGo needs and article

This Christian fundraising website has become clearly notable due to its association with the far right, eg this and many more. Some of our articles mention it. I'd rather not create it due to time constraints, but it would be great if someone did! Doug Weller talk 14:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of interest...

..to the members of this WikiProject can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Robin Danielson Act

Hey there. Brit here, not an expert in U.S. politics, and I've just created Robin Danielson Act. If anyone has any information to add to the article I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Bangalamania (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar has an RFC

Ilhan Omar has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

RfCs of interest

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. RfCs are underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents concerning the removal or retention of US president series boxes at associated articles and the removal or retention of US vice-president series boxes at associated articles.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 1 - president series boxes) with Discussion of president series boxes,
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 2 - vice-president series boxes) with Discussion of vice-president series boxes. Shearonink (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Featured Article Review

I have nominated Malcolm X 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice

Heads up, RFC taking place, which may affect American political bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

US governor intro inconsistencies.

I've corrected the intros to 14 of the 50 US state governors articles. They erroneously had head of state in them. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed merging Media coverage of Bernie Sanders into Bernie Sanders

See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders#Merge_Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders_into_Bernie_Sanders Yleventa2 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Andrew Cuomo

Talk:Andrew Cuomo § RfC for lead image ––FormalDude talk 21:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC) ––FormalDude talk 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated William Henry Harrison 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. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

US House of Representatives special elections articles

Given the two examples 2019 United States House of Representatives elections & 2021 United States House of Representatives elections articles, which deal with House special elections. Perhaps we should change all those articles to Year United States House of Representatives special elections form.. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Shortname templates

As the result of a TfD earlier this year, all the /meta/shortname, color and abbrev templates were merged into a single module. In the process, the contents of much of the shortname templates has been moved into the abbrev field in the module. An RfC on this and its potential impact has been started on the module's talkpage. Input from WikiProject members is welcome. Cheers, Number 57 20:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack

A request for comment that may interest members of this project is occurring at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack § RfC: Should the following categories be kept?

The question being posed is: should the article stay in the following categories? Category:Terrorist incidents in the United States in 2021, Category:Rebellions in the United States, Category:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States. ––FormalDude ^talk 03:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Brooks Brothers riot

Notifying interested users. Please see this. Best. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

how do we get members to help focus on a particular article?

how do we get members to help focus on a particular article that needs more sources?

Thanks Quiet2 (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Truthiness

I have nominated Truthiness 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. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Smokeout"

I'm having a hard time finding an article that discusses a "smokeout" as what recently happened in the South Dakota legislature [2]. Any help? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's apparently jargon used only in South Dakota so I certainly wouldn't expect Wikipedia to have it: "An act which invokes of Joint Rule 7-7 whereby one-third of the members of a house can require a committee to deliver a bill to the full body by the next legislative day." [3][4]. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with Robert Rubin biography?

Hello, this is a similar message to one I posted on the parent project's talk page; I haven't received a reply there, so I figured I'd try here: I am working on behalf of the former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin to update to the article about him. (Because of my COI, I will not directly edit the article.) I am hoping someone here would be willing to take a look at my latest request. I'd appreciate anyone who would be willing to offer feedback or even consider making the proposed change. Happy to answer any questions about the request, as well. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DHS Disinformation Governance Board

The article Disinformation Governance Board was created yesterday, with almost entirely deprecated biased sources. Not a lot of neutral coverage yet, but I did my best to do initial cleanup. Could probably use additional eyes. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie Cutter request

Hi editors, my name is Christian and I work for Precision Strategies. I was hoping to make some updates the Stephanie Cutter article and was wondering if anyone here could help me out. I won't make any edits myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance! PrecisionChristian (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up List of George Floyd protests in the United States

