Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 13

Local Election Results (Particularly in Wales)
There are a decent amount of articles in Category:Council_elections_in_Wales that are all local election coverage, where the politicians being elected do not meet WP:POLITICIAN and the sources for the election are generally either WP:ROUTINE or a single primary-ish source that just lists the raw election results for every election for every year. (Many of these articles are from the 1800s and early 1900s)

As a trial baloon, I nominated one of them for deletion Articles_for_deletion/Pontypridd_Urban_District_Council_election,_1898 which came up delete/redirect/merge. Additionally a good number of the articles were created by a single user who was prolifically WP:SOCKing and is now indeffed Sockpuppet_investigations/Macs15/Archive.

I plan on nominating the WP:BUNDLE for deletion, but as its a large number or articles (~180 recursive) I thought I would get some feedback from here first. In general are local (city/county) election results notable enough for individual year article coverage?

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See also Category:English_local_elections,_2011 with 151 articles for a single year (and other years with a similar pattern) Category:English_local_elections_by_yearGaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this, you might do best to ask at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. I certainly can't see any justification for individual articles myself, though merging some of the data with our article on the relevant local council might be an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had notified wikiprojects Wales and England, but Ill do the one you mentioned as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a worrying development if articles are deleted on the basis the events happened a long time ago. I would think that if important council elections (such as county/city level) receive plenty of news coverage today (they do) they would have received plenty of attention 120 years ago (though admittedly less people would have been eligible to vote, or stand for election). WP:POLITICIAN covers notability of people, not of major events. Mind you, when it comes to town council elections, such as the example AfD'd, the argument becomes more tenuous. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly I don't believe the WP:POLITICIAN argument is justifiable reason for deleting election articles. Politicians and elections are markedly different things and have different levels of notability. A good comparator would be sports teams and players - semi-professional sports clubs are deemed notable, but the players are not. In this case I believe the same applies to local elections and politicians.

Secondly, I don't believe the outcome of the AfD in question is representative, as the most relevant WikiProject (WP:Elections and referendums was not informed. This was largely due to the fact that the article alerts feed for election and referendum hasn't been updated by the bot since late July. As as result, I'm going to ask for it to be reopened so that project members can comment.

A general comment is that these election articles have been around for years without being deleted - I wouldn't be surprised if there had been previous AfDs that resulted in a keep (no idea how to find out). Although I haven't created any myself, I'd feel very sorry for the editors (particularly ) who have spent thousands of hours compiling detailed articles (which have until now been considered perfectly notable) only to see all their work deleted in a bundle. Number  5  7  23:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are 3000 counties in the US. There are ~6000 state districts on top of that. UK has 326 districts, 80 odd counties, etc. Theoretical full coverage of this topic worldwide would be hundreds of thousands of articles, per year.  The vast majority of which will never be viewed, and have no content that isn't just copied out of the primary source. If someone wants obscure election results, they can read the primary source. 99% of the value of these articles can be provided by a single table or graph per locale showing the shift in votes over time.   Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Taking a couple at random, Leeds City Council election, 2000 was viewed 69 times in the last month, whilst Hertsmere Borough Council election, 2002 was viewed 43 times. The articles are clearly being used by readers. If it's a noteworthy topic, the fact that there may be lots of articles created is not a reason to be concerned. Number   5  7  10:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First off there have been previous AFDs of local council elections in the UK which have never been deleted such as Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008, Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003 and Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2008. The one AFD above, where only the nominator argued for deletion and all (or practically all) of the content has been preserved can hardly be taken as precedent for the deletion of thousands of other articles. (AFD could not even reach agreement to delete a council that will not happen for 12 months here Articles for deletion/Gedling Borough Council election, 2015 (personally I would probably have redirected it until April next year).
 * Secondly stating that these articles should not exist because other articles do not exist, or could then be created because of these articles existing are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If there is coverage of council elections in reliable sources then there is no reason why we cannot write neutral articles on these topics. Delete articles where an article cannot be written there are not the reliable sources to verify it, keep those that can.
 * Thirdly this is not just the UK, there are Category:Municipal elections in Canada by city and Category:Council elections in the Republic of Ireland just on 2 countries that I know of and there have been AFDs of local elections in other countries with backing for these articles such as Articles for deletion/Fujimi mayoral election, 2008 and Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991.
 * Fourthly these council election articles in the UK have appeared on the Main Page without question regarding their notability such as Lichfield District Council election, 1999, Hartlepool Borough Council election, 2000, Hartlepool Borough Council election, 2002, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council election, 2003, Redditch Borough Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004.
 * Fifthly when Notability (events) was accepted as a guideline there was concern to write the guideline to ensure elections were not deleted as a result because election results do have an impact and thus fit the "event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable".
 * Sixthly just because an article currently contains just the results of the election without anything else does not mean it cannot be expanded. For the Carmarthenshire County Council election, 2012 article for instance in the category that is cited above, I can find at least 20 (conservative estimate) secondary reliable sources on that election (I have access to NewsNow through my local library). I cannot see how this article does not meet the notability guideline and I am sure I could find even more coverage for councils such as Cardiff and Swansea.
 * Seventhly I cannot see how articles such as Torbay Council election, 2000, Huntingdonshire District Council election, 2014 and Torridge District Council election, 2007 (to take just 3 out of many) do not meet the notability guideline. There is significant coverage from reliable sources, thus establishing notability.
 * There are plenty of articles in this area that need work (as there are all over wikipedia). However I have been creating and expanding articles such as Castle Point Borough Council election, 2014 (which is currently a pretty useless stub but I have been working on it at User:Davewild/Castle Point Borough Council election, 2014 - with still more to come, before I had computer issues for the last few days), but do not see any point if the notability guideline is going to be thrown away and articles that meet the guideline deleted, so will not do any more on this on wikipedia until this discussion is resolved. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families#Neutrality
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:World Congress of Families. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

