Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Expanding on Measuring Capabilities

I am proposing to add to the article titled Capability Approach, I would like to further contribute to the subsection that covers the measuring of capabilities. The current section needs further explanation for the critique offered by Capabilities Approach of economics-based measures that are used as measures of well-being. These indices, in fact, only offer an indication of possible economic well being that do not account for inequalities such as income distribution. There is quite a bit to be added about the need for such measures and the history behind such measures, which would include the misuse of Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product. Further expansion is also necessary on the move towards alternative measure of wellbeing that better capture the essence of Capabilities. In addition, more information needs to be added because the critique of economics-based measures is an important component of Capabilities Approach. Furthermore, the explanations of the Human Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure, and the Gender-related Development Index are brief and there is potential to make the definitions of these measures as well as the use of the measures and the relationship with Capabilities Approach more clear. I would appreciate any feedback that would improve my proposal and revision of the subsection. I look forward to contributing. LupeAguilera (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Freedom House: Second opinions requested

Please review recent edits at Freedom House.

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

United States State Legislators

Hello all,

It has come to my attention as I was creating pages for US State Senators that another website, ballotpedia.org, already has detailed and well-made articles covering US State legislators. Wikipedia is missing most of these articles. On the ballotpedia site, it says that "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2." I'm not a licensing expert, but if we are allowed to copy the articles, it would save weeks of time of us writing new articles. It would also save even more time if a bot was created to copy their articles over. Let me know what you all think. Thanks, Athleek123 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have looked over the license and we are allowed to copy: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially" Athleek123 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they may allow copying, yes, but that doesn't mean anything if their info isn't from a reliable source. Open Wiki sites like Ballotpedia have User-generated content and aren't bound by Wikipedia's WP:VERIFY. Otherwise, I'm sure a lot of users would have copied them by now. Personally, I wouldn't use ourcampaigns.com either, but that seems to be accepted here with a lot of people, so I haven't pushed that. A lot of the info on Ballotpedia is not cited. Wikipedia needs references.

I would think that if it does actually allow us to use the text and as long as it cites reliable info, we can copy that (making sure to copy the reference info also). But don't use Ballotpedia as a source itself. Besides, Ballotpedia does get a lot of info from Wikipedia as well. You just have to be careful in what you copy/take from it really as they include things that WP wouldn't. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some articles that are very well sourced, like this one: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Christine_Rolfes Athleek123 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some. That article linked looks pretty decent. Again, it's fine to use it to help you create an article or expand one. Just wanted you to know that not everything in the article will be able to just be copy-pasted over directly. If it has reliable sources, then it's ok, I think. Unless anyone else here knows any more about whether that would be WP:COPYVIO or not. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ok Athleek123 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Senate in Missouri, 2012

Hi folks, seeking some advice/opinion. Earlier today an unregistered IP user added a section on "Endorsements" to the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. I'd never seen a section like that on any of the other (admittedly few) similar Wikis I've dealt with or monitored. At present the section only lists one candidate, so it strikes me of a rules vio of some kind. Is there any preexisting precedent? Thanks and have a great Wiki kind of day. Sector001 (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

US Liberalism / Leftism resource

Editors interested in these topics may be interested in the thematic issue of Radical History Review here that deals with this intersection of US liberalism and leftism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Styling

