Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government/Archive 2

Barack Obama FAR
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gzkn 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward Langworthy
Greetings! I come under the auspices of WikiProject Abandoned Articles, a project working towards bringing abandoned articles back to life. Edward Langworthy is one such article, and it probably needs a bit of work to expand it and make it a bit more comprehensive. If anybody is able to help with this article, please lend us a hand! --Lord Pheasant 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Congressman Leo J. Ryan

 * I have been doing some work to attempt to improve the classification status of the article on the only Congressman to die in the line of duty: Congressman Leo J. Ryan. He posthumously received the Congressional Gold Medal.  He represented California's 11th congressional district.  Please let me know what you think, at Talk:Leo Ryan/Comments.  Thank you for your time.  Smee 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Religion parameter discussion
A discussion has begun here to establish consensus regarding the religion parameter. All editors are invited to join the discussion. This message has been cross-posted to other relevant talk pages. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV review of Bill Janklow article
I would ask this group to look at the Bill Janklow article from an NPOV point of view. I have been trying to neutralize some the language and keep getting it changed back. At first I was irritated, but now I am asking for your help and guidance.

Bill23rdpower 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Bill23rdpower

Jack Layton Page - Neutrality disputed
Where to start?

This article seems to be under the protection of Layton supporters and any comment that reflects poorly on Layton is removed quickly and unceremoniously. The pattern of writing seems to be if Layton initiates a political action in which he is cast as the good guy, it's in the article. If Layton does something that may have a negative effect on his popularity it is deleted under the premise of trivia or not following NPOV guidleines.

An example of Cause and effect used in the article that seems to be allowed if it enhances Layton's image in the minds of his supporters: Layton takes this action:During the 2004 federal election, controversy erupted over Layton's accusation that Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin was responsible for the deaths of homeless people because he failed to provide funding for affordable housing.

This additional comment is allowed:While rates of homelessness and homeless deaths skyrocketed during the eleven years of Liberal government, the Liberals argued that funding for affordable housing was cut under the government of Brian Mulroney.

Why is the additional comment allowed? To enhance Layton's image at the expense of others perhaps?

Cause and effect that is not allowed:

This comment allowed: Jack Layton and the NDP caucus voted to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 [4]

The effect is not allowed and dismissed as unrelated trivia: The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy [2]. According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy [3]

Yet this is not considered relevant. Why are Layton supporters uncomfortable talking about Layton's support of the right wing Conservatives?


 * Actually the economic damage is higher closer to $35 Billion according to Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors

The NDP under Jack Layton's leadership support the Conservative Plan. A leader gets to take the credit when the plan bears fruit but when Layton's decision does real economic damage to everyday Canadians, Layton supporters want to suppress the information.DSatYVR 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph McCarthy
I'd be interested in attracting a broader group of editors to this article, also for a RFC regarding the introduction. Kaisershatner 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Curry
Why does this work group support the Adrianne Curry article? -- Mikeblas 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks like a mistake. I've removed the article from the politician-workgroup. Hemmingsen 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks for fixin' it! -- Mikeblas 20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Charlie_Crist
I would really like other editors to take a look at NPOV for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Crist

I have written my thoughts on the discussion page.

Ryvr 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit War - Roy Oldham
Please may someone look at reverting the edits made to Roy Oldham. There has been an edit war between many users and wikipedians who keep on reverting legitimate edits.

Question about infobox information
In the biography article, Lester B. Pearson, there are flag icons placed in the infobox. In the WikiAircraft Project Group, wherein I have made the majority of my contributions, there was a consensus that the infobox was not to include the flag symbols to portray country status/origins.

