Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 8

United States Declaration of Independence article needs to be adopted
I have performed a review at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. However, the nominator has exercised his WP:RTV. The article needs someone to adopt it and address my concerns in order to regain its GA status. I will allow seven days for someone to step forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Need input at election-related FAC
I have nominated the article United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 for featured article, but so far it has received no actual comments or either support or oppose votes. I really do not want it to fail for lack of input, so could anybody spare the time to weigh in there? Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos and TfD:Template:The Marcoses
Is there anyone here with an interest in the Philippines? If so, please come and have a look at TfD:Template:The Marcoses. There is a discussion there which is relevant to this project. In the course of considering a proposal to delete Template:The Marcoses I discovered that links to articles about many opponents of - and some collaborators with - Ferdinand Marcos are not linked to the text in his article, merely to this badly named and concealed navbox, which is now proposed for deletion. These include Insurgency in the Philippines, New People's Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Assassination of Ninoy Aquino, NAMFREL and People Power Revolution. Also, Constitution of the Philippines is a link hidden underneath alternative text, and Rolex 12 only appears without elaboration under "See also". Some of these are in danger of being orphaned. I sincerely hope that someone here will take an interest in rectifying the situation. Thanks.  Rubywine. talk 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:The Marcoses
I have opened a discussion topic Template name and contents at Template_talk:The_Marcoses.  Rubywine. talk 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Template for articles on bills and laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI <-- I think the "notable individuals and groups" and "timeline" sections are fantastic on here and should be standard for articles on pieces of legislation in the future. Chursaner (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle, yes; but I'm concerned that a detailed list of "notable individuals and groups" could be a magnet for problematic editing on some of the more controversial legislation articles. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Help
Still really need help at the featured article nomination for United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. There have been no oppose votes but very little input at all, and I don't want to see it fail for lack of participation. Any help would be very much appreciated! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

List of heads of state of Libya/List of heads of government of Libya
Short story: I don't think we should be claiming that Gadaffi and his cronies are no longer the heads of Libya. Another user thinks we can say that he and friends has gone. See reverts here and here. I have provided sources which still refer to Gadaffi as leader. This is clearly a reliable sources showing that Gadaffi is still one of Libya's two claimants to head of state for now. It's not up to Wikipedia to preempt history. Could do with a few extra views on this? --Pretty Green (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since multiple reliable sources report recognition of the "rebel" government by an increasing number of foreign governments and embassies, and since sources also report that Gaddafi's de facto control over Libya has evaporated (de facto is all that matters now; it's not as though he was a legitimate elected leader), I think it would be unreasonable to give Gaddafi primacy in articles like that. As a minimum, we should say that the position is disputed between Gaddafi and the rebels; preferably, we should make it clear that the rebels now control most of the country. bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My previous compromise had been to list them together, both in power. I agree entirely that in a week we might go back to this article and edit it as '22nd August' when Gadaffi lost power. But we shouldn't be doing that now. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors with an interest in politics
Hi WikiProject Politics members! I wanted to let you know that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a number of classes on politics and political science, and it'd be great to have some people who know their way around Wikipedia's politics coverage to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated League of Nations 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.

WP:COI issues with Scott Smith (mayor)
I would like a third party to take a look at. I have tried to edit it, but I am getting reverted by a possible WP:SPA named that I feel is having some WP:COI issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with American political parties
The page List of political parties in the United States contains several "parties" that are really political organizations, not parties. Some of these have been included on the page for multiple years, so I don't feel completely confident about removing them. Is there a page where I can place them? I thought there was a "list of political organizations in the United States" but I can't find it now. 71.184.241.68 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice of RfC pertaining to List of sovereign states
Please join a preference survey on how to divide our List of sovereign states. All responses are appreciated. Thanks,  Night w   13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Input requested in article move discussion
Hi. Readers at this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Jeffersonian democracy. Thanks in advance for any input. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Delegitimisation article
In the current session of the General Assembly, the term "delegitimisation" is topical. Perhaps there are some in this WikiProject who will want to help improve the article? --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors Needed
Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

This fall, the Department of Political Science here at the University at Albany (SUNY) is participating in the US Education Program for the first time, and we are in need of online ambassadors who are willing to assist graduate students (mostly master's students and some PhD students) with creating, editing, and improving their Wikipedia articles as a part of their course assignments.

The course is called Political Violence: Terrorism and Insurgency, and as a part of the course, the students are required to enter a 1,500 word wikipedia entry on a VEO (Violent Extremist Organization) or an insurgent organization.

Most of the students are new to contributing to wikipedia, so there will most likely be a lot of basic editing questions you will have to guide them through.

If you are interested, please let me know and I will add you to our pod list so that the students can begin working with you.

Thank you in advance for your interests and assistance. Sincerely, Steve Sin --SSIN@UAlbany (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also an approval process to be an online ambassador, essentially just to make sure you aren't a newbie trying to help other newbies. See more about the role here and feel free to apply here. We'd love to have more people! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed, but not looking to be an online ambassador myself (at least for now), but looking for those who are already qualified to assist the students in our course for the semester. Would you know of anyone that might be willing?

