Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism

There is an ongoing Request for Comment about the introduction to the article Whataboutism.

You may comment if you wish, at Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User is using article space to push an unsourced personal POV that Filipino Datu are Monarchs Reply Comment Suggestion

Hi. A user has been insisting on using the main article space of the Datu article to assert his/her point of view that these Filipino rulers are monarchs, and that the polities and social groupings they lead are monarchies. It's a topic that has had an impact on very many early Philippine history articles, and this "monarchist" POV has been pushed hard by numerous editors in numerous articles. Datu, I think, is the right place for a proper discussion. May I request people take a look, and add their five cents before I elevate this dispute any further? I feel that more voices are needed for this discussion to go anywhere. I've created a discussion at the relevant talk page: Talk:Datu#2017_Re-opening_of_.22Monarchy.22_discussion Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment March

Resolved

Project members are invited to participate in this discussion over whether or not the Impeachment March article should be merged into Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Senate (Mauritania) abolished

There may be some articles needing update about the African Union, unicameral legislatures, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Garry R. Smith expansion request

Hi. I have come here to request that this short article be given attention. I hope for it to be expanded.

I would expand it myself, but seeing how I actually know Garry in person, that gives me a huge conflict of interest, so I refuse to edit the article (other than minor edits possibly) myself. That being said, I really would like to see this article expanded. Some things one could talk about I guess are his personal life, his political and social viewpoints, and his political activity. If someone turns this into a non-stub, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

More RfC discussions at Talk:Cold War II

I started more RfC discussions at the following:

• Talk:Cold War II#Group of Two in "See also" section
• Talk:Cold War II#Name of section about Russia and its rival(s)

I invite you to click any of the above links and make comments there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2020

The page United States presidential election, 2020 had severe problems with synthesis, original research, etc. I've made a fairly dramatic change that I hope will fix this, after my suggestions for less-dramatic changes were not debated. Your input is appreciated. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My proposed version is at [1].

1. It is impossible to distinguish between speculative and declined candidates at this time. As it is impossible to do impossible things, a version of the page that does not try to do them is preferred.
2. Polls are completely meaningless over 2 years before any elections. It's a meaningless collection of data.
3. There's no reason to list Mark Cuban or The Rock as all three of Democrat, Republican, and un-affiliated.

I am unwilling to discuss the structural problems at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 further. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

While I do agree with your assessment, I think it would have been better to discuss first. Personally, I think big changes like these need consensus because you have a bunch of editors who may oppose your edits and may end up edit warring. I think most of the article is just a bunch of fluff and fancruft. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD - I am doing the discuss part here and not on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Any consensus achieved here will be missed by some editors, who could then argue against the changes you propose. Moving the discussion here is a waste of time, as it deliberately leaves people out. I have answered your objection in the correct place, on the talk page of the article. Earthscent (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to move this to a noticeboard such as WP:NOR/N if you feel that is a more appropriate location. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know or care what that is. The article's talk page is the appropriate place. Earthscent (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please list specific examples of original research being used on the page that has not been undone or reverted? As for your other points:

I agree that differentiating between "Speculative" and "Declined" candidates is difficult, however I see two problems with removing this section:

It's almost the same format we use for every upcoming U.S election. If we start removing these sections from the 2020 Presidential election, the same argument could be made for many of the 2018 and 2019 elections, which are already well underway in many states.

The difference between speculative and Publicly expressed interest is somewhat arbitrary. Both Steve Bullock and Julian Castro have formed PACs that could signal interest in a 2020 run, but both are currently under speculative while Joe Biden, who has also formed a PAC, is considered as someone who has expressed interest for forming a PAC.

I don't think we can determine if a poll is completely meaningless on our own, given that we can't know the future, it is quite possible that these polls will be accurate within reason.

I agree with you on this. Unless the candidate in question is specifically speculated to run as a party other than the one they are registered to, they should only be listed under the party they currently are registered to. I can not find any information on the Rock's registration status, but not of the sources cited for the Rock, listed next to his potential candidacy, speculate that he will run as a Democrat. There is one source, although I can not speak for the quality of the source, that specifically talks about The Rock running as a Republican. On the other side of the coin, Kasich is a registered Republican, who has a source (and again I will not speak for the quality of the source) that mentions the possibility of him running as an independent.RealEdgeofnight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of Category:Trump administration controversies

