Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

RFC at Communist Party of China

I've started an RFC about the infobox contents at Communist Party of China please feel free to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines

May I ask for comment on the proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines? I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, too, but comment on the political side would be welcome. HLHJ (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to election/referendum naming format

I've started an RfC on changing the election/referendum naming format to move the year to the front (so e.g. French presidential election, 2017 becomes 2017 French presidential election). All comments welcome here. Cheers, Number 57 20:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Another Communist Party of China RFC

At Communist Party of China opinions welcome so we can settle this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

POLOUTCOMES change

Based on a variety of recent deletion discussions, I believe WP:POLOUTCOMES no longer reflects the current consensus for when articles on candidates for political office are notable. I've proposed a change at that talk page and will make it early next week unless I get pushback. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

City council template

An editor has swapped out {{Chicago City Council}} for {{Chicago City Council since 1923}}, which would be a great move except that the majority of the additional links added were redlinks (presented unlinked). I am not sure if this is what we want so I am getting other opinions of whether this is an improvement and whether it is consistent with what we do in other cities.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Where did the swap happen?--Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

On all pages that the former template was on.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think what has happened is that the template has been expanded to include a majority of non-notable subjects.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, can you or anyone else explain to me why we want so many non-notable names (2018 redlinks) added to this template. Current aldermen are marginally notable. Not too many of them are in the history books.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey TonyTheTiger, I only swapped out the templates for aldermen that were no longer in office and kept the {{Chicago City Council}} template for current aldermen (which I believe have both templates last I checked). I think that the {{Chicago City Council}} template might be suitable only for current aldermanic pages, and that the {{Chicago City Council since 1923}} would be a good navigational tool between articles on former (as well as current) aldermen (esp. in the case of a non-notable alderman B serving between notable aldermen A and C, allowing navigation between A and C without having to create an article on B, which I believe occurs at least twice in the template). I do understand that the majority of those on the template are currently redlinks, which is why I kept {{Chicago City Council}} on current aldermanic pages, but (ignoring that some of those redlinks can likely be future articles) I count 26 bluelinks in the template that cannot be reached from the articles of current aldermen. I am new-ish here (about 3 months) and I'm just started to get myself acquainted with notability and the like so I could be wrong, but I do think that this template should be kept, at least for now, as a representation of a notable stand-alone list and a navigational aid. --John M Wolfson (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• What I am hearing is that {{Chicago City Council}} remains on all 50 current council members. {{Chicago City Council since 1923}} is on 76 pages. I also believe you are saying that there is more than 76 redlinks (actually presented as unlinked). How many more than 76? My issue is that WP has not achieved consensus on United States Congressmen templates. {{Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York}} has gone in and out of favor and appears to currently be live. {{Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Louisiana}} has managed to stay under the radar. However, it seems that User:TonyTheTiger/ILRepresentatives, should be live before we have {{Chicago City Council since 1923}} templates. Looking at Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes, it seems that working on a historically complete city council template is not a leading concern. I think we should figure out what we want for our most prominent legislative bodies before we handle city council templates. We could use more input on this. However, we should not place Chicago's city council before Illinois U.S. Reps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that U.S. Reps should have higher priority (nice work on the template, btw), and was unaware of a debate in that respect. As for the Council template itself, it is transcluded 128 times according to WMFLabs, and by my rough count ~120 of those are on the mainspace, including the 47 current aldermen with active pages, where both templates currently exist (my 26 count from before was for bluelinks that couldn't be accessed by any of the current aldermanic pages by repeatedly clicking on "Predecessor", my apologies for not stating that). However, they are quite outnumbered by the redlinks/unlinks, which I reckon are ~300. In terms of content the template is complete, with no more additions or modifications other than turning redlinks into bluelinks to be made that I am aware of. If there's a consensus against such templates I can put this one back in a subpage on my User page similar to what you've done for the IL Reps, or it could be an article of the form "List of Chicago aldermen since 1923" rather than a template. That might actually work better for redlink improvement/article creation (I'm not saying all of the redlinks will ever become articles, but I'm sure at least a few could), as the first name of non-articled aldermen can actually appear in the text rather than be commented as they are in the template. (For example, "Arthur F. Albert" vs. simply "Albert".) Of course, I'm still fairly new here and I'll leave the decisions to consensus.--John M Wolfson (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