A dispute has come up regarding the styling of political posts which affects a large number of articles and which should be addressed for consistencies sake. Presently there are two popular layouts prevalent among political position lists. A simplistic and subtle approach which presents the color of a politician's party on the left in one bar and has fewer columns such as on the List of Chancellors of Germany article. And another which fills every column with the politician's party color and more columns such as on the President of Moldova article. In the my opinion the former is the better option as it does not impede the viewer's ability to read the text and is less "busy" in general. Opinions on the matter would be appreciated. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The essential point of reference for the use of colour on Wikipedia is WP:COLOR. There it states: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information" (provide a legend) and discusses at length accessability issues. In particular, it emphasises the need for sufficient contrast between colours. Many of the lists designed by Sundostund, e.g. List of Prime Ministers of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and objected to by Producer, e.g. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, fail these test and should be redesigned. The simplest way to achieve compliance with WP:COLOR would probably be to limit colour to a small strip in a row instead of colouring the whole row. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, don't limit yourself to List of Prime Ministers of Saint Kitts and Nevis and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but redesign countless lists of officeholders in which color fills every column with the politician's party color. Believe me, it would be lifetime work. Don't redesign only lists about leaders of Saint Kitts and Bosnia, and leave everything else as it is. Change all of them. How can you say that this color style (which I advocate) breach WP:COLOR if its so widely accepted on WP? Then whole WP breach its own rules. Just see above how many articles use this style, and I listed only some of them. Also, you'll see that this color style don't breach the main point of WP:COLOR - the need for sufficient contrast between colors. Sufficient contrast clearly exist, text is readable and it doesn't hide informations on article in any way. -- Sundostund (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

These changes can be quickly and easily implemented and stating that it is a "lifetime of work" is incredibly poor excuse to keep your style. You've done half the work of finding which ones they are. The prior silence regarding this styling is the weakest form of consensus and in any case consensus is subject to change. Michael Bednarek's suggestion of limiting the color to one strip column is indeed the best way to ensure we comply with WP:COLOR. Other users including Nil Einne pointed out your style adds unnecessary difficulty in reading and therefore breaches WP:ACCESS. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree with Michael's suggestion. The bright red and dark green backgrounds of this list make the text harder to read, and the two blue shades would be difficult to distinguish if they didn't appear so close together in the list. Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, you're wrong if you think that I "done half the work" by listing articles with "my style". I assure you, there are many, many more articles with that style (I listed only some of them). I again say that I think its better style and we should keep it. Coloring the whole row is way better and more visible represent of a politician's party and its ideology than to just squeeze colour to a small strip. If you (or anyone else) want to change it, remember two things: 1) You need consensus from other editors to do that, not unilaterally as you attempted to do on lists of Bosnian leaders, and 2) Change all articles with that color style, not just few of them. I totally agree that consensus is subject to change, but if we change it we must do that comprehensively, not partially. -- Sundostund (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Three editors Michael Bednarek, Khazar2 and myself have formed a consensus and voiced support for using the one colored column solution in these articles. We have noted that your style does not comply with WP:COLOR and causes difficulty in reading the text and thereby violates WP:ACCESS. It is you who failed to reach a consensus at the Saint Kitts and Nevis article and tried to simply push it in, it is you who failed to gain a consensus at the Bosnian leaders articles, and it is you who has now failed to reach it here. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

PRODUCER, I'm not obliged to form a consensus, here or everywhere else. I'm obliged to say my opinion about every issue, and to respect any consensus which is formed during discussion about an issue. If you want to start redesigning color style on all those articles (and many more of them) which I listed, do it. Be prepare to do a lot of work, and remember (I repeat this all time): Change all articles with that color style, not just few of them. I do not own Wikipedia, I'm only an editor who like this place and want to make it better. Again, I firmly believe that color style which I advocate is better than to reduce party color to a small strip. I'll not change my mind, so please stop to attempt that. As for consensus, you tried to completely redesign lists of Bosnian leaders without a single word on talk pages of that articles and tried to simply push it in. That's not acceptable. If I may suggest, return to your "fight" against chetniks, ustase, collaborators, partisans (sorry, I don't know on which side you are in that "struggle"), because its your main activity here to "wage war" on that kind of articles. -- Sundostund (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeat whatever you wish, under no circumstances may you dictate users around. Further personal attacks will be reported. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to dictate anybody, nor I attempted to do so. As I said, only thing I own on WP is my user page. Just make comprehensive redesigning of pages which have "my style" of colors, not partially (on a few pages). Where I personally attacked you!?!? I only summarized your work on WP. -- Sundostund (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As a tangential remark, I would like to remind everyone to please explain your edits. I found this discussion as a result of a change that showed up in my watchlist to List of Prime Ministers of Italy, changing the size by 13K, with no edit summary and no discussion. Running "diff" told me nothing useful. So I reverted the change — who knows what it was about? If I had known that it was just a style issue I probably would have left it alone; few things on Wikipedia interest me much less than the formatting of list-of-prime-minister articles. --Trovatore (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam details an opportunity for experienced Wikipedia editors to have free access to HighBeam Research, an invaluable resource for locating reliable sources for articles and content related to politics as well as other subjects.--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines are needed for political endorsements lists

