Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Adding parameter for party's internal organization to Infobox political party

See discussion Template_talk:Infobox_political_party#Add_parameter_for_party_organization. Thanks! (t · c) buidhe 23:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

RE: Debate on creating a Chris Mullin disambiguation page (now it automatically leads to the basketball player)

Right now, the Chris Mullin page automatically leads to the basketball player - at the same time, there is a Chris Mullin (politician) - the one who led the fight to release the Birmingham Six and vote A Very British Coup (which was adapted to a TV series).

I've started a discussion on the talk page there, requesting to rename the basketball player page to Chris Mullin (basketball), and make the Chris Mullin page a disambiguation page with equal representation to both of them.

Arguments raised against my proposal:

• The basketball player has more views.

My main argument for the move:

• The basketball player gets most of his views from the US, while outside the US he's hardly known, and in Britain itself the politician-author Chris Mullin is much better known.

I invite you guys to take part in the discussion.

The link: Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August_2020.

Thank you! Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Head of state

Might be good to have more eyes on Head of state, as persistent editors from (possible) Japan & South Korea, seem determined to push their PoV edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

Just a head up for the participates of the WikiProject Politics, Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Assistance requested at Dario Hunter

Hunter is a candidate for President. An editor contends that he has been nominated by the Progressive Party, though no proof has been given that said party exists. There is an ongoing discussion about this on the article's talk page.--User:Namiba 14:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with article

In case anyone is interested, I have submitted a draft article about a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury over at AfC Draft:Bimal_V._Patel. I have a COI, so I'd appreciate any input and/or an AfC review. Capecodcontributor (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

requested edit in Template Infobox election

There is a request to show results of current election before previous results in the elections template. Currently previous results are shown before current ones (See Template_talk:Infobox_election#Request_to_show_results_of_election_before_previous_results). It would be good to know what everyone thinks of the proposed change. Vpab15 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussions at Germania

New perspectives and old issues needs comments. Please join at the talk-page Talk:Germania. Sechinsic (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Congressional insider trading scandal

The article 2020 Congressional insider trading scandal is problematic. I wrote a note on the article's talk page in July but no one has responded. I wonder if the whole thing should just be redirected to the relevant section on Richard Burr's page? The DOJ investigated and cleared Loeffler, Inhofe, and Feinstein. An investigation into Burr is ongoing. The section on this at Jim Inhofe is almost certainly a WP:BLP violation or at the least extremely out of date. The section at Kelly Loeffler is fine IMO. Meanwhile, there's nothing about this at Dianne Feinstein. There's a section on that article's talk page arguing against including related content due to WP:NOTNEWS. The 2020 Congressional insider trading scandal article also randomly includes an allegation against U.S. House member Greg Gianforte by a GOP opponent (sourced to The Raw Story). Is this article just a place to stick every allegation of insider trading against members of Congress in 2020? It's not clear. Should I take it to AFD, redirect, something else? Thanks for any thoughts. Marquardtika (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Issue One

Noticed that a lot of leads in the articles for retired U.S. politicians mention they're "part of the ReFormers Caucus at Issue One". Take Bob Clement for example. These seem to be added mostly by User:Danhens and then by certain IPs (see here for example). "Danhens" seems to be Daniel Hensel who seems to work for Issue One. In any case these don't belong in the lead - maybe in the body of the article, but even then. It's obvious self-promotion. Kingofthedead (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Agree this shouldn't be in the lead of any article and there do seem to be WP:COI concerns. Marquardtika (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield § Discussion on whether cited material should be included or excluded

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield § Discussion on whether cited material should be included or excluded. Peaceray (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Aryanization compared to Affirmative action

Zezen[1] and GizzyCatBella[2] are comparing the anti-racist Affirmative action policy to the Nazi policy of Aryanization. This is deplorable, and Wikipedia should stop this!

[Anon]

---

FYI, we are not. A vengful SPA with ASPERSIONS, afraid of even pinging.

Zezen (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see the relevance as far as inclusion in a "See also" section, given that it is still a policy of favoring individuals with respect to opportunities based solely on their perceived or presumed ancestry. BD2412 T 16:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• No way, that would be a vile and completely undue comparison that trivialises both the crimes of the Nazis and the injustices experienced by Black Americans. Drawing such a false equivalence is plain wrong in every sense and logically fallacious. It should be noted that Zezen once received a block for edit warring over a similar false equivalence - both false equivalences come across as racist. Bacondrum (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Is right-wing a specific position or a broad term?

Is the term right-wing

• A: A general catch-all term referring to all parties on the right of the Left-right spectrum or
• B: A specific position, like far-right, right-libertarian, conservative, centre-right etc?

Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

B: A position in of itself. There is clearly something between the centre-right and the far-right. Just using these two labels to try and identify the broad political spectrum of the right would be highly inadequate in so far as how far apart most of those that use the centre-right are (usually standard conservatives), and the far-right, such as neo-Nazi's and neo-fascists. There are clearly variants that fall between these that are further to the right than the centre-right, but not far enough to be considered far-right (often encompassing nationalist parties). Helper201 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Both. Depends on context. Probably more often A. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ReconditeRodent. In your opinion what is the specific position? ie. centre-right?