United States: (Losing) Presidential Electors
For a person who would have cast a vote in the Electoral College if the other (major) party had won their state: Assume the person is otherwise Notable (Was former mayor of largest city in state at the time).Naraht (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it proper to call them a Presidential Elector (for the purposes of Categories)?
 * Is it proper to say "Smith was a Presidential Elector for the party name ticket of Foo and Bar in 1946" (which although lost their state, may or may not have won the presidential election).
 * Note, the ultimate solution to this would be to have both "Whig United States presidential electors, 1896" and "Losing United States presidential electors, 1896" and have the first as both a subcat of "Whig United States presidential electors" and "United States presidential electors, 1896" and the second subcatted into Losing and date.Naraht (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured topic candidate
I have nominated a politics-related topic for featured topic status here. Any constructive comments there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming Category:American politicians‎ to Category:United States politicians‎
There is a proposal to rename Category:American politicians‎ as Category:United States politicians‎ at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 4

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  13:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance with Heritage Action
Recently, my colleague Morzabeth posted here asking for editors who'd be interested to review a draft for the Heritage Action article. However, she had trouble finding editors to continue a conversation past the first reply, and I am now stepping in to see if I can help move it forward.

As noted there, we are working on a consulting basis with Heritage Action, and so we will avoid making direct edits to the article, considering our paid COI. Our aim is to make this article more encyclopedic, improve sourcing, give a clearer overview of the organization and its activities. As Morzabeth explained on the Heritage Action Talk page, the current article has much room for improvement.

The proposed draft in in Morzabeth's user space. She has made changes to it based on feedback, and I am willing to make other changes as needed. On the Heritage Action Talk page you can see the discussion since she first posted the request in July; unfortunately it consists of one comment each from three editors, without any follow-up.

I am looking for an editor who is interested in helping to review the current draft and work with me until they are satisfied it is deserving of moving into the mainspace. Thanks in advance, and I hope to see you back on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

New article Lunch pail Democrat (USA) - push for DYK?
After hearing the term during the MSNBC analysis of the Biden-Ryan US vice-presidential debate, I whipped up a quick Lunch pail Democrat article. The term refers to working-class members of the Democratic Party, and politicians that court them. I reckon it'd be good to strike while the iron is hot, and put this up for WP:Did you know? on Monday or so; I posted it today and there's a 5-day limit for DYK, as well as other items to meet on the checklist.