When the flags were removed in the Pearson article, it triggered the following exchange: WP:FLAGCRUFT Just thought you'd like to know...--Boffob 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, so it doesn't carry much weight, if any. dcandeto 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As an argument it carries much more weight than simply putting flag icons for the heck of it. It's worth a read for sure.--Boffob 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one's putting flag icons in for the heck of it. dcandeto 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment: "Removed flag icons as per WP:FLAGCRUFT; please do not revert, adding flagcruft is considered vandalism" probably should have been succinctly written as "may be considered vandalism". Moreover, since this is not the first time that you have been informed of flagcruft and your insistence on providing decoration in an infobox where discussion by other users and editors have concluded that it is inappropriate, you are acting in contravention of the group's wishes. As you have already concluded, Wikipedia does not have "hard-and-fast" rules but it does have a standard of conduct. If you noted that flagcruft was an issue already from other edits, why add it again? IMHO Bzuk 12:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Why add it again? Probably because people are removing it based on a nonexistent policy.  Removing flags because you think they're cruft is akin to moving article names to the British or American spelling because you like it better.  dcandeto 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quote from WP:Flagcruft:"Not intended for birth/date places"
 * "It may be tempting to use flag icons in the birth/death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, but this is strongly deprecated." "Not intended" is pretty clear as policy. Bzuk 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * That's a quote from WP:FLAGCRUFT. It is not a quote from Wikipedia policy.  dcandeto 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is are flags part of the infobox or not? In the category of Canadian Prime Ministers, I went through all of the Prime Ministers of Canada and there are no other flags in any of the infoboxes, except in the Pearson article. The aforementioned editor has now reverted the changes in the infobox a number of times so he may be trying to make a point, but I would like to hear some comments from other editors versed in the biography format. IMHOBzuk 21:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Margaret Thatcher FAR
Margaret Thatcher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. One Night In Hackney 303  05:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictators
Having looked through the bio articles of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin (to name a few), I've noticed the word 'dictator' isn't applied in the opening sentence (of these bios). Assuming this is done to maintain NPOV, there's one bio page that has been made the exception: Augusto Pinochet. Should the word *'Dictator' be removed from there aswell? GoodDay 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having no previous experience (or opinion) regarding the application of "dictator" I would venture to say that a dictator couldn't be ousted by a "plebiscite" (as stated in the article), and therefor may be a misnomer. I think there might be a POV problem as well.  Generally, I would suggest avoiding such characterizations.  /Blaxthos 02:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is an important problem which should be solved. "Dictator" is, correctly IMO, not in the list of WP:AVOID. To refrain from calling Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin and other such infamous dictators as such is not only POV, but factually incorrect. Political scientists have NPOV way of defining dictatorships, which includes
 * suspension of elections or completely rigged elections (Augusto Pinochet, no elections until 1989)
 * proclamation of state of emergency for long periods (Hosni Mubarak) and/or suspension of Constitution (see List of political leaders who suspended the constitution)
 * suspension of rule of law,
 * rule by decree (Indian Emergency (1975–1977), Carlos Ibáñez del Campo), etc.
 * To refuse to make this scholarship distinction between democracies and dictatorships is a clear lack of seriousness. I understand that some have tried to avoid the POV issues alltogether by deleting the references to the sole word of "dictator", but this is not, IMO, an appropriate solution, as it only lead to confusion concerning dictatorships and democracies. Note that the problem does not concern simply the conditions of access to power (Hitler was elected) but the conditions of exercice of power. This should be solved by a debate, but where? Here? Tazmaniacs 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dictator is POV when not referring to Ancient Rome. You may say "X-reputable source says Y was a dictator", but not in the lead.Anonimu 15:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that "Dictator" is not POV: it can be objectivally determined (again, suspension of elections, etc.). Of course any such determination would need reliable sources, and some state leaders will be more controversial than others. But this should be solved on a case-by-case basis, and not by removing a word from the English language. Tazmaniacs 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most rulers from the antiquity and middle ages fit in those criteria. Should we call all of them dictators? What about "whore", "dick" etc.. i'm sure a lot of people would characterize in this way some people with bios on wikipedia. Should we use them, just not to "remove a word from the english language"?Anonimu 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Most rulers from the antiquity and middle ages fit those criteria"? Really? I thought a lot of them were rather absolute monarchs... The fact that "dictator" is sometimes us as a pejorative political epithet (just as fascist (epithet)) does not mean that it is impossible to describe with objectivity some leaders as dictators. To support your claim that it is not possible to do so only means that you have some troubles in making the distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship. Tazmaniacs 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But we don't call them "absolute monarchs" in the lead... just read some articles about them. Ad-hominems won't make your arguments stronger.Anonimu 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Entries concerning Absolute monarchs is another subject from this thread. Tazmaniacs 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You said that the only difference is that they ruled as monarchs. So it's part of this subject.Anonimu 18:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference to Ancient Rome is irrelevant. It is not because "dictator" etymologically comes from a term used by the Romans that we should not use it today. Indeed, it is very often used today by scholars all over the world to characterize several regimes in the world during the 20th century. Tazmaniacs 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Tazmaniacs, though I cannot tell if this would work for all examples conceivable. The word refers to a system of government, and it is not always applied polemically, whereas not using it in some cases would only serve to induce a POV (by making regimes universally seen as undemocratic to pass for what they claimed they were). That said, I think that the best way is to prioritize the office (Fuehrer, President, Premier, Caudillo etc), and, if need be make a clear reference