Mostly A, I'd say. Only useful on Wikipedia when distinguishing between a binary choice, as in in U.S. politics, Democrats tend to be left-wing and Republicans tend to be right-wing; or when a precise understanding is not necessary for the point being made, such as though he later became a spokesman for the Communist Party, he began his career as a speechwriter for right-wing politicians. The reason is that to many people, right-wing encompasses all of the descriptions you listed as "specific positions" -- many people would call a far-right politician "right-wing"; a right-libertarian politician "right-wing"; a conservative politician "right-wing"; even a center-right politician "right-wing" (and if the speaker is a leftist, s/he may also describe centrists and center-leftists as "right wing"). This renders the term useless as a precise description. Using it to denote only right-of-center, left-of-fringe views would be confusing to those who associate the term with this wide spectrum (or, on the other hand, those who associate it only with the extreme right). Also, there's the fact that right-wing, on its own, doesn't really give the reader much insight on what the person believes (nor does "conservative"). Someone described as "center-right" probably doesn't hold any extremist views. Someone described as "far-right" is probably defined by several extreme beliefs. Someone on the continuum between those positions -- regardless of whether you call it unadorned "right wing" or "conservative" or any other vague term -- will hold a mixture of extreme and mainstream views, but precisely which views are extreme and which are mainstream means all the difference. "Centrist socially and right-wing fiscally" is very different from "Centrist fiscally and right-wing socially"; if describing a person, best to use a more precise term such as "nationalist", "monarchist", "(moderate) libertarian", "economic conservative", "social conservative", etc. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A As can be demonstrated at the Alternative for Germany (AfD) article: the news outlet The Independent for example is listed as a citation for the claim that the party is right-wing using this article [3] - the news outlet describes AfD as "Germany’s eurosceptic right-wing party" but if you look at the overall reportage covering AfD by The Independent it is clear that the outlet is using the term in a catch-all sense as they refer to the party as far-right in almost all their reportage on the subject: [4] "the national party and voted with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) to install a state premier from a third party.", [5] "‘As long as the AfD is legal, racism is legal’: Far-right party condemned as Germany struggles to combat extremism", [6]"Far-right AfD surge to second place in German state election, beating Merkel's party", [7]"in the state parliament with the backing of the centre-right CDU and the far-right AfD" and "The event is significant because it is the first time the two parties of the centre have violated the boundaries of the so-called "cordon sanitaire" around working with the AfD and other far-right parties", [8] "gaining support from right-wing organisations, including Germany’s far-right party AfD party" you can see how right-wing is used in a general sense and far-right in an explicit one, it is also the more widely used descriptor. Many of these articles use both terms. It's clearly a catch-all term for the right-wing of the left-right spectrum, not a specific position on the right-wing of the spectrum. Bacondrum (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Right and left are both relative and absolute terms, and the meaning should be clear by the context in which they are used. That's why it makes no sense to put them in the info-box of political parties. Note though that the word right is part of the terms used to describe some ideologies, such as far right and right-wing populist. That usage came about by default, because there were no other terms to describe them, unlike liberals, conservatives, etc. TFD (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Numerous alternatives exist, usually developed by those who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum that is used through out the world on mass.--Moxy 🍁 23:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly B I would say it is mostly used as a specific term for parties that are located between the centre-right and far-right (such as the Democratic Unionist Party). However, it can be used as a catch-all term when referring to a group of parties. Perhaps worth noting that there are some editors who have deliberately confused the distinction to Wikilawyer that parties described as both left/right-wing and far-left/right are only the latter because the former covers the latter rather than being distinct. Number 57 10:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Number 57, I don't think there's any wikilawyering going on, it's a reasonable view to take. I've seen no evidence that right-wing is not a catch all term, but I have seen evidence that it is, like the way it is used in this article "gaining support from right-wing organisations, including Germany’s far-right party AfD party" I tend to think people are using catch all terms like left-wing and right-wing in a partisan manner to soften the image of radical ideologies and parties. Sources do not appear to be disputing the position of parties described as "left-wing to far-left" and "right-wing to far-right", instead we are given a broad catch all term which is then used as a specific position in an attempt to create the impression that there is a dispute about ideological positions when in-fact there is none. Bacondrum (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what is happening now; I am talking about discussions I have been involved with in the past. And as I said, it can refer to both, but is more often used for the specific position (when referring to individual parties) than the generic side of politics (when referring to groups of parties). One would say that the FDP, CDU and AfD are the right-wing parties in Germany, but if describing the CDU as an individual organisation, I would call them centre-right rather than right-wing. Number 57 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

