Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

New RfCs have been created (Democratic and Republican Party positions)

Two new RfCs have been created regarding the political position of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, more specifically in the infobox at the top of the page. Input has been gathered for a while now, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, you can go to the respective talk page section (I linked them for convenience) and give input after reading what has been discussed so far. Apolitical or non-American Wikipedians may be required to reach a efficient consensus and avoid (perceived) bias. They are some of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox (especially considering the fact that they have an identifiable ideology), and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Help is appreciated, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

NRA funding

@Senty78: has recently added information regarding NRA campaign contributions to multiple Republican US House members from the state of New York (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Is this type of detail generally considered relevant content for political biographies, or is it WP:UNDUE? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say donations to individual politicians is relevant for their biographies. Number 5 7 20:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Karl Marx

Should the categories Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists be added to this article?Talk:Karl_Marx#RfC RolandR (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore

I'm removing Roy Moore from my watchlist after this post. There are a variety of issues with the page, and it will be very high-profile through (at least) the general election in December. I request that editors on this project add the page to their watchlists, suggest content improvements, and engage on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lion Guard

Lion Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I just wanted to ask more editors who have more experience writing political articles to see if Lion Guard can't be improved somewhat. I've written it about as best I can but appear to be really the only editor who has worked on it. The article has frequently been hit with requests for better citations, almost to a ridiculous level, sometimes with "citation needed" tags added after almost every sentence. Right now, the article history is simply a back and forth between myself another editor with some COI issues surfacing as well. We definitely need more editors to look at it. -O.R.^Comms

Also see Talk:Lion_Guard#Tags_added. Badly need more editors to be involved. -O.R.^Comms 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Yashwant_Sinha#Content_about_September_2017_article

I am inviting editors to a discussion at the Yashwant Sinha article. Another editor has been repeatedly trying to include certain information about a recent article written by Sinha. So I am inviting others to have a look.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Rexist Party and Christian socialism

I'd be interested in seeing more voices at Talk:Rexist Party#Leon Degrelle himself described the party a Socialist. Any additions to the discussion are appreciated. Master of Time (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing opportunity

More eyes needed for article improvement on Useful idiots where the current Russian interference in the US elections issues seem to have spilled over. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly-elected politicians from Virginia

I've created some stubs for some of the newly-elected politicians from Virginia, and invite all to help expand these articles:

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Radical Cause Article

I am new to Wikipedia editing and decided to start my journey by editing a random article selected by the site. The article chosen, "Radical Cause," had issues right off the bat. So far I have edited the grammar and run-on sentences in the first two paragraphs. Let me know if this wording sounds better, and what I can do to further better the article down the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhanse6 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents of India FLC

An FLC is in progress about List of Presidents of India which is a topic of top importance .Please review the nomination and add comments ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Force Radical

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) requested move

There is an ongoing move request for the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) and similar pages. Please feel free to comment at the move request page. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore

Requesting any interested editors take a look at Roy Moore. I have some concerns discussed on the talk page, but would appreciate other opinions. If anyone thinks I am off base feel free to say so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple discussions currently occurring at Talk:Roy Moore may be of interest to members of this project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New Here. Willing to Help.

I don't know if this is the right place to do it, but I'm just introducing myself, as per someone's instructions. Because I'm new, I don't know how useful I will be, but I am willing to work for food (for thought). This was the first group i looked at, so I don't have much perspective, but it seems like U have a lot of participants. Would I be more useful in a less populated area? And, if so, can U point me to that area?

If anyone has anything more pressing than what's already listed here, please feel free to try and put me to work. I've familiarized myself with many of the policies but still have things to learn about actually editing the text, with whatever program this is. It took me 3 times to just get my username on the participants list, and it's still not right. (Where do U find a list of those flag icons?) Also, could someone point me to a resource that has instructions for the text editor (e.g. what character creates paragraphs or page breaks? I tried |p| but that didn't work.) Psylocyber (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks

OK. Me Again. I decided to jump right in and start working on adding infoboxes to articles that are on the list of missing infoboxes, and I already have some questions. I started at the top of the list and the first 2 already have infoboxes. So I'm thinking, I need to edit the page with the list so I can remove those 2 items, and any others I should find, that are already completed. Should I do that? There is not much of a talk page on the page with the list, it even says that it rarely gets read or visited. Should I remove them from the list myself, with notes? Or, should I just leave someone a note (somewhere) so they could remove them?

