Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 22

Seeking feedback on a guide for students in higher education who edit political science articles for class
Hi everyone! The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a guide to help political science students in US and Canadian universities and colleges. I'd love to gather any feedback this community is willing to offer toward this project. You can find the draft here: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Political science. We're hoping to get these out to students next term, so feedback by November 23 would be appreciated. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternate title for Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir
At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Update for recent elections
What is the standard practice for updating list articles for seats of an elective office? Do you add that persons name to the list before they have taken the office as person-elect or do you wait for them to take office? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Francois Fillon
According to early voting, Francois Fillon is currently likely to be the Republican nominee for the 2017 French presidential elections. His article is a mess and needs a massive tidy up. I am starting to clean it up now but any help would be appreciated. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Monarch titles and Royal and noble ranks discussion
Tags were applied to the Monarch and Royal and noble ranks pages about the ways in which the title of king is discused. There is currently duplicative information in the two articles. Please see the discussion at Talk:Monarch-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

King and Queen pages
There are currently a number of "king" and "queen" pages, but not a uniform approach. I suggest that there be a uniform approach for handling etymology and history of the use of "king" and "queen" as a title and disambiguation, perhaps


 * King is actually a list of queens (Elizabeth II and Margrethe II of Denmark) and kings. It  seems duplicative of List of current sovereign monarchs, List of current reigning monarchies, and List of current constituent monarchs. It seems the King should be moved or merged.

Summary of actions:
 * Move Queen ---> Queen (disambiguation)
 * Create content for Queen, similar in nature to the King article, but discussing Queen consort and Queen regent
 * Consider moving or removing the King section

This is just a proposal to get things synched up (i.e., a draft for discussion purposes).-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I added an update. I see the redirect was changed from King (title) to King with this edit.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since I posted this, the R from unnecessary disambiguation has been added to King (title) by . If King (title) is an unnecessary disambiguation, then Queen (title) would be, too, right?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No. “Unnecessary disambiguation” means the article name means the same thing with or without the disambiguator; e.g. “King (title)” redirects to “King”, so the disambiguator doesn’t add anything. “Incomplete disambiguation”, which Queen (title) has, means that a disambiguator is necessary, but the disambiguator provided is still ambiguous; e.g. “Queen (title)” is ambiguous between “Queen regnant”, “Queen consort”, etc. So the two redirects King (title) and Queen (title) have the right templates given their current targets. I have no opinion about whether they should be retargeted. Gorobay (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Presidents and control of Congress, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM   (talk to me)  20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016
Please provide input on the RfC at the talk page of United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. This issue has been unresolved since Summer 2016 and requires community input. -- Dane 2007  talk 01:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Succession box template on selective US presidential articles
Recently a slew of succession boxes were added to selective US presidential articles with no reasoning and no need. I removed the ones which are just dumped at the bottom of a page and have been rudely and unceremoniously reverted by a user in a way which is devoid of good faith. I think the whole need for these in the first place on these articles needs to be discussed, and this seems to be the most appropriate forum for this discussion. The most simple reason why these are so un-needed as there is a template listing all US presidential administrations in one go, also the information in the template is noting to do with adding value to the page, it is just duplication. This is an example of the duplication which I am discussing. Sport and politics (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair they've been in there since September (I was expecting last few days when you said recently), and for several of them, this is more than half the time that the article has been in existence. However, I agree that they should be removed – but it would also be helpful to ensure that US Presidential Administrations is expanded when it is at the bottom of these articles, and that the years of the administration are added (along the lines of IsraelPMS). Number   5  7  18:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wholly agree with the above comments. But yes i think my definition of recently is going to be different from others, but i still believe these are recent additions. This is because they are more recent additions than the US Presidential Administrations was added. How do you suggest that the US Presidential Administrations should be expanded. Sport and politics (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By using instead of  .  Number   5  7  18:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that is a sensible change to make. Sport and politics (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Updates and edits made. Sport and politics (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The years haven't been added... Number   5  7  18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I will get on that now, my apologies. Sport and politics (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop! You do not have a broad consensus to implement any changes. Your actions are especially inappropriate because you have not included any of the editors who created these presidential articles, nor have you checked to see how the succession boxes evolved or that they did so through collaboration. No changes should be made to the status quo of any article or template until the collaborative process is finished and consensus reached. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this discussion should have sought broader inclusion of other editors before making broad changes; not even everyone involved in WikiProject Politics or who is a frequent political editor is going to be watching this page. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(outdent)See bold editing. Sport and politics (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply going 'stop', is not constructive, please contribute to the discussion constructively. Why wait to make very uncontroversial edits over a minor part of a few pages. Also status quo before September was to not have these, so status quo here is relative. Sport and politics (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wait? Because your changes, made in good faith, but without explanation initially, were reverted, and are now the subject of a discussion on this talk page. While discussing the disputed content, no one should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached, especially given that were talking about information on several article pages and a template (see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Drdpw (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I would note that the use of both a succession box and an administrations-type navbox on the "Presidency of ..." articles follows a pattern used in similar articles about the premierships of British and Canadian Prime Ministers, for example: Premiership of Theresa May and 29th Canadian Ministry. The use of both is helpful, one assists readers to quickly navigate to the administration immediately before of after, and the other shows all administrations and by doing so facilitates navigation to any and all administrations. Drdpw (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But the succession boxes are made entirely superfluous by a minor change to the template, which also show the before and after. I do not understand why they are needed. Number   5  7  21:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and while I personally see your point and don't necessarily disagree, more editors need to be heard from before this broad change is made. An additional point to consider is, what if, by consensus, those dates are removed from that template?