B reflects that way that term is actually used. For the meaning of A I believe that most would say "right-of-center".Truth Is King 24 (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• What's the context? It's a cluster property of different ideologies that have related and overlapping ways of viewing the world. I don't see the reason for this discussion. Certainly a person or group can be described as right-wing, if that is the question. — Bilorv (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm conscerned that editors are using catch all terms like right wing and left wing to soften the image of far-right and far-left parties in a tendentious manner, deliberately misrepresenting what is being said. For example this article is used to cite the claim "right wing to far-right" at the AfD article [9] but looking at DW's wider reporting this claim seems to be used in a catch all sense and has been cherry picked...a brief look at the outlets wider reportage demonstrates that the source in-fact describes the party as far-right [10], [11], [12], [13] this list could go on for pages. Generally speaking this outlet repeatedly refers to them explicitly as far-right and clearly uses right-wing in a general sense. I don't think rihgt wing is a specific position, but it is being used as though there is a disputer about the parties ideological position when in fact there is none, it's just a catch all term for those on the right broadly speaking. Bacondrum (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, when "right wing" is used, its meaning is only clear in context. For example, "The UK Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a center-right coalition." Or, "Elizabeth May stayed in office with the supported of the right-wing Democratic Unionist Party." Or, "the BNP became the most successful right-wing party in the UK since the British Union of Fascists." It's similar to the term intelligent: my dog was intelligent, Einstein was intelligent. TFD (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Depends on the context – I second everything Bilorv said. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Depends on context: All far-right parties are right-wing, but that's often not the most useful thing to say about them, for the same reason it wouldn't be useful to describe them as merely having a political position at all. In general we should try to position parties as precisely as possible when we can. Loki (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type for removal from FL-Class

This is a formality as the list was already merged with another article and is a redirect now. Yet, I will leave the required message:

I have nominated List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gehenna1510 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Michael Kilby

Hi. Just over from WP:CRIC. I've just created a stub on Michael Kilby, an MEP in the 1980s who also played a bit of minor counties cricket. Leaving him here for someone politically minded to expand! Cheers. StickyWicket (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

FLRC for List of presidents of Portugal

I have nominated List of presidents of Portugal for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarodalien (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about an RfC on Infobox Chinese at Democratic Progressive Party

There is an RfC here about whether Democratic Progressive Party should be one of the MOS:CHINA exceptions to including both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese in the {{Infobox Chinese}}. The participation of interested editors is appreciated. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Ylva Johansson

Cf. Talk:Ylva_Johansson#"Pro-immigration"?. --Dans (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RFC at Category:Communism

Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Vice President of Iraq

Anybody know the status of Vice President of Iraq? Does the office(s) still exists. There's a lot of conflicting info on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: lede of French Revolution

An Rfc concerning the lede of French Revolution is under discussion at Talk:French Revolution#rfc_CF45697. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

TERF has an RFC

TERF has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Loki (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Cultural exchange, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is 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 00:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Peer Review Request - Draft:Christopher Hollins

Hello, I am wondering if you would be interested in re-reviewing [Draft: Christopher Hollins]. It is about an American politician who is leading the charge in making sure all Harris County, Texans are able to vote by mail in the upcoming election. Harris County is a major county to watch because it is slated as a County that could determine whether Texas goes red or blue in November 2020 and Mr. Hollins' work will be instrumental in the outcome. He recently appeared on VICE, and has recently appeared on MSNBC and CNN in the coming daysBostickLaw (talk)BostickLaw (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I just looked and I think there is more than enough coverage to justify an article. I am going to create one. I hope I am not stepping on any toes. I will just copy some of the material from the draft with the best sources and use WP:NPOV. I have zero COI with the subject. Never heard of the guy before and haven't lived in Texas for years. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI. I used the WP:RS from Draft:Christopher Hollins to create Christopher Hollins. There is coverage of him in Wall Street Journal, NPR, and CNN, and plenty of Texas and Houston coverage too. I think it is safe to say he is sufficiently notable for an article. I changed language to make it more WP:NPOV and commented out the sections that I did not have time to review. Some of those sections might be okay or have material that can be save, but probably would need to be rewritten in WP:NPOV voice and will need to include material that is not flattering to the subject, which I believe the original draft failed to do. 07:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's now at Christopher G. Hollins for disambig reasons WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

When's the best time to remove the Current events tab?

Basically title. Starzoner (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election § Now that it's November, when should we move?. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Infobox officeholder successor

There is an RfC about whether the |successor= parameter of {{Infobox officeholder}} should be added immediately after the article's subject loses re-election, or wait until the successor takes office. Interested parties may participate at: Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Interim use of successor=. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Kagame

I have nominated Paul Kagame 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of public health advisories/orders/warnings/bulletins/recommendations

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Categorization of public health advisories/orders/warnings/bulletins/recommendations
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"Silence implies consent" / "Qui tacet consentire videtur"

I'm looking at creating a page for the phrase or political notion that "silence implies consent." Currently the English phrase "silence implies consent" (and "silence means consent") redirect to the page on silence procedure, a bureaucratic method for formal settings, while the Latin phrase, "Qui tacet consentire videtur", redirects to a list of Latin phrases, which in turn links readers around to the silence procedure page. There seems not nearly enough about the phrase itself and its history, nor about its usage in colloquial settings, or in political history, especially for how often I hear the term or idea referenced, especially in a political sense. (These certainly aren't the most authoritative sources, but it seems likely there's more out there.) I'm no expert on this sort of thing, and I could certainly use help, but I'm also not sure if this is exactly the project to ask about it. — HTGS (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hasekura Tsunenaga FAR

I have nominated Hasekura Tsunenaga 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. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: Justice Party (United States) and Rocky Anderson

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article Justice Party (United States) be merged into the article Rocky Anderson. And one or both of those articles is within the scope of this WikiProject. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Rocky Anderson. Thank you!