The lack of consensus on which political endorsements are appropriate for inclusion in WP is leading to a lot of confusion among editors. Take a look, for instance, at the discussions on the Talk page for Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#Out_of_control_endorsements

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#What_is_an_endorsement.3F

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#Political_Activists_vs._Celebrities.2FCommentators

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#Anachronistic_Endorsements.3F

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#Doug_Wead

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#Foreign_endorsements

Can we get a discussion going on what constitutes a political endorsement for WP purposes and on which endorsements are noteworthy enough to be included in WP?

As a starting point, the following should be addressed:

First, there is the issue of what constitutes a political endorsement.

There are some statements that nearly everyone, if not everyone, would accept as clear endorsements. An example would be when the editorial board of a newspaper publishes an article shortly before an election stating that of the candidates seeking office, the board prefers Candidate X and urges readers to vote for Candidate X; or when a retiring elected official holds a press conference together with his chosen successor and urges voters to cast their votes for that person.

There are many other situations in which it is not so clear that a formal endorsement is being made. These are the sorts of cases that can be problematic for WP editors. Current guidelines do not adequately address these situations.

Is casually saying "I agree with a lot of what Candidate X says" an endorsement for office?

Is it an endorsement if the person only makes the statement in question with reluctance (for example, during an interview that is not primarily about the interviewed subject's opinion of the candidates and in which the interviewer must ask repeatedly to extricate that specific information)?

Is saying "I support Candidate X" while simultaneously saying "I support Candidate Y" and "I support Candidate Z" — all of whom are competing for the same seat — an endorsement suitable for inclusion among the endorsements listed in a WP article about a campaign? Or should exclusivity be a requirement for inclusion?

Is making a monetary contribution to a candidate's campaign an act that should qualify as an endorsement for office that is appropriate for listing in WP? (see, for example, http://www.floridalatinconnection.org/2012/02/donny-osmond-helps-out-mitt-romney/, which is cited at Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Endorsements)

Second, there is the issue of whether a person who has some formal connection to the campaign (eg, someone who is described as a "senior adviser" to the campaign) should be listed among individuals making an endorsement for a candidate — or whether the connection is exclusionary due to the conflict of interest. (see, for example, http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/24/ron-paul-campaign-welcomes-constitutional-law-heavyweight-bruce-fein-as-senior-advisor/, which is cited at Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012#cite_ref-BruceFein_203-0) And what are the boundaries, if any, for deciding to exclude an endorser on the basis of being connected to the campaign? Would major financial contributors be acceptable for inclusion, or should they be excluded? Or will it vary case by case?

Third, what are the guidelines for deciding whether a particular endorsement is noteworthy enough (or whether the endorser is notable enough) for inclusion? For example, in the United States, the endorsement that a local schoolboard member or city council member makes for a candidate seeking to be the nation's president would not seem to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in a WP article, even though local newspapers might report on the endorsement. (and yet see, for example, "Frederick County Board of Education Student Membar Neha Kapoor," "Kent County Commissioner William Pickrum," "Bardstown City Council Member Bill Sheckles (D-Nelson)," and "Hamtramck City Councilmember Catrina Stackpoole" all listed at List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements_from_state,_local_and_territory_officials)

Fourth, what should the convention be for handling endorsements made by individuals or groups with whom the candidate or party does not wish to be associated?