If anyone is interested in helping out, this could be a really topical DYK given the usage in front of so many MSNBC viewers last night. Happy to share the banners and wiki-love for any other substantial contributors if this hits DYK and gets enough views to be awarded.

Thanks for any help or suggestions! MatthewVanitas (talk)

TFAR notification
I've nominated an article relevant to this project for WP:TFAR consideration, discussion at Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

“The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, often termed "Cultural Marxism", is an American right-wing conspiracy theory”

Avoid stating opinions as facts.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

To state that ““The Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, often termed "Cultural Marxism", is an American right-wing conspiracy theory” is about as neutral as stating that “international capitalism is a left-wing conspiracy theory.”

A conspiracy theory implies the lack of real existence. Cultural Marxism exists. Therefor claiming it is a mere conspiracy theory indicates a severe lack of neutrality.

Problem politics article
Are any editors actively participating in WikiProject Politics? If so, can you please review the Incumbent article? This stub has been repeatedly misused and abused over the past year with the addition of inappropriate content. Is a WP:Politics editor willing to adopt this article and watch list it? It simply needs someone to protect it and delete inappropriate content as it is added. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to my watchlist for the time being. No promises that I'll have time to fix it any time soon, though. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

US Pre-17th amendment election wikiboxes?
Are there any templates (or even any examples) of Wikiboxes with the counts for each house of the Legislature for the election of United States Senators prior to the 17th amendment. Secondly does anyone know if "Chosen by the Legislature thereof" was always interpretted as requiring a majority in each house, or did any states allow for the situation where for particular candidates a plurality could be part of the election.Naraht (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of specific examples, but would be surprised if the 17th Amendment was interpreted other than requiring a majority of both chambers of the legislature. Still, history does contain surprises, so you never know ...  I took a look at a few Senators from that era and didn't see any recorded vote in their articles - note that several states used a "direct primary" as an unofficial popular vote for Senator for at least a few years prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment.  This is an interesting area .. wish I knew more about it!  ( ...waiting to read what you write... ) – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Admission to the Union
Admission to the Union now has these sections:
 * 1 The process of admission
 * 2 Formation of states within the boundaries of existing states
 * 3 Anticipated admission of new states under the Articles of Confederation
 * 4 See also
 * 5 Notes and references

There's still an immense amount on law and politics and history that is not there. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Political designations in blp infoboxes; or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"
The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine case, Requested move
Please see Talk:Hustler_Magazine,_Inc._v._Falwell.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Herbert G. Klein
Page move is proposed; discuss there. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cabinet or Government of France
The usage of and the naming of  is up for discussion, see Talk:Cabinet of France -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation help needed for National Liberation Movement.
National Liberation Movement, a disambiguation page related to this project, has about 40 incoming links. Any help fixing even a few of these would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have started going through them. All so far were actually for liberation movement rather than any specific one. May be worth having a discussion about redirecting the NLM page there, and having a separate DAB page. Number   5  7  14:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that may be a conversation worth having, particularly if the use of the term is not likely to be for a specific resolution on the disambiguation page. bd2412  T 14:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All cleared now (I think). Number   5  7  14:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Generational Replacement / Postmateralism in Political History
There was a shift in values From Materialist values (Maintaining Order,Keeping Prices low) to Postmaterialism (Giving people more say in important political decisions, freedom of speech.) due to Generational Replacement In Western Europe after 1945 as predicted by Ronald Inglehart

Does this belong in Political history or in somewhere else in the politics portal?