--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion concerning articles about elections in the Dutch Caribbean

I'd like to draw your attention to a discussion going on at WikiProject Elections and Referendums concerning a proposed re-organization of articles about the island council and electoral college elections in the Caribbean Netherlands and, formerly, the Netherlands Antilles. Feel free to contribute » here « ― Ætoms ^[talk] 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

fAR notice

I have nominated European Commission 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. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Zients page

Hi everybody! See this https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/wikipedia-page-bidens-new-covid-czar-scrubbed-442735

Some stuff at Jeff Zients may need to be restored. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• ANI link WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Rebuilding the list of landslide victories

A few days ago, @Frickeg deleted the entire list of landslide victories at the Landslide victory article. This was only the second time (or so) the list has been deleted due to a lack of citations. I have decided to start up some work on a third iteration of the list in a sandbox here, this time with citations of reliable sources explicitly labelling elections as landslides being a requirement. Anyone interested may contribute to this draft as well. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

US cabinet picks

Something wrong here folks. Antony Blinken has Nominee-designate, while Lloyd Austin has Nominee. Coordination is required. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dictator

Recently the Dictator page has acquired a list of dictators with a few hundred modern names. Many are without reference some have footnotes with a rational but no references. For such a subjective issue this is below the standards needed. There don't seem to be many editors raising questions and I think the page could do with some more eyeballs. --Salix alba (talk): 17:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's an exercise in tendentious original research, since there are different criteria and different experts could come to different conclusions. The original and most limited definiton is "a person granted absolute emergency power." (Webster's)[14] Most authoritarian leaders don't meet all these criteria, and so while some experts will call them dictators, others will not. Some Middle Eastern kings for example have absolute power, but it's permanent rather than emergency power. So they are more likely to be referred to as absolute monarchs rather than dictators. TFD (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of them are leaders of one-party states, but I think in some cases (for example Czechoslovakia or East Germany) those individuals were not necessarily all powerful (it was a party dictatorship than an individual one), so their inclusion is improper. It might be better to have a list of dictatorships, as the article itself states that dictatorships can be either run by an individual or a small clique. Number 57 18:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But the Communist model doesn't neatly fit into the classical paradigm of dictatorship. Dictators took power in order to preserve the status quo and relinquished power once the emergency was over. It's closer to the concept of tyranny, where a leader usurps legitimate authority by making an appeal to the lower classes. TFD (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Stealth conservative

This little stub was created 15 years ago and needs a lot of work. Please help if you can. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Administrative divisions has been nominated for merging to Category:Types of country subdivisions

Category:Administrative divisions has been nominated for merging to Category:Types of country subdivisions. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 17:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Politician

Does articles on Politicians fall under the scope of this project? --Walrus Ji (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: Yes, as well as under the Politics and Government Work Group of WikiProject Biography. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

MJL, Thank you. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrote large section for 1660 state of emergency in denmark

1660 state of emergency in Denmark - I have written a lot here and added pictures and sources. The only thing I can't find is much discussion about the events surrounding the meeting of the estates in 1660 itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RugnirViking (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC

User:Pretzel butterfly has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for royal assent

I have nominated Royal assent 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. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV issues on wiki with regards to politics might interest fellow followers of this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:"Infobox member of the Knesset"

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox officeholder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Latinos for Trump

New stub Latinos for Trump proposed for merge. Article improvements and/or discussion comments welcome. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Scottish Parliament

I have nominated Scottish Parliament 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. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Policy question on successors in infoboxes

Is it a newer policy that we shouldn't add successors to the infobox prior to the current occupant leaving? I've noticed some editors commenting out "Jon Ossoff (elect)" and "Raphael Warnock (elect)" on David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler's pages, and I feel I remember adding the successor with either "elect" or "designate" as appropriate was pretty standard, and I'm certain I've seen it for other offices this cycle, e.g. governors and row offices. Just looking for guidance. Nevermore27 (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed. An RFC at Village Pump (proposals) Archive 175 at the top, resulted in don't show successors-to-be. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting RfC closure for Brexit Party

If there are any uninvolved admins reading, I'm requesting closure for the Brexit Party/Reform UK naming RfC here: Talk:Brexit_Party#RfC_regarding_article_split. I did submit a request at WP:RFCL but there's quite a backlog and some RfCs have been on there for up to 2 months. — Czello 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Color shading in election tables