to status as resulting from scholarly interpretation (dictator, dictatorship) somewhere prominent in the text. Dahn 15:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the office (Fuhrer, Caudillo, President, etc.) should be stated first, but IMO "dictator" should come immediately after (at least somewhere in the WP:LEAD) if sourced. Tazmaniacs 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The failure to identify people exercising absolute power as dictators when they meet the formal definition and criteria of the word as established by reputable political scientists seems to me a rather severe deficiency in an encyclopedia article. Lazyquasar 19:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. For Dictator to be NPOV we need a very precise, razor-sharp (and sourced) definition, clearly disambiguated from "you know, dictator, the bad guy" (the epiteth). What is currently provided, either in Dictator, in Dictatorship, in Tazmaniac's "NPOV" definition, is not good enough. Those are far too broad as they include some points, but fail to exclude any. A good definition should be focused on what a "dictator" is not, exactly as a good definition of "facist".
 * Provided that we have such definition, there is no harm in using it in biographies - it will be verifiable on the spot. --Kubanczyk 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Will these help:
 * Miriam-Webster: a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome, b: one holding complete autocratic control, c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
 * Encarta: powerful ruler: a leader who rules a country with absolute power, usually by force
 * Oxford: a ruler with total power over a country.
 * Wictionary: A totalitarian leader of a dictatorship. They wield absolute authority, usually to the detriment of the people (evil dictator), however, there are cases (such as benevolent dictators) where they are beneficial.
 * If such definitions apply to Pinochet, Hitler, Stalin etc. I would say we can call them dictators in our articles without violating NPOV. Blueboar 12:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentialy that's it.
 * Miriam-Webster a: not applicable here
 * Wictionary: requires person to be totalitarian which I find to be historically incorrect
 * all other: narrow enough for me, all of them need an additional qualification "and was not coronated as a monarch", otherwise some absolute monarchs will qualify as dictators.
 * Now, having e.g. Oxford definition, I would ask "was there any institution (or a person) in the Third Reich that could use its power even when Hitler would object". Intuitively, I would check sources on judicial system first, then on other Nazi prominents (any person includes another Nazi, too), etc. Depending on that, Hitler will be or will be not determined a dictator, verifiable, NPOV. --Kubanczyk 16:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question is not the correct one. Although all main-stream historians qualify Hitler as a dictator (something easily sourced), your interrogation enters the Functionalism versus intentionalism debate, which is another problem. Tazmaniacs 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then Pinochet, unlike Uncle Joe, Hitler and Saddam, cannot be characterized as a dictator. (1) It was the junta rather than Pinochet personally who ruled Chile (2) Pinochet was replaced by a plebiscite sanctioned by him rather than was ousted by force like Saddam or rotted to death at his high position like most of the Soviet leaders. I wouldn't ban this term from Wikipedia, but if it is not applied to the others, Pinochet should be removed from this list. But who cares? Our readers can hardly be deceived by this trick anyway and it is very difficult to enforce any such decision. There is a similar pervasive problem: the use of national clasifications in Wikipedia is very frivolous and inconsistent, corresponding to citizenship or ethnicity or race, or sometimes to something even more obscure. Is Stalin's nationality Soviet or Georgian? Colchicum 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is not simply of a short, one sentence dictionary definition, but of objective traits of a dictatorship, used by political scientists. I agree with Lazyquasar against Kubanczyk, as sources are more important than a dictionary definition. Although "our readers can hardly be deceived by this trick", as Colchicum has said, (of not using the term "dictator"), this is not a reason for not trying to find something like a guideline on these subjects. I'm particularly appalled by the argument "X can not be said to be a dictator because on Wikipedia, even Y, Z and W are not said to be dictators." If X, Y, Z and W were all dictators, than it should be written black on white, with cited sources of course. Tazmaniacs 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You say that 'all' main-stream historians describe Hitler as a dictator, but surely by the strict definition this is only half correct. It is true that Hitler abandoned elections but Nazism was a Populist movement - that was its core value and what made it so dangerous. Nazism and fascism are not a simple form of dictatorship (ruling through force) but a terribly base form of democracy. Populism rules through the power of the mob and has been the curse of democracy through the ages, and all democracies are always vulnerable. Soviet communism was much the same - the communists ruled "through the people and for the people". The only real difference between them and any democracy is the lack of freedom of speech and the level of propaganda. - But these (especially propaganda) are tests even America sometimes fails, are you going to call America a dictatorship? (Okay I know some people do). Lucien86 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is your own personal interpretation of history. Although Soviet ideology had it that the East Block was composed of "popular democracies" and that the Constitution of the USSR was "the most democratic in the world", this is not admitted by main-stream historians. Furthermore, your characterization of Nazism and Fascism as ochlocracies totally contradicts historians' account: AFAIK, it was rather the Nazi Party that was intimidating the people than the reverse. All of this to state, again, that historians use objective criterias to define what a dictator & a dictatorship is, and that we, at Wikipedia, should follow these reliable sources, in order not to fall in the trap of WP:OR. Tazmaniacs 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could I prevail on those who object to Tazmaniacs's standard use of 'dictator', and have wasted much pixil pen and internet ink on splitting hairs, to glance at standard historical works. One need not mention Lenni Brenner's work Zionism in the Age of the Dictators  (1983), (his name might cause apoplexy and raise cries of using unreliable sources since he does not belong to the inner sanctum of academic historians), but it is a standard phrase in historical works, used across the spectrum from left, centre and right within academia, and thus not POV to refer to the 1930s as the Age of the Dictators. The expression itself was current in the 1930s press, especially after John Gunther in Jan. 1936 popularized it in his remark, 'This is the age of great dictatorial leaders. Millions depend for life or death on the will of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.' (cited Sir Martin Gilbert, A History of the Twentieth Century, 1998 vol.2 p.90). I can supply any number of examples from standard academic biographies, but, really, do we have to challenge what any native speaker of English familiar with historiographical conventions and prose knows?