SlackerDelphi has just removed this category from 21 pages and counting, stating that controversies don't cover events, people, bills, books, etc., in addition to them accusing editors of trying to smear Donald Trump. My first instinct would be to implement the category back into all those pages, but I figured it would be more constructive if everyone could weigh in. From my perspective, a controversy could encapsulate every one of those subjects, such as the 2017 National Scout Jamboree, so I'd say removing it is the polar opposite of a smear campaign. But, let's weigh in, shall we? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of categories in general is, much less this one. It does seem problematic to list seemingly arbitrary "people in the news with Trump" in the same category as articles like Dismissal of James Comey. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe if any kind of subject should be barred from this category, it should be individuals. Events, on the other hand, probably warrant remaining. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agreed, the controversies themselves should only be included in the category, as in the event or situation, not the people. There would need to be a separate category for people involved in Trump administration controversies, but I don't think that is a category we necessarily need. That is just my opinion though. If we look at Category:Clinton administration controversies, Bush 43 or Obama, they include people as well though. Overall there are a lot of categories out there that I feel are really mispopulated. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, @WikiVirusC and Power~enwiki: so SlackerDelphi removed the category from the events American Health Care Act of 2017 and 2017 National Scout Jamboree, with a Russian banks, a book and a few individuals. So, re-implement those two events for now and leave this topic open for debate, whether or not we should include individuals and other entities? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, now we are getting into defining what is a controversy or not. Personally I wouldn't call either of those one. One is a bill, regardless of how it goes or if/when/how it passes, that's just what happens with bills. The Jamboree I wouldn't call one either. The speech itself could be considered one yes, but not the entire event. If a redirect of Donald Trump's 2017 Boy Scott speech or something similar was created and redirected to the section about his speech, then I would put the redirect in the category and leave the main article alone. I'm not saying how anyone should do it, but it's just how I would. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to hear what @SlackerDelphi: has to say. Apart from leaving people off for now, I have no opinions here. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First then I will start with correcting a misrepresentation of what I stated in the edit comments. I did say including all people in the controversy category is a "smear". But I did not say it was a smear of Donald Trump. I never said that and the claim that I did is simply not true. What is a smear is tagging every single individual that has ANY relationship to Trump--even if tangentally--is a smear of that particular individual, not Trump. It is a classic case of guilt by association. There is a clear guidance in Wikipedia not to use the word "controversy" willy nilly (not to use it as a weasel word) and that is exactly what happened here. An editor placed one or two individuals into the TAdminControv category every few days and that is a smear of each of those individuals. There MUST be some kind of reliable source that uses the word "controversy" in relation to each and everyone of those individuals. Categories are not to used randomly without a reliable source supporting the inclusion and if the category specifically is a category of "controversies" then the category should include "controversies" and not a random list of people that a particular Wikipedia editor wants label a "controversy". Also, I removed the Boy Scout Jamboree from the list because, once again, a jamboree is not a controversy. And the Republican Health Care Act is not a "controversy" regardless of what you might think about it. Yes, there are many people that find it controversial, but article is not about the controversial aspects of it per se. It is about the bill. If there is an article about the Act's controvesial aspects then that article should have the category. There are rules about when to use a category or not and in ALL of these situations thoses rules were not followed.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For example, why is Mika Brzezinski's article tagged TAC controversies? Is Mika a controversy and not a actual human being. I would like the editor that tagged the article to provide a reliable source that proves that Brezezinski is a controversy and not a person. It is ludicrous to claim she is a controversy. She is not even a Republican. She is not even a member of the Trump Administration. I removed the category because it made zero sense. It was just an attempt to smear Brezezinski by association with Trump. That's all.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ck4829 and DarthBotto: Just for the record, the editor that keeps adding categories to inappropriate topics is at it again. Please see this edit.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@SlackerDelphi: That's annoying. Yeah, my concern is for ensuring that we have consensus and by this user re-adding it in the midst of our discussion here, that notion is defied. With the reasoning presented on your end, I support removing the categories from most every one of those pages, even the Jamboree page, as the incident was a small portion of an event. If it somehow becomes notable enough for a new article, then sure, but until then... DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: The category rules are what they are. And until the jamboree turns into a controversy then there is no reason to have the TAC category listed at the bottom of this article. I'm pretty sure that the jamboree will turn into a controversy about the same time that pigs will grow wings and fly.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why 2017 National Scout Jamboree doesn't belong in Trump Administration Controversies, especially since it is a political controversy. Jimmy Carter rabbit incident has no connection to politics whatsoever, yet it is a Carter administration controversy.Radiohist (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Jewish content at the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States#Jewish material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Improvement and request for input for South Ayrshire

There is currently a push to attempt to improve the articled South Ayrshire, and input from other editors in-particular those from this project is welcomed. The article is one of a number of similar articles, and it is hoped that this article can act as a standard for others in a similar vein, for being able to improve them all. Is it currently stands the article has a number of big issues, the largest being sourcing were as it stands over 85% of all sources are a primary source. There is also a lot of lists on the page, and a significant amount of over-detail of non-notable information. Thank you for your time Sport and politics (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A merge proposal was started from a consensus on the article talk page of Alt-left, which is an article within the scope of this WikiProject.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Political science journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Global Challenges Foundation Prize 2017

Hello,
you might be interested in the Global Challenges Foundation Prize 2017 challenge which is opened until 30 September.
This note is not meant to promote the challenge but to inform reasonably relevant people who might be interested about the presence of this article and this challenge.

--WikIdeaCatalyzation (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads up about RFC

There's an RFC about whether Wikipedia should mention anywhere that the potential firing of FBI Director Comey was publicly discussed by both Democratic and Republican politicians before Trump fired him. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:BLP

There is presently discussion taking place over whether living former politicians should be referred to as statesmen in their ledes. Comments are welcome.--Nevé–selbert 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

There's a long-simmering feud on the Patriot Prayer page over POV issues, mostly between two editors, that could use more input. Funcrunch (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the same two editors are still at it. While I'm glad there's discussion on the talk page, I've had to take the article off of my watchlist (again) because of the huge number of edits. Funcrunch (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)