I've noticed in several of the 2020 elections in the US the practice of shading a line of the results tables with the color of the winning party, for example here. I think it's not a good practice, and should be halted before it expand. First, there's no need to highlight this much the winning party. It's already on the top line, and highlighted by being in bold. Then there's no need to highlight the party's color, it's already show in a specific color bar on the left. There's no reason to do it even more. Meanwhile, adding a color under important text to be read is making it increasingly difficult to read. Here it already is with a black text on blue democrat win, but it's worse with a republican black on red or a libertarian black on yellow. So, as far as I can see, there's clear negatives with no benefits that aren't already done. I would like to discuss it here to see if we can agree on not using such shading?--Aréat (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aréat: I have not noticed that this was an expanding practice. BWellsOdyssey, why do you think it should be added? –MJL ‐Talk‐^🤶 18:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good idea. The colour in the left-most column of the table should be enough. Number 57 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan either. ~ HAL333 04:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of party shading for election results is used to highligh which part of an election a specific party has the most in. Whether that part is the most votes, highest percentage, and/or seats is relevant to be shaded in and not just rely on bolding of numbers. For example, in the 2016 Illinois Senate election, Republicans won 2 seats while Democrats excelled elsewhere in votes across all districts and in vote percentage. Simple bolding would be difficult in showing this change. This is especially helpful in upper house elections where even though one party might have the most votes across all districts, they still lose seats from individual districts.

I do not see an issue with the text over colored spaces. If the colors were a much darker shade, then yes, I would agree in the difficulty seeing said text. However, I have not had an issue being able to clearly see the text over a blue or red background. I went the extra step to see if anyone with colorblindness would have an issue in clearly seeing the numbers and found a light background color for protanopia, deutanopia, and tritanopia easily distinguished from the black text. Those with achromatopsia would have trouble as both appear the same color, but the side text dictating which party each group of numbers are for help distinguish the data. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aréat: Just so you see BWellsOdyssey's response. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed indeed. @BWellsOdyssey: Well, I still don't see how it isn't redundant. I understand the argument about making it clearer for the reader when a party win the votes, while another win more seats. We usually don't need such coloring, though. See 2019 Canadian federal election for example. But even if we do here, I don't see the point of the color shading if there's already bolding. Let's say the Dems in that Illinois senate election had won most seat, but got less votes than the GOP. Then there would be the votes and percentages of the GOP in bold, and the Seats of the Dems in bold. It would already be clearly highlighted. Sorry, but I really don't see the point of the color. Isn't the bolding enough?--Aréat (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

High level of vandalism on political articles simply not being reverted

The maintenence on some US politics-themed articles is all over the place lately, where IPs and clearly spammy users (make an account, make the same edits over and over regardless of reasons explained or being previously reverted before disappearing) and nothing is seemingly being done to moderate the articles back to proper standing. On Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign for instance, edits like this that are single posts from new editors before they forever disappear https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=1000742857&oldid=1000542042 are being allowed to stand, while shit like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign&diff=1002318834&oldid=1002122291 is only being partially reverted, to the point where a top of the intro that said:

"The 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign was a re-election campaign for the 2020 United States presidential election by President of the United States Donald Trump, who took office on January 20, 2017."

now says:

"The 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign was an unsuccessful re-election campaign."

And it's not being changed back, despite there being no consistency with presenting such articles like this on previous presidential campaigns like Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. Not even Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign starts off with the equivalent that would be "was a successful election campaign"! Yet the obvious vandalism hasn't been reverted back.

Then on articles like Statehood movement in the District of Columbia we have IPs straight up deleting multiple paragraphs of reliably sourced information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statehood_movement_in_the_District_of_Columbia&diff=999117804&oldid=999117634 and nobody is putting it back! And this edit was made almost 20 days ago now!

What's going on? Is too much simply slipping through the cracks? Is there a way to track or report vandalism across all of these articles so that an automod or bot can revert them? Can we make some kind of space here or somewhere where we can report these types of instances to a group of editors where one may then go and revert them? Otherwise if just one or two editors pick up all the slack to clean all these articles up, they'll inevitably find themselves engaged in constant edit wars and edit summary battles that could then lead to bans or sanctions and the like. Davefelmer (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: as long as the pages are unprotected, or you have the user rights to edit protected pages, you are welcome to revert such edits yourself if you think they are vandalism/disruptive editing (see H:RV and WP:BRD for more). If you think that the pages need protecting, please visit WP:RFPP. Also, comments such as these should be made at the relevant articles' talk pages, as that is a better place for discussions such as these. Seagull123 Φ 16:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Bob McEwen 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. Hog Farm _Talk 01:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Improving List of electoral systems by country

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of electoral systems by country about improving the format and quality of this list, which may interest some watchers of this page. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Call for fellow drafters

• Wikipedia:Notability (politics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have had a long term project to expand WP:POLOUTCOMES into a genuine notability guideline. Once there is a consensus for Politicians, I'll write something for political parties, elections, campaigns, and government agencies following a similar process. Anyone want to help? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Prime Ministers listed in the infobox of Opposition leaders

Why are prime ministers usually listed in the infobox of leaders of the opposition? Opposition leaders don't work for prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I think the logic would be that it provides knowledge of who they're opposing exactly, but it is a bit odd. We certainly wouldn't do the reverse, at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it's quite odd. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sharif Sheikh Ahmed

There's a disagreement on what leadimage to use for this politician, with editwarring and stuff. Your opinion is welcome at Talk:Sharif_Sheikh_Ahmed#WP:LEADIMAGE Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Rfc notice for 2020–21 women's strike protests in Poland

Invitation to participate and comment at Talk:2020–21 women's strike protests in Poland#Undue weight from weak source. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Problematic user

Hello, I would like to report SpaceSandwich activity on WikiProject Politics articles. Part of his edits are vandalism: he removes sourced text by arbitrarily deciding that the sources are "unreliable" and "biased" (claiming supposed lack of neutrality) but without consent or discussion, skipping procedures, removing or adding terminology as he likes. Also, there have been cases of personal attacks and insults - the last one, just than 10 minutes ago. Check out his talk for further analysis which dates back to July 2020.