 * ps. The Nazi party was not elected to power, as someone remarked. Its leader Hitler was appointed by von Papen to become Chancellor, despite psephological support far short of a majority for his party, as the result of a constitutional crisis, (I had to correct this somewhere in Wiki but forget he precise page). It then hastened to implement what Hitler had always aimed for 'dictatorship, anti-Semitism, conquest of living space' (Joachim Fest Hitler1973 p.555). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)  Apologies Sinebot for not signing myself, - the kettle whistled for tea as I hastened to send this off Nishidani 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s.Niall Ferguson,Lawrence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institute, defines the following as 'fascist dictators', Franco, Hitler, Horthy, Mussolini, Ante Pavelic, Josef Tiso (under category Catholics) The War of the World:History's Age of Hatred2006 p.245 Other dictators in the book are royal ones,  Ahmed Bey Zogu, King Alexander of Bulgaria, the Regent Paul in in Yugoslavia. Then General Ioannis Metaxas in Greece, King Carol of Romania, Antanas Smetona in Lithuania, Konstantin Pa"ts in Estonia, Prime Minister Karlis Ulmanis in Latvia, Pilsudski in Poland, Primo de Rivera, Antonio de Oliviera Salazar in Portugal, Dollfuss briefly and Schuschnigg in Austria (implicitly) ibid. pp.229-230  Nishidani 13:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Dictator" is not a degradatory term. It basically means one is the sole ruler of a country. Most history books use the term-- Phoenix 15 10:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Categories for deletion/Category:Dictators and Articles for deletion/List of dictators. --146.21.1.20 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that opposition to the term is (ironically) based on POV and original research. If the term is widely used in reliable sources, then we should use it in Wikipedia. Also, "POV" is not a generally valid reason for the exclusion of information or appellations. NPOV is about the inclusion of all notable points of view. NPOV only requires the exclusion of unreliable sources and extreme minority views. Vassyana 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think with discussions like this, that one simply looks at Webster's, and the OED for the definition, and then (2) standard works of scholarship to verify if the term is customary in defining the main figures. If it is (3) for each additional (non-canonical) figure editors wish to add to the page, require that it meet the agreed on definition in the OED and (b)that this use be sourced to an academically reliable source (not newspaper chat). Had this procedure, very simple, been used, the whole argument would never have arisen in the first place. Internet search engines so far tell you little of what is going on in academic publications, or what are accepted conventions in historical definitions, and most editors rely on the former, and on a very weird understanding of NPOV. I haven't seen the page, but it should be retained, if criteria and method are clarified.Nishidani 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the German Wikipedia is more generous with the word "dictator" than the English Wikipedia. In my opinion Wikipedia should not be any different than other real encyclopedias and literature, where the word is widely used. Vints 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If the constitution of a country allows the suspension or does not even mention free elections the dude ruling the country is not a dictator because it is perfectly legal.162.83.169.91 15:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dictatorship, to be sure, a POV term, is a reference more to the manner of wielding power than to the paucity of democracy. The contemporary use of the word "dictator" to describe Henry Clay in the 19th-century United States was very different from the modern use because power in the 19th-century United States was so rigidly compartmentalized that nobody could exercise dictatorial power over the entire system as a modern dictator does. A dictator may fit one of several descriptions and even merge some of them: a military strongman (Pinochet), the boss of a single party within a single-party system (Stalin), the leader of some 'revolutionary movement' (Fidel Castro), a despotic executive (Saddam Hussein), the head of some council that can stop any legislation (Khomeini), or even an elected leader gone bad (Ferdinand Marcos, François Duvalier. Whether puppet leaders like Josef Tišo and Ante Pavelić qualify as dictators is a matter of definition. All suggest the absence of checks and balances.

