Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 29

Defensive realism
Defensive realism means to take some hidden or deceive step to stop or to avoid unnecessary lose or injure though there has enough reason to believe the possible way seems safe but take other optional way to feel safe that is called defensive realism. it also shows that zero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.250.174 (talk • contribs) 02:22, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification- WP:RSN Discussion
There is currently a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that may involve issues relevant to this wiki project. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_Salon_and_Michael_Wolff_reliable_sources_for_calling_someone_%22far-right%22_in_Wikipedia's_voice? here]. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?
Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article []? Springee (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

420 Collaboration
The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cold War II
What can be done about Category:Cold War II, created by Psychiatrick? I thought about removing the subcategories and the pages, but I would like to hear other suggestions first please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC
There is an RfC on the talk page of the article Neo-Nazism which may interest members of this project. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice
An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. –dlthewave ☎ 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun politics task force
I'm interested in starting a task force to improve coverage in areas related to gun politics. A few topics have become contentious and would benefit from having a central discussion point as well as more widespread community involvement: Gun rights, legislation, etc. would also be within scope. A core group of roughly a dozen editors has been active in this area. Would folks be interested in implementing this under the umbrella of WP:POLITICS? –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutrality in articles about organizations involved in gun politics such as NRA
 * Coverage of criminal use in gun articles such as Colt AR-15
 * Identifying and addressing potentially biased or politically motivated editing in gun-related articles

Pinging editors who may be interested: –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm adminning in this area and so obviously will limit my comments accordingly. --Neil N  talk to me 17:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think there would be value in creating such a task force, and I would be interested in participating. There are quite a few cross-article discussions that take place, so this would centralize and focus some of those discussions. It could also be a forum for developing best practices for gun politics-related content.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Keep me in the loop. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What's the difference between a "task force" and a canvassing list? Is this kind of thing OK?  I have given up on these articles due to the obstinate POV editing that still has them in gridlock, even after a few improvements via the Arbcom case.    SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are examples of similar initiatives at WikiProject Politics/Task forces.–dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea; how much of a role I'll have in it is to be determined. Geogene (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in getting some wider spread input on things like reciprocity of weight. Sometime I'm nervous when we talk about improving neutrality because there may be serious disagreements as to what makes the article more neutral.  If the ultimate product is a group of a few editors who apply and enforce through local consensus a uniform vision of what they think the articles should look like (which ever way that looks) then we may not make Wikipedia better for it.  Conversely, if we explore some of the ideas that might make things more uniform, and ways we might structure things so that all sides can be happier then this could be a real positive for Wikipedia.  Springee (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking that a discussion at WP:NPOVN may be in order. Weight is one of the biggest sources of policy-based disagreement. –dlthewave ☎ 21:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: Since at least a couple of these fall squarely in the Firearms project, why are we bringing it to another project? Why not try the same task force there? I guess I'm seeing some duplication and curious how that will improve things? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Few Firearms project members have shown interest in improving our coverage of these topics or implementing community consensus decisions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the RfC simply said that it wasn't OK to have a blanket prohibition or a blanket edict that information could only be contained in a "see also" link. That doesn't mean that refusal to include criminal or political information on any particular firearms article is against the RfC consensus.  Effectively the RfC did almost nothing since it didn't offer new guidance as to when material should or shouldn't be included.  It is still possible to cite the firearms project recommendations etc.  It's understandable that those who were against inclusion based on their reading of WP:Weight etc. still feel that way.  Springee (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in the new task force. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Few Firearms project members have shown interest in improving our coverage of these topics or implementing community consensus decisions". I guess that depends on your POV. Given that you have an interpretation of the Village Pump closure that is questionable, I find it difficult to support your claim that nobody is supporting 'improvement'. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume this comment refers to me. What exactly do you find questionable about my interpretation of the RfC? –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You interpret the close as saying "there was no support for limiting criminal use". It supported case-by-case and there was as much support for limiting it as for any other option. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To keep it in one place, I'm continuing this conversation at WP:Firearms.
 * What you've said there impacts my response to what you're saying here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to join the task force and help develop best practices in this area. –dlthewave ☎ 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'm trying to figure out why this project is the one who should be forming this task force. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The new task force page is up and running at WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. It's currently just a framework so feel free to add or suggest content. Pinging editors who expressed interest –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's good news.- MrX 🖋 16:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:American Guard
Please comment on content that has been called into question.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun politics task force
This may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 19:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice
Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notification
There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification
There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification
There is an RfC at the United States presidential election, 2020 talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback requested for proposed rename of Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes
Your feedback about a proposed rename of Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes is requested at the move discussion page Talk:Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes. No German needed. Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963–93)
An article which may be of interest to this project&mdash;Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963–93)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Re-write of Socialist state
An editor is completely re-writing Socialist state... even the new first sentence changes the term's meaning. I want the guy to create a draft first so that others can make changes and comments before such a massive change, and I have stated as such on the talk page. He disagrees. I thought I'd bring this up here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Communist state
An article which may be of interest to members of this project&mdash;Communist state&mdash;has been proposed for merging with Socialist state. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Czech presidential candidates by gender has been nominated for discussion
Category:Czech presidential candidates by gender, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Place Clichy (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)