I trust in a clear stance, to prevent him from continuing with his vandalism. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, he is trying to obscure me. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You should take your issue to WP:ANI. No one here can help you.--User:Namiba 15:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just fyi Lone Internaut , the user has been blocked. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it. Thanks for the information. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of autonomous areas by country for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Best, CMD (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

British Prime Ministers bios & capitalising

A dispute has developed at James Callaghan bios, concerning capitalisation of political offices. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A further dispute has developed at the Callaghan article, concerning succession boxes. This related to all British prime minister bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed that Clandestine press of the French Resistance be renamed to Underground media in German-occupied France. Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

List of left and far-left parties in Europe

Hi. I came across the article List of left and far-left parties in Europe, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, and it's in dire need of some attention. The main issue is that it's terribly outdated; if even prominent parties like Podemos and Syriza are missing, I can only imagine how many other newer parties are missing. Another issue is that many sources are years old, which is an issue as parties can change their ideology. I'll see what I can do myself - I already removed a nonsensical column that tried to shoehorn every party into one of the three categories "centre-left", "left-wing" or "far-left" - but I think something of a more organized effort would do wonders to get this list to an acceptable state. Lennart97 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any point to it? There are probably thousands of parties that could be included on such a list. Personally I'd suggest deleting it. Number 57 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've considered that, and I really wouldn't be sad to see it go, either. But are there any convincing arguments for deletion? I do think it definitely passes WP:NLIST. As for the thousands of parties that could be included, maybe a simple inclusion criterium (for example, "must have won seats in a national parliament") would suffice. Lennart97 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: So are there any convincing arguments for deletion? It wasn't a rhetorical question :) Lennart97 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I just think it's pointless, and I can't really see how it meets the NLIST criteria. Number 57 21:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The rest of city councils

You guys need to add the rest of the city councils in the United States. Arek333 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arek333: Are you volunteering? Peaceray (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Les Nouveaux Démocrates (French party) article name

Thoughts please --- Should I call the article in English wikipedia on Les Nouveaux Démocrates Les Nouveaux Démocrates or The New Democrats or The New Democrats (France)? New Democrats are a faction of the US Democratic party. Newystats (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Seem to me it would be better to be consistent with The Republicans (France), so the latter. --Aréat (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect English language sources would use The New Democrats, but perhaps this is a bit crystal. LREM is still referred to by its French name (or just its acronym) in English media, although it's a bit harder to translate. CMD (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at List of political parties in France, the only ones left untranslated are LREM and La France Insoumise, and indeed it's not a coincidence that those two are the only ones that are not easily translatable. That suggests that New Democrats is the way to go here. Also, I'd pick New Democrats (France) over The New Democrats as the latter is too ambiguous. Lennart97 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Served as" vs. "was"

There are discussion, regarding the choice of words "served as" vs. "was" in reference to an office holder's term of office at: Talk:Calvin Coolidge#"Served as" vs. "was" and at Talk:Donald Trump#Lead sentence proposal. Perhaps members of this project could come to a consensus on which approach is preferred. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Served as.. - Why you ask? Because each former US president, is still the #th president of the United States. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Divided region for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Divided region is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divided region until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CMD (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Succession boxes of US party nominees.

IMHO, we should delete the following succession boxes out of bios:

• presidential nominee
• vice presidential nominee
• gubernatorial nominee
• lieutenant gubernatorial nominee
• Senatorial nominee
• House nominee
• etc etc.

These are not political offices. So what say any of you? GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is certainly a point that seems to have a basis, because you're right, those are not political offices as far as I'm aware. However, I also think noting that someone is a presidential nominee or so forth is still something that could be helpful and noteworthy on Wikipedia. But it shouldn't be listed under a political office. Perhaps a section entitled "Nomination for President" or whatever? LocalPunk (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete needless page clutter when they aren't even offices. Any detail on unsuccessful nominations is better discussed within article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Not needed. ~ HAL333 03:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep They might not be political offices, but they are party "positions" (hence why it's labeled party political office), and I think their succession is still notable information. For example, neither Humphrey nor McGovern became president, but I still think many readers would want to know that McGovern followed Humphrey as Democratic nominee, and the succession box is useful for that. Sudonymous (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete — nominations are not important enough to justify using up the prize screen real estate of an infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  I assume you mean succession box, which are at the bottom of those bios. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I misread it and thought we were talking about the predecessor/successor part of the infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the clutter. Having boxes for non-offices such as these is what leads to the boxes being collapsed and therefore useless. Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep The succession boxes mark their party positions, and often their sole claim to notability. Dimadick (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Being a nominee is not a party position, though. I also think it is very unlikely that a nominee is known solely for having been nominated. Normally only people who are already notable are nominated for such high offices. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I don't know about that. When you start looking past the major two American political parties, it starts to become an even larger part of a person's notability. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep at least presidential and gubernatorial nominee succession boxes. Though not a governmental office, being a D or R nominee for national or state chief executive is definitely a political office. Regardless of what the DNC/RNC/state committee organization flowchart might say, for the duration of the campaign, the nominee is the de facto leader of the party. His or her resume, statements and beliefs are seen as representing what the party stands for, even more so than the official platforms that nobody reads. To click through the progression "George W. Bush ... John McCain ... Mitt Romney .. Donald Trump" is just as much a history-via-biography lesson as "Bush ... Obama ... Trump ... Biden". Speaking as a reader, I do find these particular succession boxes useful. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 04:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC) to add "nominee" in first sentence to clarify)