At some point Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes needs to get a lot of attention. The names of the templates should be commonly formatted. Then, we could actually see what exists. There are a bunch of templates that probably don't belong in the cat as they are presented. With regard to your template, any template with 4 bluelinks has a good reason to stay in template space. The question is whether we want to set a precedent for having such templates. BTW, what is the significance of 1923? I don't know how to compel discussion of the U.S. Rep templates. Maybe I should put IL back into template space and place it on all the pages. Then see if there is pushback. However, I sort of think the way to force participation in a discussion is to TFD this and see if we want both of these templates.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

1923 was the year wards started electing one alderman each rather than two and when the number of wards increased from 35 to the modern 50. I could see why we wouldn't want to set up a precedent for less-notable councils; as this is a template, I don't know whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or any other notability guideline) applies. I guess you could try to see whether IL template transclusions create any debate, but a TfD would probably work well to directly start a conversation. I'll keep the Council template up pending such a debate, then. --John M Wolfson (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Drop by the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_4#Template:Chicago_City_Council_since_1923.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Brazil above everything, God above everyone

As this project is not just about American Politics: pages related to the Brazilian election could use attention from multiple editors. For example, I can't verify that "Brazil above everything, God above everyone" is an "electoral coalition" as the article currently claims; it appears to just be Jair Bolsonaro's slogan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Should we have an article like "List of street names changed around consular buildings for political reasons"? (or some less-unwieldy title)

Let me first say I think this is a valid topic because it is "a thing" and not simply a random accumulation of unrelated things.

The issue is in the news as of late because Ankara is changing the street on which the US Embassy sits to "Malcom X Street". Meanwhile Washington DC is goading the Russians with plans to name the street their embassy sits on as "Boris Nemtsov Street" after a whistleblower allegedly murdered by the Kremlin.

Current news aside, there have been a number of similar cases:

• Tehran changed the street name of the British Embassy to Bobby Sands Street after an Northern Irish Republican politician who died in a hunger strike
• When PR China had a falling-out with the Soviets, they named the embassy's street Anti-Revisionist Road
• Glasgow in the 1980s changed the name of the street the South African embassy was on to Nelson Mandela Street

Do folks agree this is a "political practice", such that these incidents can be fairly classified together somehow? And if so would a list of these make for an interesting list-article? Any strong objections? I may knock out a basic attempt and see if it is Prod'ed or no. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made a draft at User:MatthewVanitas/sandbox; I'm going to BEBOLD and launch it tonight if there is no objection/input because this topic is getting a lot of attention in the news today (though only one instance on the list is CURRENT, the others are historical). MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done To heck with it, gonna be bold. Here it is: List of street names changed around diplomatic mission buildings for political reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on changing the format of election/referendum article titles

This has been reopened for further discussion, including the possibility of a bot run to move all the articles if passed: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 57 15:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What about soy boys?

Should Soy boy be included as an article there is a lot of resources online to explain what it is. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dwanyewest, are there actually any reliable sources that talk about it? At best it would probably be either WP:NEO or WP:FRINGE, as far as I can tell from a quick look around. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

zchrykng These are the sources I found [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dwanyewest, I'm sure someone else will chime in, but at least some of those are opinion pieces. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a Rationalwiki and Urbandictionary article on this topic (both User-Generated Content). It's probably a reasonable topic to discuss somewhere (possibly a redirect to some existing page), but you should certainly re-read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before creating the article yourself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, I could see it being a redirect to Alt-right. Doubt it should exist as a stand alone article. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

copyright violation

This political related article has copyright violation prolblem [9] (70.5%). Could someone clean this? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

আফতাবুজ্জামান, is there list of demands published somewhere? It seems an easy solution would be quoting them directly, since it is something that should be as close as possible to the original anyway. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Your Truth?