Fifth, it may be helpful to spell out what specific rules apply to choosing citations for endorsements, given that they often are made nowadays on blogs, social media sites (eg Facebook), or personal websites. WP:SELFPUB requires that the material involved does not involve claims about a third party, yet political endorsements almost always involve claims about third parties (usually the preferred candidate, and often the rival candidates). For a couple of examples see the citations for Barbara Ehrenreich's and Garrison Keillor's endorsements at List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. And is it sufficient for the WP citation to be to the name of an endorser that is included in a list on a candidate's campaign website?

(Note that I am also posting this to WikiProject US presidential elections Dezastru (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sister project

I have listed three sister projects for the starting of Wikipedia:WikiProject OWS and named this as one. Please feel free to join the project and help build the project, or just help guide in the Wikipedia direct.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Nasheed

Mohamed Nasheed is a former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience and President of Maldives who resigned last month, allegedly at gunpoint; he's also the subject of a major motion picture that's about to get nationwide release in the US. Unfortunately, his article's a bit of a mess. Given the rapidly increasing traffic to it, would anyone be willing to pitch in to help me clean it up? I've got the paragraphs about the resignation improved, but his pre-coup biography is both fascinating and unsourced. Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I was at the article before it became ITN (at my behest if i recall), then the mobs came in..and i lostinrest. But the VP of his would need sprucing too.Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ITNR for elections

Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Bahrain Grand Prix

We need help at 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix in splitting the article in two. How much politics should remain in the main article? 70.49.124.225 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Indophobia

The article is on anti-Indian sentiments across the world, though it doesn't imply so in the lead. Three quick searches using google books, google scholar and google news has shed a completely new light on the subject. There is hardly any use of the term that relates to any of India's neighbors - Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, or Sri lanka. It is a concept from 19th century, and the only significant 20th century use is pertinent to Eastern Africa. Putting together all instances of anti-indian sentiments across South Asia may be an example of WP:SYNTH (there in more reference to Indophobia associated with Papua New Guinea than Bangladesh). Making the collection of those instances the larger part of the article may be an example of WP:UNDUE. The material on those sentiments and instances are good to be merged into individual foreign relation articles. May be this is another misunderstanding like Indosphere. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really, its notable no doubt. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Lanka, Myanmar, (domestically too with Kashmir and elements of the northeast), as well as Fiji, Uganda, etc. There was a paper i once wrote about Indias relations with the Islamic world. The Indo-Pak rivalry shows up in Algeria-Morocco, Malaysia-Indonesia, etc. That could be added. Its of course political there but still. India supported W. Sahara and Algeria in conflcits with morocco and at some point after a rift with Indonesia following the initial NAM creation (dont remember why now...Bandung conference had something too) Pak went closer and Malaysia went towards India (possibly all the tamil votes and HINDRAF along with the Tamil nationalism via DMK).

Dont think theres any mishmash with Indosphere as the Fiji/Uganda bit is outside the ambit of India. But we could add hisory section of gandhi et al in south africa and malaysian sentiment against HINDRAF...at some point in SG too. (though seeing ethnic Chinese in Serangoon for Thaipusam is a clear change ;))Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course anti-Indian sentiments are notable. Very notable. But, the term "Indophobia" hardly applies to any of it. That term is for a particular event in a particular place in a particular time. Not all big mammals are elephants, it is a very particular animal. "Indosphere" on the other hand is a term of lingusitics, and has nothing to do with Indian political influence or anything like it. Misnaming is not an encyclopedic practice, I presume. And, hence this post. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Years in politics articles.

The 2009 in politics, 2010 in politics, 2011 in politics articles need work. I have just now created a stubby 2012 in politics article but it need work. The whole series probably could do with checking over. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally i think it should be deleted as just another list to update with weblog like newspostings and nothing noable. as in half of those ITN-related lists(Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)).