A dictator might be almost benign (Piłsudski, Schuschnigg) even if he has short-circuited the usual checks and balances. As a rule, all dictatorships are undemocratic, but not all undemocratic systems are dictatorships. Absolute monarchs are rarely considered dictators unless they have established themselves first as dictators (Bokassa) for the simple reason that the word dictator was rarely used to describe an undemocratic leader before Lenin.

A political order might be grossly unrepresentative even if it has some democratic forms -- like Apartheid-era South Africa. South Africa had competitive elections under Apartheid -- but so limited participation that its elected leaders could mistreat the majority non-white population at will. Between 1906 and 1917, Tsarist Russia had the formality of a constitution and competitive elections for a sometimes spirited parliament -- but the Tsar in practice could veto any legislation without any possibility of challenge. Colonial rule -- in practice, rule by outsiders -- is grossly undemocratic, as is military occupation.

Democracy seems to imply a checklist that whittles away political orders that do something to discredit the order's claim to be democratic:


 * 1. There must be elections

(which rules out Burma today, Saudi Arabia until recently, Pinochet's Chile)


 * 2. for legislative seats

(ruled out in Italy between 1938 and 1945 after the Chamber of Deputies voted itself out of existence)


 * 3. with competition and choice for electors for representatives in some legislative body

(which rules out the Soviet Union throughout most of its history, Nazi Germany, WWII-era Japan)


 * 4. that exercises adequate power to pass legislation that can go into force even despite the veto of some executive, council, or monarch

(which rules out Iran today, or Russia between 1906 and 1917)


 * 5. and is independent of the whims of a foreign power

(which rules out Denmark under Nazi occupation or Lebanon during Syrian hegemony)


 * 6. and that the executive is either appointed from parliament (parliamentary system) or elected (Presidential system)

(which rules out Musharraf's Pakistan)


 * 7. in elections not subject to executive tampering to control the results

(thus not Ferdinand Marcos' Philippines after his establishment of martial law, and not some urban-machine city governments in the USA )


 * 8. in which the electorate is representative of all classes, ethnicities, and religions

(which rules out Apartheid-era South Africa and some of the southern States of the USA before the Civil Rights Act of 1964)


 * 9. in which an opposition has a meaningful chance of operation, access to media, and ability to appeal to the majority party or coalition; multiple parties exist, or freedom to organize new parties or secession from the majority party is possible; and in which intimidation and assassination of political opponents is abnormal and not tolerated

(which rules out current Egypt and Russia -- and Colombia, the latter because of the powerful drug lords)


 * 10. and government has effective control of the countryside

(which rules out Iraq and Afghanistan today).

A system might be grossly undemocratic yet not dictatorial (absolute monarchies, Britain  when rotten boroughs grossly distorted  representation, or the Confederate States of America). Paul from Michigan (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot gender in #8, which excludes the entire USA before 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Figured this workgroup might be interested in this RFC:


 * Ted Kennedy - Full RFC here - Should singluar incidents be included in the generalized Political views section (especially when they do not reflect the voting record and position on the issues)? 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

/Blaxthos 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

New template
Rayment-hc - Kittybrewster  (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Richelieu
Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. DrKiernan 06:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Former Congressman Tom Vandergriff stub rewritten
This article needs assessment and some additional information. See the talk page for details. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested
Hi. Ruth Kelly is up for peer review here. Your comments are welcome. SP-KP 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New US Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Gordon H. Mansfield is now the acting Secretary for Veterans Affairs. I'm sure there's plenty of information out there, and though some people here might be interested in bringing this now very important article up to speed. --YbborTalk 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)