It's been more than two years since the 2020 racial justice protests kicked off. There's more than four dozen pages that are just cataloguing protests by locality, and it seems to me that many of these don't demonstrate notability independently of the larger protest movement, or basically say nothing beyond what would or should be covered in a few lines, under WP:NOTNEWS and demonstrating enduring importance, e.g. George Floyd protests in Puerto Rico, or George Floyd protests in Ohio. Most of these feel like they could be collapsed into "protests took place in (number of cities), possibly including total numbers and duration. Thoughts on working to condense this information into something less sprawling and useful? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Category for nationalists of the United States

Inspiration for this comes from recent edits at the BLP for PA GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano. As I looked into the different categories being bandied about, I noticed that [[Category:Nationalists by nationality]] strangely has no subcat for [[Category:United States of America nationalists]]. I'm unskilled doing category creation, and was thinking someone here might be interested in starting a place where we can add people, based on RSs of course. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

State Department Inspector General article

Hi, on February 23, 2022, I proposed a few updates to improve the quality of the Steve Linick article here that I think may be of interest to members of this project, especially since the Request Edits Queue seems to be pretty stalled. I can’t implement the requests myself since I have a conflict of interest as a personal connection and am aware that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks.Skijackson (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act article

There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Respect for Marriage Act, polygamy, & WP:AN

There is currently a discussion which you might want to participate in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information, which especially concerns the Respect for Marriage Act and articles relating to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)

Very sketchy article. For a few things:

• ideology sections like Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)#Progressive wing list examples of current people ostensibly in somewhat arbitrarily defined groups with no sources for most of them
• there need to be some updates to mention that some people have left office -- I recognized Tulsi Gabbard among possibly a few others I don't know
• a lot of examples of groups have confusing or unnecessary examples (and they are mostly unsourced): a few are the "Registered Democrats" section listing two DNC officials; "Younger voters" having for the House only Sara Jacobs, who isn't even the youngest member of the Democratic caucus (that's AOC); "Christian Americans" listing senators who don't seem to be particularly known for being Christian
• all or most of the data for how groups voted is from exit polls, which are not as reliable as other options that at least for recent elections are available (e.g. validated voter surveys)
• there are also a lot of broad generalizations such as a claim I removed that "Muslim Americans tend to be financially well off as many in the community are small businessmen and educated professionals".

Tldr this article makes a lot of unsourced claims and needs a huge overhaul DemonDays64 (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I also support fixing these issues. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I also support it. Maybe the article is worth keeping, but only if there are major changes. Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It would not make sense to have Factions in the Republican Party (United States) but not the equivalent for the Democratic Party. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There is discussion for reworking the article at Talk:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Marriage issues and neutral phrasing

Greetings, politics lovers! Since the Respect for Marriage Act will be broadening the definition of marriage to anything we want it to be, I'm thinking of how we can uniformly address marriage issues in articles, especially about political views.

• "Traditional marriage" is a political term often used by conservatives, which tends to refer to "one-man, one-woman" complementarianism and additionally, child-bearing couples and permanent unions without divorce. Unfortunately not many supporters of Traditional Marriage can really agree on what it means.
• "Same-sex marriage" is of course a specific and recent issue which is narrow in scope.
• "Marriage equality" is a broadly inclusive political term, and I would argue that it's equivalent to "traditional marriage" in WP:POV political framing; they're both buzzwords or Shibboleths indicating support for a specific tapestry of beliefs about gender. "Marriage equality" as a neologism may also be as poorly-defined as "Traditional marriage" and subject to shifting connotations as time advances.

• Now, generally in political articles we've been writing about how politicians oppose or support same-sex marriage. BUt in light of RFMA, I don't think that narrow scope suffices anymore. I also oppose the expansion of our use of the term "marriage equality" because we've already been down that road with pro-life and pro-choice and the overwhelming consensus is to use neither term due to its political implications.

RFC question: How should the political issue of "marriage" be framed in political articles?