Should Your Truth be included as an article? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

What is that? --Thinker78 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

--Thinker78 (talk) [10][11][12][13][14][15] these are some potential sources for Your Truth article. I just wished to know if it notable like Alternative facts or if I should be asking this question in WikiProject Politics or whether another forum would be best place to ask about the suitability of such an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I still don't know what "Your Truth" is supposed to be. Four of them are about a slogan used by Oprah Winfrey, the other two seem entirely unrelated. Just doing a search for this phrase and calling every opinion piece that uses it about a coherent concept is incorrect; I see no reason that this should exist as an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that you could add the semantic difference between "your truth" and "the truth" in the article Truth but probably not a stand-alone article. You can start a WP:Request for comment if you want. --Thinker78 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Brett Kavanaugh

If you would like to give your feedback on whether certain polls should be included in Brett Kavanaugh article regarding his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, please respond here: Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#RfC_--_polls_on_nomination. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge notice for Sciences Po

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sciences Po should be renamed Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article titles.

The article will be discussed at the article Talk page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion. However, do not remove the merge notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Patriarchy

More eyes are needed on the article Patriarchy, where a factually incorrect POV-pusher has reverted almost ten times against consensus in the last few days. Thanks. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RfC

A RfC related to the inclusion of three mass shootings in the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article has been opened. Springee (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Campbell Collaboration collaboration

posted at WT:LAW, WT:PLT and WT:SOCIO

The Campbell collaboration (sister group to the Cochrane collaboration are possibly interested in forming a collaboration to use their systematic reviews of policy interventions to help update Wikipedia (analagous to Cochrane's medical meta-analyses). WP:MED already has a collaboration with Cochrane, so Campbell could be a good fit. Let me know if you'd like to be part of the email thread following up on this. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Review: Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Voter demographics

(@Jmorrison230582 and Brythones: tagged into discussion).

I'm wondering if this WikiProject can review the inclusion of the tables within the voter demographics section of the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article (permanent link). The main arguments against their inclusion appears to come down to the reliability of the data and the "presentation of polling data as facts".

The United Kingdom general election, 2017#Voter demographics, United Kingdom general election, 2015#Voter demographics, United Kingdom general election, 2010#Demographics, United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016#Voting demographics and trends articles all use opinion polling data to illustrate the vote demographics in the same way that they have been included in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article - with the same terminology, the "poll suggested the following demographic breakdown", to make it clear that polls have a margin of error and can't be taken as 100% accurate. It would be inconsistent to not include them on the basis of the second point, if they're included in a number of other electoral articles within the UK.

An additional question relates to whether the Ashcroft poll (the best thing we had to an "exit poll" for this referendum) is accurate enough to be included in the article. The question lies as to whether the poll has been demographically weighted or not. John Curtice, President of the British Polling Council, said on his blog that "the balance of Yes (45%) and No (55%) votes in this poll matches the actual result, but it is not possible to tell from the published tables whether or not this is because the poll was weighted to ensure that it matched the actual result", without any indication that it wasn't weighted demographically. Looking at the numbers of respondents for each sub-sample in the data tables, it appears that each are at a level that appears to match the actual demographic level of Scotland.

Clyde1998 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Unlike post-election polling conducted by YouGov and Ipsos Mori, Lord Ashcroft's polling does not account for demographic factors such as age and religion in its weightings and the sample size is insufficient to be broken down into subsamples at only 2000 people. For example, only 98 people from the 16-24 age group were questioned by Lord Ashcroft, which equates to a 66% margin of error.

The Scottish Referendum Study data does not provide figures by demographic group; uses a non-standard and unsourced methodology; is unreliably sourced (lecture slides); is preliminary and outdated; and contradicts the actual findings reported by the BBC and Professor John Curtice.

Both sources are therefore too unreliable and inconsistent to be published in a format which presents them as fact. Brythones (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The sample size for the Ashcroft poll (1 in every ~2,600 people polled) is relatively greater than the sample size for the Ipsos Mori 2017 poll (1 in every ~8,000 people polled). The MoE is ~10% for the 16-24 group, not 66%. That's the only group that could be considered to be too small on its own accord, but it would be strange to not include an age group if including all the others. John Curtice discusses the Ashcroft poll on his blog, with the YouGov on-the-day poll; the only question about the weighting relates to whether it was weighted to the referendum result or not. At no point does he suggest that the poll isn't weighted in a regular manner and that any of the polls findings are in any way untrustworthy.