Leejabramson (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Political science articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Austrian Federal Government
[Some] Editors [want] to chance the title of Austrian Federal Government to Cabinet of Austria. [..Removed argument..] Third opinions would be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant canvassing violation. Please reword. Thanks, Number   5  7  18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not violating anything. This is the politics project, and I'm asking for third opinions on a politics-related matter. If you disagree with what I've written at that page, feel free to go there and say so. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very clearly violating WP:CANVASS, specifically "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." I have indeed noted this at the discussion for the closer, but please acknowledge your error and correct it. Thanks, Number   5  7  18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC
 * There is no error. I don't want to "skew" anything. I asked for third opinions. What I think is already known, and I've a right to say it. I didn't ask for support, but for third opinions. If you want to play legal games, go elsewhere. I have no time for it. Frivolity incarnate! RGloucester  — ☎ 18:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an error – you asked for third opinions in a way that is clearly non-neutral. Do you not understand the guideline, or are you just openly ignoring it? Number   5  7  18:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No error at all. My wording was non-neutral, because I'm non-neutral on this subject. However, I asked for third opinions. Never did I say that only people that support my position should come and make a comment. Again, you can say what you like. I merely wanted to broaden the discussion, and did so appropriately. That doesn't change the fact that my personal opinion is what it is. In fact, declaring it in the open is much more transparent than hiding it. I have a vested interest here, and I've made it known. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agreee that project notices should be neutral in order to not appear like canvassing (see point about campaigning). I changed/removed some of the original wording, and have marked the changes with square brackets. Hope this is OK with you U|RGloucester. Iselilja (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that all Wikipedia editors on political topics have their own personal political opinions. However we have collectively agreed to suspend all political personal opinions while we are editing on Wikipedia. If you reject this consensus policy regarding NPOV, please use your own Facebook page to express your personal private opinions. Anyone who persists in rejecting the NPOV policy, could get permanently banned from Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Watergate burglaries
FYI, there's a request for cleanup at WT:USA about this article -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Title for Swedish Cabinet crisis article
I am working with the article Swedish Cabinet crisis, 2014 and hope to nominate it for DYK this evening; however I am unsure if the title is the right one; so I welcome comments and suggestions on that. (Also, I appreciate if other editors don't edit the article the next hour, end of 11 December, to avoid edit conflicts; but improvements are very much welcome after that). Iselilja (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say 2014 Swedish Cabinet crisis would be less awkward. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: laws vs politics

 * Category:United States firearms law
 * Category:Gun politics in the United States
 * Gun Control Act of 1968
 * Gun politics in Canada
 * Template:Gun politics by country

Politicians pass laws. Is every article about a law also an article about politics? Many articles, like the 1968 US law, are categorized as both. Some articles, like the one about Canada above, is almost entirely about laws yet its title defines its scope as politics. Is there any rhyme or reason for how we delineate articles and categories covering politics vs laws? I'm trying to clean up some categories but I'm not sure how these concepts are meant to be split up. Rezin (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Trying to pin down a cloud, huh? Well, let's try it, then.  Law is what is written down and/or generally enforced, and includes disputes over what the law is.  Politics is the process of making or modifying (or trying to) law, selective enforcement of the law, and includes disputes over what the law should be.  There will be a large amount of overlap here, and I suspect that many articles will need to be in both a politics sub-cat and a law sub-cat and that several sub-cats will need to have both law- and politics- parents.  Your example of Gun Control Act of 1968 is one that I would expect to see in both, for example.  And it is, so we're good.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's helpful - thanks. It sounds like you're saying that even though 'law' is a subcategory of 'politics', it's OK for articles to be in both the parent and child categories. Further, it sounds like 'politics' is the more general concept so if there's only one article on a country's gun-related issues that it's OK, and maybe best, for laws to be covered in a 'politics' named article rather than the other way around.
 * Extrapolating further (maybe too far), perhaps the 50+ articles covering 'guns laws by U.S. state' (e.g. Gun laws in Alaska) should be moved to 'gun politics by U.S. state', so that they can accommodate both. Or is it OK to cover politics in a 'law' article? Having both a 'laws' and a 'politics' article may make sense for an entire nation, but for a subdivision like a state or province it might be excessive. Better to combine them? What about putting both 'laws & politics' in the title? Rezin (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd mostly agree, except for two points. First, an article should only rarely be in both a parent and a child category, but it can be in the both category trees in multiple different places (see WP:SUBCAT).  Second, that I would not merge gun politics and gun law articles as a "rule".  The two topics are quite different and, once developed, should cover their own topics as general summary articles.  Rather, I would say that they could be combined if very short (stub- or start-class) and that their "child" articles such as "The xxx gun law of 20xx" or "the xxx gun controversy" would often cover both law and politics. Again, though, no hard-and-fast rules here - it'll depend on the actual content of the individual article. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Economic Union
The Eurasian Economic Union will launch on January 1 2015 with 5 member states and candidates planning to the join in the future. We're looking for someone that can assess the article so that we can get it ranked as a good article before January 1. We're currently working to make it fit the featured article criteria. If someone could assess the article it would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers —Mentoroso (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC) (people that can improve the prose and comprehensiveness of the article are also very welcome)