1. Continue to frame marriage issues, and section headings, in terms of opposition/support for same-sex marriage?
2. Refer neutrally to "Marriage" in section headings, and address nuances in prose?
3. Turn to a duality of "traditional marriage" vs. "marriage equality" framing?
4. None of the above: but avoid ideologically-framed terms in favor of something else?

Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't USApedia; a piece of US legislation (which has not passed) doesn't really have anything to do with how we globally treat a topic. We have no reason, that I can think of, to change how we're currently covering the topic, which includes use of various terms as is contextually appropriate. I'm skeptical that "traditional marriage" should ever be used in Wikipedia's own voice, since it's begging the question. "Traditional marriage" is only traditional to some people within specific traditions, and as a term it has a lot of loaded baggage with it (cf. WP:DTTC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with this. "Traditional" doesn't seem NPOV. Andrevan@ 17:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RFC; RFCs are required to be neutrally worded, while saying that the Respect for Marriage Act ...will be broadening the definition of marriage to anything we want it to be is shockingly non-neutral. Likewise, arguing that option 2 is neutral in its description is, ironically, non-neutral. Beyond that, obviously we should continue to refer to support / opposition to same-sex marriage as appropriate, using those terms when the sources emphasize them - "same sex marriage" remains the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic and should remain the default for section headers absent some specific local reason to use other wording; the basic argument that the respect for marriage act... "broadens" this somehow is flatly false and has no basis whatsoever in fact, so no valid reason to change our practice has been presented. Strenuously oppose any use of traditional marriage in wikivoice per above objections - whose traditions are we talking about here? And strenuously oppose any attempt to avoid the words "same-sex marriage" in section headers when there are sourcesi indicating that it is a significant aspect of the topic. But the many basic flaws in this RFC mean that nothing useful can come out of it, so it should just be closed. --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• RfC tag removed, as the opening statement was non-neutral. Please read WP:RFC for guidance on how and when to use the RfC process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson

I have nominated Andrew Jackson 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. FinnV3 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

3 interesting drafts

Draft:Will Boyd, Draft:Trudy Busch Valentine, Draft:Katrina Christiansen, need to source more biographical info and significant coverage in references Andre🚐 05:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Andy Ngo has an RFC

Andy Ngo has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Article WIP

I am seeking help to create Draft:2022 United States immigrant relocations. I think this can easily be it's own article, but it's a big undertaking that I cannot do alone. For now I've started it off with some stuff copy-pasted from the governors own articles, but obviously this will need to be reworked. -- Pokelova (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis FAR

I have nominated Jefferson Davis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert Rubin edit request

Hello WikiProject Politics, last month I posted a request on the article for former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, proposing to add some relevant information to the Early career section. I have a COI with Mr. Rubin as a subject, and as such will not make any direct edits myself. I have previously worked with a couple of other editors and have had a good working relationship with them, but out of respect for the time they've already put into the article, I thought I would reach out here for some additional perspective and to not unduly burden them. If someone here would be willing to review the suggested changes, I’d be grateful. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

GAR notice

Zachary Taylor has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the "Wi Spa controversy" Article Identify the Suspect by Name?

Please consider contributing to the "Should the Article Name the Suspect?" discussion at Talk:Wi Spa controversy. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Byron Brown

Byron Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue One request

Hi, WikiProject Politics/American Politics members. I have posted a request to the Issue One Talk page that outlines a proposed update to the article's History section. I've also posted a request to the article's Organization section.

I have a conflict of interest as I work at Issue One, so my hope is that I can get an experienced editor to review what I've put together and then implement the changes if they seem like improvements. Any help (even just a small edit) or feedback you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Lia Thomas has an RFC

Lia Thomas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reliability RfC

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the RFC at WP:RSN#RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics? on whether Fox News should be deprecated for politics. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Request to review for political advisor Jim Margolis

Would any editors here care to review a request to add some information to the article for Jim Margolis? The request is to add mention of his roles in the presidential campaigns for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, as well as a few other major campaigns he worked on. I'm making the request on behalf of Mr. Margolis, and have a conflict of interest, which is why I'm looking for editors without a COI to review. Thanks! Thomas GMMB (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