Also, the first item on the list has zero citations yet has very specific information (people's names, dates, etc). It has already been flagged for this by someone. This item already has an infobox, as I said, but as an example, should I even bother to add an infobox if I find a similar page, where the content might be taken down anyway? Lastly, could anyone that has experience working with infobox templates, please get back to me, and be willing to answer a few technical questions, that I know I'm going to have, about creating them. This is especially true in regard to maintaining the micro formatting architecture, within the template. Thanks Again, Psylocyber (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! If you enjoy confrontation, Talk:Roy Moore is the place for you. If you don't, the various ideology pages (such as Conservatism in the United States might be a good place to start editing. If you enjoy purely gnomish work, I have to suggest you find a different WikiProject until you have at least 200 edits under your belt. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider myself an expert, but I might be able to answer questions about infobxes. They're fairly straightforward. If you haven't already, look at Help:Infobox. Txantimedia (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

President Donald Trump

I am not donating to Wikipedia but telling Donald Trump if he can get my house and Band of Believers Church in salina Oklahoma he could keep the GED building which is paid. The Tornado hit the buildings and I had built it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.141.58 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Politics

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The "far-right"

I think this the best page for this discussion. We are trapped in a maze of twisty passages, all alike. They all generally discuss political ideologies generally considered to be tied to Conservatism, but with "more extreme" views than "mainstream" parties^[a], such as the Conservative Party (UK) or Republican Party (United States).

All of those topics have some overlap. Some (but not all) of them overlap with these topics:

Writing about this is made more difficult due to the perennially contentious nature of editing American Politics-related topics on Wikipedia. I have no suggestions yet, and don't even feel that the list of topics above is complete yet. Feedback is appreciated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's further complicated by the fact that it's all relative. The Republican Party might be deemed right-wing in the US, but to Europeans they seem very far to the right; the Democratic Party would also be be deemed a right-wing party in much of Europe. Number 5 7 19:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A digression that belongs at WP:RS/N

As I have contended, both here Talk:Roy Moore#Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017 - Removal of using "far-right" to compartmentalize what is claimed to be his politics and here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Use of the term "far-right" to describe a BLP, the use of terminology that is inherently indefinable and bias-loaded is, or at least should be, a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think it is better to avoid the use of such terms entirely. For example, compare these two sentences: Bob Ford is a Democrat and Bob Ford is a far-left Democrat. The first sentence is a statement of fact. What the second sentence does is attach a label to Bob Ford that colors the readers' perception of who he is. There may well be plenty of RS that describe him that way, and I have no problem with quoting those sources when they do, but I think it becomes problematic when an editor writes a direct statement, such as was done in the Roy Moore article. For example, if an editor wrote, Bob Ford is a Democrat whom the Wall Street Journal describes as "a far-left ideologue"(with cite), I would have no problem with that.

I don't dispute that Roy Moore is far-right, in the commonly understood meaning of that term (as much as that is commonly understood), but I think editors should shy away from making such statements directly. Let the reader make that decision for themselves upon reading the content of the article.

The contested passage reads Moore is an advocate of far-right politics. The statement is supported by three cites. One does not even use the term. The other two only use the term in the headline, not in the content of the story. This is a statement of fact being made by Wikipedia based on questionable sourcing. I think it would be better to quote a source saying that, rather than saying it directly. For example, in the Roy Moore article, this appears: According to Business Insider, Moore has a "history of far-right and conspiracy-aligned positions" on issues such as homosexuality, race, Islam, and terrorism.[166] I have no problem with this statement at all. The source is quoted, and the source is RS. Where I have a problem is when we, as editors, carry those statements over into our own prose. I think it exacerbates the tensions that already exist and expose Wikipedia to claims of bias. There is a noticeable difference between saying "Wikipedia said Bob Ford was far-left" and saying, "Wikipedia quotes the Wall Street Journal's claim that Bob Ford is far-left".

What I would like to see is a clear policy that such supposedly factual statements, on highly contentious matters, should not be made directly (or perhaps avoided) but instead be made by the use of source quoting, to avoid the possibility of violating WP:NPOV. Txantimedia (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

But there is no evidence that this label is "contentious." You have not pointed to any reliable sources which argue that Moore's positions are not "far-right." That you or another Wikipedia editor objects does not make it "controversial" - otherwise, literally anything could be "controversial." Again, I point to Richard B. Spencer, who we clearly and unambiguously define as a "white supremacist" despite the fact that Spencer objects to it - because among reliable sources the definition of Spencer as a white supremacist is widely accepted and uncontroversial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Surely you are joking. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/05/left-wing-media-far-right-normalize-hate-trump Do you seriously believe that people on the right aren't offended by the term far-right? Or people on the left aren't offended by the label far-left? Txantimedia (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in the RSN discussion, issues like this can't be decided on wikiprojects. This really isn't the appropriate place to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between "do these sources describe Roy Moore as far-right" (which should stay at RSN) and "which of these pages should be merged and where should redirects target" (which I would like to discuss here). Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's possible to separate the discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Notes

^ I feel unable to clearly define either "more extreme" or "mainstream", but expect readers to generally understand this to mean that these groups are very much opposed to the views of the Democratic Party (United States).

I note a discussion at Template talk:Alt-right footer which may be of relevance here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Report, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Scope question

Would the subject of an article holding an office itself qualify the article as within the scope of this WikiProject? Note that I'm asking for a plethora of articles on Roman senators. SpartaN (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] I feel unable to clearly define either "more extreme" or "mainstream", but expect readers to generally understand this to mean that these groups are very much opposed to the views of the Democratic Party (United States).

[a]