There is a series of articles going back to at least 2001. I think it is worth keeping them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am deeply skeptical about their value to readers. No doubt they provide editors with an opportunity to make ritual edits in multiple articles. bobrayner (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Polling order

In Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#Polling_order, we are having a dispute concerning whether polls should be listed in chronological or reverse-chronological order. I would appreciate any outside input from the broader group of editors who contribute to these articles. Thanks! johnpseudo 16:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Globalization Project Proposal

HI WikiPolitics! I'm writing to inform you of my interest in starting a group that works on articles about globalization, in order to improve coverage of globalization on Wikipedia. Your group has banners on some of the articles that are key to this discussion, and I believe many perspectives and disciplines needs to come together if we're going to get it right. If you would consider supporting such a project, would you please swing by the Globalization Project Proposal and expressing that interest? Thanks so very much! LizFlash (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

List of members of Stortinget 2005–2009 at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of members of Stortinget 2005–2009 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Class Conflict Article

Because of the popular reemergence of the words "Class warfare" in the US political arena, I took a couple days rewriting and combining the Class conflict and Class Struggle articles into one Class conflict article. I noticed it has the some assessments on it. Perhaps now the article can be reassessed. Please leave me a "mission accomplished" message on my talk page if and when it's reassessed. Thanks. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Election predictions table template (UK but could have generic usage)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Electoral Calculus#Predictions table. -- Trevj (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Globalization

The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Politics members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians

Specifically, Talk:List of Tea Party politicians#Post-AfD clarification and possible slimming down. Input would be much appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011

Hi. The Wikimedia Foundation received a courtesy notice from the United States Department of State advising that their 2011 Human Rights Reports for 199 countries have been released. Naturally, they imagine we might be interested in the information or links for potential inclusion in Wikipedia articles: [1]. (They have similar reports related to Human Rights here.)

The person who contacted us noted that many articles don't seem to address human rights issues on countries and adds that "Given the prominence that discussions of human rights in global affairs, I would respectfully submit that it’s worth a chapter heading for major countries."

Since the Wikimedia Foundation does not create or curate content in the articles, this is, of course, a community matter. I'm passing along the information to your project and a few others (Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights; Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries; Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations) in case you find the information useful or in case her suggestion spurs discussion. If there's a better place that you know of, please feel free to pass it on. :)

Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks interesting and useful. Thanks for letting us know! bobrayner (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yo Soy 132

Hey everyone, I'm inviting you to get involved with Yo Soy 132, a current event that is constantly being expanded. Don't leave this newbie all alone with all the work on this high importance rated article. ʝunglejill 04:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review request

How do i request an A Class review for Finnish parliamentary election, 2011? Its just short of FA perfection so it should pass this.(Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)).

Barack Obama FAR

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9 Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Clientelism

In addition to being very dense, the page is written in highly academic language. Perhaps revising it, varying sentence length, more imple english etc might improve it.173.178.174.63 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject Globalization

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Read my lips: no new taxes FAR

I have nominated Read my lips: no new taxes 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. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 17:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move. KarlB (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentinel of the Republic

I wanted to start a conversation about this because the page has been waiting for assessment and I've read it over and found it be a complete rendering of the limited information available on the party. I think it would be helpful to try to include Williams college and gain whatever other information may be available on the subject. I think it would also be helpful to create a new category of political movements of the 20th century. It would like to see some more images many of which may be available at Williams college.

I hope this helps

Cameroncowan (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparative Politics Textbook

Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Comparative Politics. Azinheira (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The historic Daisy video

Should this be the next Featured Pic?

The historic Daisy ad helped Lyndon Johnson win a landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964 and is an important turning point in political and advertising history. The entire full length video is up for Featured Picture! Click here to check it out. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Government, Politics and Law

Ping for my topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Government, Politics and Law: A Rather Problemsome Marriage. And leave the politics out of it! ;) Int21h (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DEAssembly

Template:DEAssembly has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Parliament of Sweden

In parenthetical disambiguation, and in page names in general, should we use 'Parliament of Sweden' or 'parliament of Sweden'? Current usage is inconsistent, with

on the one hand and, on the other,

Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sweden has been notified. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC

In parenthetical disambiguation, and in page names in general, should we use 'Parliament of Sweden' or 'parliament of Sweden'? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Upper case for proper nouns. If the correct translation from Swedish is 'Parliament of Sweden', then capitalise, if not, then lower case. As in House or House of Commons (British), but lower house or upper house (British, Australian, etc). [These RfCs always take about a week to filter through, so I'll mention you here Black Falcon to catch your attention.] Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's the key issue, I suppose. Parliament of Sweden#Name contains the following unsourced sentence: "In the Swedish constitution, the word [riskdag] is written with a lower-case 'r', thus marking that it is actually not a name of the parliament, but that it is just 'the parliament'." Usage across the English Wikipedia (e.g., Category:Members of the parliament of Sweden) and even in the Swedish Wikipedia (see sv:Sveriges riksdag) supports this.
However, that claim is inconsistent with multiple key, English-language reliable sources, all of which capitalize 'Riksdag' or the word 'Parliament' when it refers to the Riksdag.
1. This translation, hosted by the University of Bern, of the Constitution of Sweden—e.g., "Ordinary elections for the Parliament shall be held every fourth year."
2. This information booklet, published by the Swedish Ministry of Justice—e.g., "The Riksdag, which consists of a single chamber, is made up of 349 members."
3. This information page, hosted by Sweden.se ("The official gateway to Sweden")—e.g., "... a rule intended to prevent very small parties from getting into the Riksdag."
4. This^(PDF) translation of the Constitution of Sweden, provided by the Riksdag itself—e.g., "Only a person who is entitled to vote may be a member or alternate member of the Riksdag."
-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tableheadingpartyorganizations

Template:Tableheadingpartyorganizations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Political science

Is it true that we don't have a Political science project? I couldn't find one so I set up a redirect to this project so that people won't waste their time looking for it. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Burma → Myanmar requested-move notification

A requested move survey has been started (by Marcus Qwertyus (talk)) at Talk:Burma, which proposes to move:

Burma → Myanmar

Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

polling 5%?

Hello - we've got a query about politics articles in general over at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas.2C_2012 - there's a policy about polls over 5% that we'd like to track down - if anyone can pop over and help that would be groovy. :) Fayedizard (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cfd notice for Category:Green Party (United States) - renaming proposal

The related Category:Green Party (United States) has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

--JayJasper (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!

The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to politics and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Local Politician

Template:Infobox Local Politician has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain Bloody Thursday GAN

The article Bahrain Bloody Thursday has been nominated for Good article status. Interested editor can start review process by clicking here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Day of Rage (Bahrain) was also nominated. click here to review. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC

Input is needed at Talk:List_of_Tea_Party_politicians#RfC:_What_is_criterion_for_inclusion_in_this_list.3F. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please let me join

I'm not sure how to join this project. There does not seem to be any instructions. Junjunone (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Near the bottom of the project page is a table of participants, just add your name and add the userbox to your user page if you'd like and start editing! Go Phightins! (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Best online voter guides?

I'm looking at an article that uses a lot of refs from a very biased advocacy group voter guide. Couldn't find anything in WP:RSN or this archive re: voter guides. Internet search didn't make any clearer. Any idea of which are best to use for national candidates?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 20:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Which article & which nation? Road Wizard (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting project input on developing consistant approach to subject

The AfD proposal for this article List of politicians who switched parties led me to discover that the subject area is pretty spotty in coverage and inconsistant in the approach acrosss the few articles that do exist.

In the event the article gets deleted, these are the articles that currently exists Party switching, List of British Members of Parliament who crossed the floor, List of Canadian politicians who have crossed the floor, Party switching in the United States, List of United States Senators who changed parties, List of United States Congressmen who switch parties, Floor crossing (South Africa), Waka-jumping

Any thoughts? -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Distributism as a "Third Way"

Our article Distributism uses the term "Third Way", which I assume will be unfamiliar to many readers. There's a dispute about whether we should link to Third Way (centrism).

If interested, please discuss at Talk:Distributism#Re-added_link_for_.22Third_Way.22_which_was_inappropriately_removed.

-- 186.221.135.185 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

US pro-life and right-to-life movements: distinct, same thing?