I suggested that the name of the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory be changed in response to recent non-conspiratorial allegations against Biden. In response, an editor simply removed the link to United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family from the article. The input of others at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Not all content is "conspiracy theory"; title and content need changing would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

JFK Assassination Featured Article Candidacy

If anyone is interested, the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has been nominated for Featured Article promotion. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, ~ HAL333 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hakeem Jeffries

A user keeps listing Speaker Jeffries as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus despite him not being listed as a current member anywhere on their website or elsewhere 73.29.10.120 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I'll keep an eye on the page. @73.29.10.120 Wispinn (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Adding categories for membership of individual congresses

Should there be categories for the membership of each individual U.S. Congress (i.e. Category:Members of the 1st United States Congress, Category:Members of the 2nd United States Congress etc., to Category:Members of the 118th United States Congress)?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Partially support - I think the category structure needs revision as "20th century" etc. is too broad. I'd be in favor of a standard that looks like this:

- For the 1900 - 2020, decades for discovery (eg. Members of the United States Congress (1950-1960) which would cover 5 congressional terms. Yes, there are some representatives who would be in more than one category in this case, but no more than a handful.

- For the current decade, a category for each Congress, which get rolled up into a decade category at the end of the decade.

- Prior to 1900, larger categories (eg. 25-50 year lengths).

Another alternative could be a timeline collection page/category wrapper. Not sure if there's a Wikipedia standard on that sort of contextual page. Wispinn (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I do worry that this could create too much clutter, though. That's my main concern here. Historyday01 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Currently, members of the U.S. Congress are categorized in the "[x]-century American politicians" categories. Some of these categories have over 10,000 names in them. Branching out to subcategories based on each two-year Congressional meeting, of which we are currently in the 118th, could dramatically reduce the size of these categories. There is precedent for dividing by individual legislative session, as seen in the UK MP categories ("Category:UK MPs 2019–present"). Doing this would sort these politicians along more era-specific lines than the current century categories can permit: for example, right now, a member of Congress elected in the 1900s decade and one elected in the 1990s decade are both in the "Category:20th-century American politicians" category (current population: 14,967), when their lifespans probably did not even overlap.

On the other hand, because each Congress runs two years, a large number of categories would have to be added to the pages of long-serving members. For example, Hal Rogers, the current dean of the U.S. House, has served 42 years (since the 97th United States Congress), meaning at least 22 of these categories would be added to his article. In addition, a U.S. Senate term lasts six years, and so an article for a U.S. Senator who serves even one six-year term will have three categories added to their page, when it could be argued that these two-year terms are not defining for a Senate career.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - It might benefit discovery, but it would probably clutter categories of a lot of articles because most members of congress serve multiple terms. I could maybe see a benefit with separating out Category:x-century Members of U.S. Congress as a new category in addition to "politicians", since politicians is broader and includes executives and local-level politicians.