Podemos
The usage of Podemos (political party) and naming of Podemos (Spanish political party) is under discussion, see talk: Podemos (Spanish political party) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments at Talk:White supremacy
There is a request for comments at Talk:White supremacy. It concerns the wording of the opening sentence of the lead. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Layout of Template:Infobox political party
At Template talk:Infobox political party there's currently a proposal to change the layout of the "seats" bars in that template. Personally I don't ave much of an opinion either way and will implement the proposed changes in a week or so if no one objects. Wider community input would be welcome, though. Huon (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Carl Bildt
The biography of Swedish diplomat and politician Carl Bildt needs checked for its compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:Due weight, even more than usual BLPs. is a 12:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:The Progressives politicians
Category:The Progressives politicians, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:PEGIDA
I invite you to an ongoing move discussion; comment there to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"Table of Nations"
The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A Federal/State dispute in the US gets a mention on the Wikipedia Main Page
At the current time, and for the next eight hours or so, the political dispute is mentioned on the Wikipedia Main Page. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Secularism
The article Secularism is about separation of church and state, but Category:Secularism by country also contains a lot on irreligion and humanism. Shouldn't that be removed? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates nominated for Deletion: Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004, etc.
The following templates of interest to this WikiProject have been nominated for deletion:

1. Template:Members of the European Parliament 1999–2004;

2. Template:Members of the European Parliament 2004–2009; and

3. Template:Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014.

Please join the TfD discussion underway @ Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 2 and voice your opinion there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War GAR
Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, 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. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1996 United States campaign finance controversy FAR
I have nominated 1996 United States campaign finance controversy 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Leverage" listed at Requested moves
An editor has asked to change the use of, for the discussion, see talk:Leverage (disambiguation) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC Request
Hey guys/gals,

Any chance we could get a few eyes at Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)? NickCT (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"NationStates"
The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The links in the infobox for the Knessets of individual members
Feel free to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox member of the Knesset. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Parliament diagrams
Hi all,

My parliament diagram tool is now being used regularly to create diagrams which are used in Wikipedia articles. At the moment, it only makes arch-shaped diagrams, but if there is consensus that another diagram style would be widely useful, I am really keen to code it. There was some discussion on my talk page about suitable diagrams.