--SSIN@UAlbany (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hi there. I've added an RfC to this discussion at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism and am looking for additional input. Thanks. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 02:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Paul Antinori (Attorney, Author)
We need some help here with WP:POLITICIAN notability. There seems to be some confusion about the level of office the fellow held; I believe (and some others have concurred) that his office was county/regional rather than statewide. Anyway we could use more assessment in this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The coming insurrection -- high importance?
Is "the coming insurrection" article high importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.147.103 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question... can anyone answer? If not perhaps the importance level should be degraded. Encycloknow (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Majority criterion section of first-past-the-post-voting
Hi everyone, the Majority criterion section of first-past-the-post-voting is obviously wrong, due to the fact that the wiki article clearly contradicts both another wikipedia article, as well as the article's own footnote on this point. People have raised the issue in the talk section but there was no response. I edited the article to correct the matter, however, my correction was reverted by the same person who made erroneous edit in the first place. I am not a frequent editor of wikipedia but I am hoping to get support/guidance regarding this issue. Thanks. Encycloknow (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Update -- the section has been fixed by someone. Encycloknow (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkie (and Nick Xenophon) - indiscriminate and narrative text
There are some problems with the Pokies and Precommitment sections on these two articles. The writing style is problematic, as it's starting to become a little narrative, and, with the latest addition of text, we're becoming indiscriminate and leaving the scope of the article.

I have the same problems with Nick Xenophon. That article hasn't benefited from any outside editing, and the section relating to pokies needs some work.

Therefore, I'd like to invite some input. I've started a discussion at the talk page. Any input is welcome. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

ACU/ADA scores on pages for members of Congress
I feel that it would be a good idea to have these on all pages for members of congress. They're available for the past 40 years, and would provide a succinct balanced summary of where members of congress stand ideologically, which is at least minimally comparable and independent.

Has anyone considered adding these? Could they be added in the sidebar summaries for MCs? Would Poole-Rosenthal NOMINATE scores be preferable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.60.205.74 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN video + External links project invite
I'd like to invite anyone involved with this project to help out with a project I have been working on related to C-SPAN. The C-SPAN Video Library has thousands of landing pages about specific individuals who have appeared on the network, and Wikipedia editors have recognized the value of including these in External links by creating Template:C-SPAN and adding a relevant parameter in Template:CongLinks.

Unsurprisingly, however, the C-SPAN Video Library link is missing from many articles, including a few that may surprise: George H.W. Bush for one, and Edward Kennedy for another. I work with C-SPAN's media team (I helped bring their main article up to GA status earlier this year) and I suggested that I find as many gaps as possible and then seek to invite other editors to help fill them. They agreed. To this end I have started a project page in my own user space to identify pages where it is missing and make available the specific markup text necessary to include that link, and keeping whatever relevant markup was there before. You can see the first few I have located here, and more will be posted soon: User:WWB_Too/C-SPAN_ELs

I'm posting this here because the main C-SPAN page is included in this WikiProject, and I figure I stand the best chance of finding interested collaborators here. Please let me know if you'd like to help, or if you have any other questions. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Project Vote Smart
I apologize if this has been covered elsewhere. I've tried to look around and see if anyone's mentioned this, but couldn't find anything. So here goes: Is Project Vote Smart considered a reliable source? It's used in many articles, but the problem I run into when editing is that PVS only keeps info on people who are in office (or in the middle of an upcoming election, I think). I run across articles of people who are out of office for whatever reason and their PVS links are dead. (Note that I primarily edit North & South Carolina articles, but I'm sure this applies to others. See Ada Fisher or Alice Graham Underhill.) The main problem is that they are not archived anywhere that I can find, so I can't point to an archived copy. Used as just external links is one thing but, often, these are used in citations. I know this can happen for links to state legislative official pages, too (See EL in Larry Shaw (politician)), so PVS is not alone in this. Is this something we just have to deal with and then scramble to find other sources when the page is no longer available? I know it can be an easy and valuable resource, but should its use be deprecated? I can't find it now, but I saw somewhere on here someone stating that we should put legislative/official site links and PVS links on all pages. (Maybe it was just something for North Carolina politics.) Anyway, would like to know what everyone else thinks.

Note that I am not advocating disuse of "official" sites, but for something like Project Vote Smart that we know will not be there after person is not running/out of office, then we should stop using it as a resource to begin with. Unless, of course, you all know of an archive of PVS which makes all this sound silly. Thank you -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

99 Percent Declaration
I recently created the 99 Percent Declaration article, and now it's been nominated for deletion and rescue. I have lots of possible sources on the talk page, but I would feel more comfortable if there were other editors. Would you please help improve it? Or at least chime in on the deletion discussion or respond to the questions on the talk page? Thank you. Dualus (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Rosa Parks
nominated Rosa Parks 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. Brad (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Atlantic Revolutions
This is a cover term for the "revolutionary wave" that spanned from the 1750s to the 1830s: basically, the end of the Age of Enlightenment. The current article is listed as start-class and does not have a great deal of information. I know that the articles on the individual revolutions give plenty of information, but have started working on an expansion to the article. The expansion includes summaries of the revolutions (more than one paragraph). I am wondering if anyone else is interested in contributing to this.  DCI talk 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos
User:Noherzl is making wild, unsubstantiated claims on these articles (about some kind of "monetarist coup against democracy"). Needless to say such edits have been reverted (by numerous editors including myself), but the editor in question has just reverted them back each time. I've tried to reason with the editor on their talk page, but it seems this is being ignored. Perhaps sanctions need to be taken against this editor and/or the articles need to be protected. (N.B. I have also raised this issue here.) «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the problem has ceased (at least temporarily) - either the message did get through, or they just got bored... «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)