The void century 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That could be a good compromise. I recently noticed there has been some effort to create century categories for legislators in Canada (i.e. Category:20th-century Canadian legislators is a subcat of Category:20th-century Canadian politicians). Having century categories specifically for members of the U.S. Congress (or legislators in general) could be a way forward here, if the consensus is that the clutter of creating categories for each two-year Congress would offset any benefits. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This would create a lot of category clutter, but I have no problem with a compromise. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit frustrated with this proposal mostly because the change to the "[x]-century American politicians" categories have happened from this topic, which is entitled "Adding categories for membership of individual congresses". Opposing doesn't seem appropriate given the topic heading is different from the changes being made, despite the edit summary pointing here. I really don't see how "Category:[x]-century American politicians" to "Category:[x]-century American legislators" does much to move any target, just a rename. --Engineerchange (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  The goal at the core of this suggestion was to address the large size and broad scope of the "[x]-century American politicians" category. For the 19th, 20th, and 21st century categories, these categories have populations in the tens of thousands, and include everything from Senate leaders, to state governors, to one-term state legislators, to perennial candidates. The suggestion to create categories for individual congresses was to address this situation, but it was hard to see past the sheer amount of clutter this could create. The goal in creating the legislators category as it was suggested was to address the concern with clutter but go at least some way to diffuse the large target categories. Individuals who did not hold legislative offices, or whose political careers are not primarily notable for their legislative work, would not be moved. I will admit that this was not the precise outcome that I had envisioned when I first opened the RFC, but I concluded that's as far as the discussion was going to go, as it had been idle for a month by the time I had created the categories, and some level of support for a broader subcategory was shared. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose In line with what everyone else is saying, I worry this could create too much clutter. But, the compromise of The void century that we have a "Category:x-century Members of U.S. Congress as a new category in addition to "politicians"" makes sense, as that could certainly help people.Historyday01 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have taken a broader view and created "X-century American legislators" categories, which definitely does expand the scope a bit more than Congress but does narrow things down a bit. It adds state legislators into these categories but excludes perennial candidates or people who served primarily/exclusively as executive branch officers. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In Oval Office, should "president's secretary" be wikified to Secretary_to_the_President_of_the_United_States#Personal_secretary_to_the_president?

Apokrif (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would think so? Historyday01 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be "Personal Secretary to the President of the United States" Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Presidential Candidate

Rep. Dean Phillips has been in the news about running for president (MinnPost, New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post). His article does not say what he stands for and more about him for potential voters! I wouldn’t even know where to begin editing as I am not experienced and I have ailments that make it difficult to type for long periods. I was hoping to enlist the help of someone interested in the 2024 election for the article. Much thanks - BekLeed (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll definitely take a look; would you mind putting together a short draft (a few paragraphs) for that section of the article based on your sources and I'll be happy to edit? Wispinn (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia isn't a place for campaign advertisements. SportingFlyer T·C 10:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer - can you clarify what you're referring to here? This seems like a reasonable request to add more context to an existing sitting federal representative's article. Wispinn (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wispinn: Nothing wrong with adding to the article, but advertising their positions for an upcoming election is promotional and WP:NOT encyclopedic. Please make sure anything you add will still be relevant in several years. SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

In any case, there surely should be more added about his positions... as there isn't much in the article at present, as compared to other legislators. Historyday01 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm just leaving a note as I strike this that the above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user who has form for going around to talk pages trying to get them to edit the Dean Phillips article. Letting you know in case it pops up again. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ser! Disregarding this edit request then :) Wispinn (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wally Adeyemo has an RFC

Wally Adeyemo has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Steve Hilton article

Hi editors, I am seeking opinions on this request to update a small section of the biography of political commentator Steve Hilton about the 2020 U.S. election. The Wikipedia article says "Hilton promoted Trump's false claims of large-scale fraud," but the source material does not support the claim that Hilton promoted Trump's views. It quotes him only as saying that "evidence of fraud or irregularity should be brought forward and the court should adjudicate." There is a difference between "promoting" fraud claims and saying that claims should be investigated, and the Wikipedia article should faithfully represent the source material per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have a conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Steve Hilton, which is why I have not edited the article directly myself. Thank you for considering. SKflo (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating New York State section of Global Strategy Group article

Hello,

I'm an employee at Global Strategy Group, which does lots of polling, research, and strategic work for Democratic lawmakers. Last week, I made an edit request that proposes several updates to the GSG article's New York State section, which covers the firm's work for various New York Democrats, including Kathy Hochul and Kirsten Gillibrand. Would anyone here be interested in reviewing that request? I'll put a link here. It's a rather dense request, so I appreciate whoever takes the time to work through it. Please leave feedback, if you think certain aspects of it aren't up to par. I'm happy to collaborate with independent editors to further improve the changes I've put forward.

Thanks, ES at Global Strategy Group (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)