At first glance, I struggle to see a problem with the succession boxes. But when one considers 's argument, I sorta understand where she's getting at. A credible argument can indeed be made that such boxes are superfluous, given the creation of the US Presidential Administrations less than a month ago (these boxes were added when the aforementioned template was yet to be created). With regard to US Presidential Administrations, a discussion (now dormant somewhat) has been going about whether to redesign said template to something like this; anyone here is more than welcome to voice their view on that at Template talk:US Presidents. Thank-you.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record: Template US Presidential Administrations was created and placed on all (23) "Presidency of ..." articles, supplanting/replacing US Presidents, pursuant to this discussion: Template talk:US Presidents. As I stated above, having both a succession box and a navbox follows a patten used in similar articles and could be useful together to readers. That said, I also understand point, and see it more clearly since she modified the US Presidential Administrations template to include each president's years in office. Perhaps, given that her modification brought that template into sync with a similarly-purposed template, SCOTUS by Chief Justice, and thatl the various articles interconnected via that navbox, for example, Roberts Court and Warren Court, seem fine without succession boxes, perhaps there's no need for them in the presidency articles either. Drdpw (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Community GA Review of George H. W. Bush
G'day everyone, please be advised that the George H. W. Bush article has been nominated for a community re-assessment of its compliance with the Good Article criteria. The article has been nominated for this review since March 2016, but the discussion has stagnated due to lack of participants. If a few interested parties get involved either to edit the article, or join the discussion, a consensus should hopefully be able to be established either to keep or delist the article. The review page can be found here: Good article reassessment/George H. W. Bush/1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 North Carolina coup d'état
just created 2016 North Carolina coup d'état and also added it to the template of list of coups. Reading the article, it does not appear to be about an actual traditional coup as far as I know it but a so-called "legislative coups". Being mostly unfamiliar with the matter, I'm asking here: is the event presented in the article what can be considered a coup, or not and thus the article should be renamed and rewritten? As the event appears to have been covered in reliable sources, it does appear to be notable and thus I'm hesitant to nominate it for deletion. Also, as an aside, the article creator's username is a bit worrying as it appears to imply it's related to a group. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Far-left politics in the United Kingdom
Could we have some more editors take a look at the above recently created article and associated template. The editor who created it seems to be writing an essay on the history of socialism for which we already have articles. The 'Far-left' label can also be problematic and is more recent in use than implied. There is a merge proposal on the talk page. Snowded TALK 09:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake news website - move discussion
Article is Fake news website.


 * Requested move discussion at: Talk:Fake_news_website. Sagecandor (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

New Wikileaking organization
Check out the new article on MormonWikiLeaks.

Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

January, 2017 Presidential inauguration
In case anyone has input on whether the upcoming inauguration should be mentioned on the main page: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. - Brianhe (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Raymond Chan
I invite you to the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Political science editing brochure
Hi all,

Following up on the message I left here last month, I just wanted to let you know that the Wiki Ed political science brochure has been published. This is a supplement to other training materials, distributed to students working on political science or law articles on Wikipedia. You can find it here: File:Editing Wikipedia articles on Political Science (Wiki Ed).pdf. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher
Please see the discussion at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. Comments are much welcome.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about usefulness of a Politics wiki page
Added a question at Talk:Executive_branch_of_the_government_of_Honduras, and I would really appreciate any comments on the question I posed. With a keep consensus, I'd be more than willing to copy-edit and add references to the page as necessary. --talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)