It's the "nominee" boxes, I'm suggesting should be deleted. Not the "offices". GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I read your proposal. My argument is that being a major-party nominee for a chief executive post is a de facto political office. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Planning on cut/pasting this RFC over to WP:Village Pump (proposals) for more viewership/participation. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Sudonymous, these are party positions. Some people are notable for being nominees. While being a nominee doesn't guarantee notability, that is often what people are notable for (Marquita Bradshaw). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think listing candidacies in the infobox is particularly helpful, and I think they lead to more confusion than they are worth. If a person being a nominee is a reason why a person is notable, that can be mentioned in the lead, even the lead sentence if that is why they are primarily notable. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep being the nominee of a political party is a political position, so the nomination is poorly constructed in the first place. While a nomination is not the same as an office in government, the use of succession boxes does significantly aid navigation, which is why they exist in the first place.--User:Namiba 18:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Sudonymous. This change would disrupt readability. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Hugo Black

Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Grievance politics

I'm quite surprised that grievance politics is a redlink. There don't seem to be any immediate slam-dunk redirect targets; would anyone like to write a page for it or suggest a possible target? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Coincidentally, I noticed this almost simultaneously, and started to form a skeleton article offline, but then discovered it was covered. Let me go find my notes, maybe I wrote down what the other name is. Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I tacked my standard boilerplate draft header/footer onto my notes, and pushed it out as Draft:Grievance politics. This is rougher than my usual starting point for a Draft, but I thought rather than lose what I'd done, better to save it/make it available, in case anyone wanted to look into it, and since you expressed an interest, I thought you might want to, so here it is fwiw/ I have no idea if I'll come back to this or not, so feel free to slash and burn, or whatever you like. Still looking for the existing article; even if I find it, don't worry about duplicate effort; I remember now what surprised me about it: it's a one liner, and maybe had a reference or max two, but not more. This draft lacks a definition/lead sentence, but has plenty of scaffolding, if you feel like playing with it. ttfn, Mathglot (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, I'm unlikely to expand it personally, but maybe someone else will see this and take it up; I also added it to the requested list. Editing Rush Limbaugh led me to realize the omission, but I'm a little nervous to link to here from that talk page haha. Failing everything, I support Wikipedia:Make stubs. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Yeah, good point; I'll add him to "See also". Also I found the article I was thinking of: it's Politics of resentment. A lot more refs than I remembered; maybe that's "insurance" against Afd or something. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see that's a relatively recent creation by Buidhe. I'll redirect grievance politics there, and I'd suggest expanding it with some of the material from your draft. There's also a plausible case for moving the page to grievance politics we could discuss. I'm going to wikilink from Limbaugh and a few other pages, so beware of potential vandalism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, I always try to add an abundance of RS refs to any new articles I create so that no one will think it's non-notable. I also like creating lists of sources for some reason :) (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Augusto Pinochet

Hello, there's a discussion going on about removing an honorific from the Infobox at Augusto Pinochet. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Honorific in Infobox. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed at Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign

This article, particularly before my recent changes to it, struck me as under-detailed and rather unbalanced. Much of it read to me like an article focusing more on controversies of the campaign than on anything else about the campaign. C'mon, this could be an important article. Warren was the second-best performing woman ever to run for a U.S. presidential nomination, and was a one-time frontrunner in 2016. The article on the subject should be far superior than this. SecretName101 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether there was an attempted coup in the US in January 2021

I've started an RFC on a related template regarding whether the USA events of January 2021 should be listed as an attempted coup on some templates. Please comment on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pro-ROC camp (Hong Kong)#Requested move 16 February 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cabinet posts and committee chairmanships in infoboxes

I've started a discussion regarding the listing of cabinet posts and committee memberships in infoboxes at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Test_cases_using_subterm_and_suboffice_fields_for_cabinet/committee_posts - comments welcome. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox

Participation welcome at Talk:Nazi Germany#RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC CPAC stage Odal shape compared to Nazi symbol

A RfC has been opened at Talk:Conservative_Political_Action_Conference#RfC_CPAC_stage_Odal_shape. The question is, "Should the article mention that some sources noted the CPAC stage had an appearance similar to a Odal and that this symbol was used by some Nazi units?" Springee (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Slavery in ancient Greece