Tagging    - please alert others to this discussion if you know someone who'd be interested. --Slashme (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, made a few diagrams recently, so I'll tag them into this conversation. DestinationAlan (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton
Project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to Hillary Clinton. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there really a need for this? Number   5  7  20:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Call me cautious. This is keeping with WikiProject Barack Obama. At the same time I don't recall there beign a WikiProject John McCain or a WikiProject Mitt Romney. Good luck to the editors involved in this project, but perhaps a reminder of WP:BALANCE/WP:NEUTRAL & WP:NOTADVOCATE is in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oswald Bastable
Hi, I have added your project to Talk:Oswald Bastable as I think it may be relevent to you. If not please feel free to remove. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed U.S. Constitution WikiProject
Hi participants at WikiProject Politics! I am posting a proposed WikiProject called United States Constitution. This project will focus on articles related to the original text of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; it should include the articles on all 27 amendments, clauses, Supreme Court cases interpreting constitutional provisions, the drafters, and so forth. We can't get the proposed WikiProject without your help! Since you are in this group, I think you would also be interested in this WikiProject. We need 6-12 members to get the WikiProject active. Please join and support today. Please put your name in the "Support" tab here: WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States Constitution. Thank you!  CookieMonster755   (talk)   20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Move proposal: Disambiguate Burning of Parliament (British) and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal
There is a proposal to move Burning of Parliament to Burning of British Parliament and Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal to Burning of Canadian Parliament. Please take part in the discussion at Talk:Burning of Parliament. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Revolutionary republic
The article revolutionary republic use to redirect to sister republic. A user has replaced that with a new article. Please review to see if the subject merits a new article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Of note
Question at AfD if Ambassadors are inherently notable. See Articles for deletion/Margaret Adamson and User:LibStar. Montanabw (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * already been a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). LibStar (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And it looks rather inconclusive.  Montanabw (talk)  18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Help updating Tipper Gore article
Hi. I'm working on behalf of The Glover Park Group to make improvements to the article of Tipper Gore, who is a friend of the firm. Because of my COI, I'd like some help from other editors reviewing my proposed changes and making the edits if they seem to be an improvement over the current article. I posted a note on the Talk page early last week, but no one has responded. I detail exactly what I'm requesting (and why) on the Talk page, but my main concerns are updating sections to include a more thorough history of her political pursuits and advocacy work, as well as reorganizing and revising some of the existing material. I'll be on the lookout for any questions or responses here or on the Talk page. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject, which was announced previously at this talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Braess's paradox listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Braess's paradox to be moved to Braess' paradox. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Recognition of same-sex unions in the Republic of Ireland to be moved to Same-sex marriage in the Republic of Ireland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kevin O'Malley listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kevin O'Malley to be moved to Kevin F. O'Malley. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Persondata has been officially deprecated
Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of politicians and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve all accurate data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for film actors: Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves
Three requested move discussions which concern this project have been started. They can be found at:


 * Talk:SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt
 * Talk:Schutzstaffel
 * Talk:Sturmabteilung

BMK (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about colour for independents
If you've been working on election articles recently, you may have noticed a lot of fluctuations in the colour used for independents. There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Independent (politician)/meta/color about whether a pale or a dark shade is better. Since it's not a well-watched template, I thought I'd put a note here. Smurrayinchester 09:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"No man's land"
The usage and primary topic of "No man's land"/"" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Visible title discussion at the Hillary Clinton template
There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of her template navbox concerning what name to use as the visible name of the template, 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' or 'Hillary Clinton'. Randy Kryn 21:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Political corruption in [your state here]
I recently expanded the article Political corruption in Illinois and welcome corrections or suggestions from other more experienced political editors, especially as it is a sensitive subject. I further wonder if there would be interest in expanding this format to encompass other US states. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC at Political positions of Jeb Bush
FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position before giving a chronological discussion of how it may have evolved or changed over the years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library donations
Hello all, I wanted to let you know of four recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Taylor & Francis, WP:Erudit, WP:World Bank and WP:Cairn. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"(state)"
Does the disambiguator "(state)" have a special meaning to not mean "state" in general, if used in Chinese history articles? See Talk:Song (state) where we are discussing whether "state" does not mean any state, but only means non-Imperial states -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Liao (state) where we are discussing if "(state)" only applies to some states and not other states named "Liao" -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment
Just stopping by to let someone part of the project here to reassess Progressive Labor Party (United States) in its class rating. It is undergoing some changes at the moment due to the lack of sources, wp:soapbox, and POV problems that plagued the article before. xcuref1endx (talk) 14:52 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme FAC
The Gateway Protection Programme article is currently a featured article candidate. The last time it was nominated, the review was archived due to a lack of comments, so I would be grateful if interested editors could take a read of the article and submit comments to the review. It's a topical issue at the moment, and you might even learn something about refugee resettlement to the UK (or the lack of it)! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Theory of State listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Liberal Theory of State. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Opinions from participants in this project would be greatly appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