I'm guessing by "The Scottish Referendum Study data does not provide figures by demographic group" you're referring to how many people are in each sub-sample - that doesn't disregard it as a source, as it implicitly suggests that the sample-sizes are large enough to be credible. Saying that the SRS data "uses a non-standard and unsourced methodology" is a contradiction – if it's unsourced then you don't know if it's non-standard or not. Also saying that the "contradicts the actual findings reported by the BBC and Professor John Curtice" is misleading, as unless they've asked every voter in Scotland, then any data will have a margin of error about it; I'd also like to see said findings, as they could probably be included in the article, over the two references provided, and make this discussion academic. The reference that you've provided to say that the data is preliminary shows a video that has different results from the source I've provided; the YouTube description notes that the video is from 6 October 2014, while the source I've provided is from 27 March 2015.

WP:YESPOV confirms that the text that is/was used in the article does not present the data as facts:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

The phrase "The Lord Ashcroft poll suggested the following demographic breakdown of the vote:" attributes the data to a source in the same way described by the policy. No study can ever be completely accurate and the text never suggested that these sources are showing facts. Clyde1998 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you've largely missed my points.

I apologise, I must've made a mistake in the calculation (I did use a higher confidence interval), but that is correct. A +/-10% margin of error in the 16-24-year-old age category is still well above the standard +/-3% margin of error of regular polling and makes comparing demographic subsamples from the poll redundant. That is assuming of course that the Lord Ashcroft poll properly weighted its subsamples by demographics, which it did not do at all (there is not any cross-tabulation between subsamples - so like most regular opinion polls they are unweighted and should not be presented as a matter of fact).

The Scottish Referendum Study methodology is not sourced, though it is mentioned that it was conducted in three separate waves using different methodologies for each wave - which is not standard.

The lecture slides you have sourced (which appear to align to the Youtube source dated 2014 which states that the data is preliminary) do not use data from the third wave of polling conducted on behalf of the Scottish Referendum Study (only the first and second waves), and contradicts the finalised results published by the BBC in September 2015 (which is already mentioned in the article by the way) - so presumably the data from the March 2015 lecture slides is incomplete. As I have already mentioned, the lecture slides cannot be considered reliable as they lack context (what was said in the actual lecture) and numerical data broken down by subsample. For this reason, I do not believe that the lecture slides or BBC figures on the Scottish Referendum Study should be presented in large tables on the article.

Brythones (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to mention certain data from them as WP:PROSE to give certain indications of certain demographic trends (as opposed to the actual figures) in more detail than what's listed in the Results section at present? It would give clearer impression on the limitations of the data, while giving results from a different methodological study that may assist/contradict in backing up the trends listed in paragraphs three/four of the Results section (which could then be relocated to its own sub-section). An example is that the Ashcroft poll appears to show that older voters tended to vote No and younger voters tended to vote Yes, but this trend disappears when looking at voters under 25 - a trend shown in the SRS data already listed in the article.

I see what you mean with the SRS data - while there are some differences in the data between the YouTube source and the slides (despite both appearing to use data from Wave 2), it's clearer that the finalised results were not derived from that data due to its not inclusion of Wave 3 (Wave 3 is mentioned in the slides, but evidently, from the BBC article, doesn't use its data). Clyde1998 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The results section adequately summarises polling taken from around the time of the referendum and this verified by John Curtice's analysis and the Scottish Referendum Study (who both found that contrary to popular belief the 16-24 year old age group was more inclined towards No than any other age group under 65).

The article already mentions: "There was an age gap at the referendum, with elderly voters being the most likely to vote against independence and younger voters aged under 55, with the exception of those aged between 16–24, generally being more in favour of independence."

Polls should not be cherry-picked when subsamples typically have high margins of error, and the Lord Ashcroft poll already has a significant role in how the results section has been presented - it was one of the polls Curtice took into account in his analysis of the result following the referendum. If we were to cherry-pick based on the findings of individual opinion polls then the connection of women, people from more affluent areas and protestants voting No could not be made - better to take a broad analogy supported by verified acamedic research. Bearing in mind of course that based on margin of error Ashcroft found that anywhere between 59-38% of 16-24 year olds voted No in the referendum (from an unweighted and therefore unreliable sample of 98).

Brythones (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Article alerts incomplete

It appears that the bot that populates WP:WikiProject Politics/Article alerts is overlooking one or more AfD's, e.g.,

• 26 Oct 2018 – Tony Campbell (politician) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed 26 Oct 2018; see discussion; relisted)
       —  JGHowes  ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed It lacked {{WikiProject Politics}}, now corrected.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)