I have nominated Slavery in ancient Greece for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on description of Southern strategy in lead of Republican Party

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States) § RfC: Southern strategy description in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Privilege of peerage at FAR

I have nominated Privilege of peerage 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. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Revolutionary Communist Council of India

The article Revolutionary Communist Council of India has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable political movement with one reference. The article fails to mention any details or explain why this movement was notable and also provides that the movement "might" have existed in the 1970s.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theprussian (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Bricker Amendment 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC))

Municipal government in Canada merge into local government in Canada

Hi all, started a discussion in Talk:Local government in Canada about merging the municipal government article into it. Posted on WikiProject Canada last night, thought I'd include in some of the other projects linked on talk page as well. Cheers, WildComet (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Charles Edward Magoon at FAR

I have nominated Charles Edward Magoon 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. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Sviatoslav I 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. Hog Farm _Talk 23:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I’m a uni student who is new to wiki editing. I am working on improving the article on Juren, which is a Chinese official rank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juren I think that may be relevant to WikiProject Politics, but I’m not too sure. Is someone able to check for me, and if it is relevant to this WikiProject, could that article be added to this WikiProject? Thank you Qwj5377 (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Dalee article to this WikiProject

Hi, I am a uni student who is new to wiki editing. I am editing the Revive Chinese Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revive_China_Society Thank youDalee2200 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Newer discussion at Talk:Second Cold War

Newer discussion: Talk:Second Cold War#Term or event? --George Ho (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Members of this Project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Theramenes 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. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

human

Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the first sentence at Uyghur genocide

There is an RfC at Talk:Uyghur genocide#RfC on the first sentence of the lead that is relevant to this WikiProject. Your participation is welcome! — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Watchers for US candidate endorsement pages

We could use some more watchers at pages related to endorsements of candidates in US politics. Over some weeks someone has been adding sources to pages like List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements and List of Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign endorsements that inflate the appearance of endorsements by listing vaguely supportive tweets as though they were endorsements, which was directly deprecated in the discussion WP:ENDORSERFC and explicitly discussed on those talk pages. This went on for more than a week with no reversions or comments, so clearly these pages could use more watchers. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 GAR

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CMD (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

$ git clone -b boilerplate https://github.com/enkaypeter/cloudrun-node-api-tutorial.git
$ cd cloudrun-node-api-tutorial && yarn

# Pull in the official lightweight version of Node 12. FROM node:12-slim # Create and change to the app directory. WORKDIR /app COPY package.json . COPY yarn.lock . # Install production dependencies. RUN yarn install --production # Copy local codebase into the container image COPY . . # Compile down to ES5 with Babel RUN yarn build-server # Remove unused src directory RUN rm -rf src/ # Start the api server CMD [ "yarn", "start" ]

$ gcloud builds submit --tag gcr.io/PROJECT-ID/node-api-tut

Chinglove (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Abolish Wales

I would appreciate a third opinion on the wording of a lead at Talk:Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party#Abolish Wales. Certes (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done The article now seems stable (and Wales was not abolished.) Certes (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

More eyes at social democracy required

For the past few weeks there's been a several edit wars on this article, particularly around the lead. The debate on the talk page is largely between two editors, although a couple of others drift in and out from time to time. I fear another edit war is about to spring up regarding a disagreement on the consensus. It'd be good if more editors could contribute and help establish the lead here. — Czello 14:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No party club articles?

I was surprised to discover just now that neither Democratic club nor Republican club exist, although we do have a few examples of specific clubs such as Pasadena Republican Club and Barack Obama Democratic Club of Upper Manhattan. Am I just looking under the wrong titles, or do we really not have articles about the general concepts? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "party club" is a general concept. In most places it's just the "party". What would you say about it? Here in Seattle we have the King County Democrats and King County Republican Party, organizations for the parties at the legislative district level, and groups like King County Young Democrats, all of which do what your links do to work in activism and elect candidates. However, I just googled and as someone involved I'm surprised to learn there's a Metropolitan Democratic Club of Seattle, which just seems to be an alternative group doing the same of discussions and endorsements that that isn't in the organized structure of the party. So I suppose there could be something about local party organizing, but I'm not sure what you would have specifically about party clubs in general. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

FLR notice

I have nominated List of counties in Kentucky for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Fourth International

I have nominated Fourth International 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. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Report of 1800 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fascism & Liberalism Task Forces?

There are dozens of pages categorized into defunct task force categories that you can see at Special:WantedCategories. Is someone trying to revive these task forces? If so, could you create these categories that pages have been assigned to? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinjiang papers

Hi WikiProject Politics, I've been working on the Xinjiang papers article. Please feel free to make edits or provide feedback on how I can raise my article rating. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and still trying to learn! Thanks. Couchcupcross (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Zangezur Corridor" deletion

There is an interesting discussion on deletion of Zangezur Corridor article, relevant to Armenia-Azerbaijan topic. Members of this Wikiproject are very welcome to participate in the constructive discussion and diversify it. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR for William Goebel

I have nominated William Goebel 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. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Template_talk:Antisemitism_sidebar#On_the_Jewish_Question-BRD

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of interest...

..to the members of this WikiProject can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)