South African Parliament Party Leaders
template:South African Parliament Party Leaders has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Galicianism"
The usage and primary topic of is under dispute. For the discussion, see talk:Galicianism (Galicia) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her
There is an ongoing discussion about describing the premise of the documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her in the lead section. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Crimean crisis listed at Requested moves
An editor has requested for Crimean crisis to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Crimean crisis, you might want to participate in |the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Forza Italia
Hello everybody! I'm an italian user, I wanted to inform you that the "new" Forza Italia party of Berlusconi is not an opposition party yet. If Berlusconi will not be pushed out from his seat (an improbably but possibile thing), he can chose to remain in the government coalition. Also, FI has got one vice-minister and one secretary in the italian government! For now, then, it is better to correct the voices about Forza Italia, the parliament and the Letta Cabinet...in 10 days will be all more clear. Bye for now! -- Franci   - - -  juve   21:46, 20 nov 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment notice: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election from Koch-related funds
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an update to the request for comment and a request for wider participation. The RfC question asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the funding section of a political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a political advocacy group that is not legally required to disclose their funders. Attention from uninvolved editors with some experience with articles on political advocacy groups is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate use of funding information and investigative journalism results in Wikipedia remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Tax protester arguments"
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester arguments is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tax protester"
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"electoral district"
See Talk:Terrebonne—Blainville where a discussion is taking place to determine if "electoral district" only refers to "federal electoral district" thus all "provincial electoral districts" are not ambiguous with "federal electoral districts" if federal ones use "(electoral district)" to disambiguate them from "(provincial electoral district)" disambiguators -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Can people please keep an eye on said article? I interned there in summer 2007 and that article was edited from work with neocon additions (you can probably see the IPs that edited that summer from the history). I also moved from the politics to "business development" and, having signed a non-disclosure agreement, know full well who the majority of donors were, including by far and away the biggest donor. (Sheldon Adelson)120.62.11.149 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.0.22 (talk)

RfC on Iran nuclear deal
See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Splitting Debate per WP:CONSPLIT to move content into a new article titled Debate (competitive)
Hi, just letting people know that there is a discussion occurring on Talk:Debate about moving article content related solely, or mostly dealing with, competitive debating into a new article to allow Debate to be more about the form of discussion instead of styles of competitive debating. This notice is being put up here due to the page being categorised under WikiProject Politics, and to ask for more editors to contribute to the discussion. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Request
There's a bit of a situation about what the WP:COMMONNAME (and hence the correct article title) should be for an American political strategist, which I wanted to ask for some assistance in resolving.

The situation is that the article was created at Mari Maseng in 2010, following which just two months later a request was posted somewhere (I can't remember where) for the article to be moved to Mari Maseng Will on the grounds that she was known by her married name. I complied with the request, but then one year after that an anonymous IP posted an angry rant to my talk page demanding that the article be moved back to "Maseng" on the grounds that she wasn't known by her married name — I did a quick Google search, and indeed was unable to find any significant sources at that time in which she was known or referred to by "Will", so I complied with the request despite their impolite tone. The article then remained stable for almost four years, until a few weeks ago another editor moved it back to "Will" again on the grounds that she is known by her married name.

So obviously there's a dispute, and a slow-motion edit war, here. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody who has access to a broader range of US news sources than I do — I can only Google, while other people might have access to a much more comprehensive news database, or a range of political science journals, or some other specialized sourcing which might help — could assist in figuring out which title we should preference. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources I saw are about split between those that use the "Will" and those that don't, with one item of palpable bias: some sources on the left use the name "Mari Maseng Will" prominently as part of an attack on one or both of the Wills for being married while having opinions. However, and especially  give the lie to the idea that there's something wrong with using her full married name. As to which is actually more common - I think it's a wash, but I'd lean toward the full name. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"Rest of the world"
The usage and topic of is under discussion, see talk:Rest of the world -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How to mark "joke" candidates in info-boxes
Is there an established way to mark "joke" and "publicity only" candidates or "candidates" who are ineligible for office (e.g. animals, minors, non-citizens, inanimate objects, etc.) in infoboxes?

See and its talk page for a specific example where editors (including myself) are "winging it" because we don't know Wikipedia's precedent on this is. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Communist Party (UK)/meta/shortname
template:Communist Party (UK)/meta/shortname has been proposed to be renamed to Communist Party (Great Britain), see template talk:Communist Party (UK)/meta/shortname -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos
Someone may wish to check Imelda Marcos content as someone called (see Imeldific for its meaning) has made some large changes to the article. This person seems to be an SPA since edits are only registered in relation to Imelda -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)