As part of working on User:Chaos5023/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, I would like some feedback from people who consider themselves reasonably expert on the history of anti-abortion political advocacy in the United States. Specifically, I have encountered assertions that the pro-life movement and right-to-life movement are meaningfully distinct entities, and also assertions that they're the same thing. Can anybody provide me with useful insight into the question of which is the case -- or even, if I may hope, references to support for either position in reliable sources? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you waded through Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion? It would be required of the editors claiming there is a distinction to provide reliable, third party sources to support such a claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you have. sorry I thought you were just drafting a new article and not dealing with Wikiprocesses. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. :) There doesn't seem to be any particular mention of the right-to-life movement in the case, but it's really about editor behavior anyway, so I wouldn't so much expect sourcing-supported content arguments to come up in it. There was some discussion of the issue in WP:RFC/AAT, but it didn't get to the level of anybody offering sourcing support. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) if you look at [2] you see that the terms appear to be used even within publications as LifeNews.com and National Right to Life News pretty much interchangably. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

if you can get access to this book Articles on Pro-Life Movement, Including: Right to Life, Silent Holocaust... it may help to find out what any distinctions may be. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the terms get bandied about really freely. That isn't necessarily conclusive about the political movements, though. The book is a Wikipedia-scrape print-on-demand, so not terribly useful. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Twittprognosis query

The European Parliament election, 2014 has a section dedicated to Twittprognosis predictions. Can anybody cast light on whether these have any validity? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Religion in national symbols

This article is marked as of interest to this project, ~~though as yet has received no rating~~. There is some dispute as to what the article should contain and also in relation to referencing. Perhaps some interested eds would consider putting it on their watch lists. Personally, I'm on the point of taking it off mine due to general lack of constructive input. RashersTierney (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage live

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage is now a live RFC. It is now in its structure phase, where its arguments and options are refined before opinions are registered. Please participate! —chaos5023 (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

New language for AAN page

Hi, my name is Chris and I work for the American Action Network. The organization's page on Wikipedia isn't very good and, and I've developed new language to make it better. I've been advised on Wikipedia's policy about conflict of interest editors and I'll only be participating via "Talk" pages. I'm looking for editors to read the version of the article I've prepared and use the new language to replace that currently on the page. See my full request here and the new language uploaded here.

This project was listed on AAN's "Talk" page, I think editors here may be interested to help. I'll check back here for any questions. CGeorgia (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Crisis initiation article

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - Just heard of this phrase as one where governments foment crisis, especially for foreign policy purposes, and searched and found all sorts of good info. Will put it on my do (someday) list, but if anyone else wants to go for it... CarolMooreDC 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Immigration regulation page edits

I am a student at Rice University studying poverty, justice, and human capabilities. For one of my classes we are supposed to find a topic on Wikipedia that we are interested in and expand or edit it. I have chosen to work on the page, Immigration regulation. Right now there are only a couple of sentences on the page, it needs a lot of work. My ideas for this page include changing the name to Immigration Policy then I would like to create a sub-section titled Immigration policy in the United States. Then within this sub-section, I will give information on the two sided debate going on in the US - should the borders be open or closed? I will give the benefits and disadvantages of each side and the political parties or important figures with these opinions. I also want to include a part that compares the policies of the United States to surrounding countries such as Canada and Mexico and I also want to compare the US policies with a country like Denmark. I feel like this is a very important issue that needs to be expanded on because immigrants make up such a large part of the United States' population. I feel like right now is a crucial time to work on it with the United States elections coming up. Also, the current page needs to be cited, so I will also work on that. I will use scholarly articles on immigration policies. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for me or any other ideas, I would really appreciate some feedback and guidance. Thanks! Amacune (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Immigration policy is the better name. Regarding your idea for directly comparing the various policies, perhaps a table is the way to go. You would have countries listed down the left side and policies listed across the top, or vice versa. At Wikipedia:How to make a table in Wikipedia, the fourth table is a basic example. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish current-day immigration policy in the USA from "immigration policy" generally, because the USA is just one of many countries - and because an encylopædia should document the past as well as the present day. Denmark (for example) is in Schengenland, so current Danish immigration policy will be very similar to several other European countries. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Social market economy

There is interest to expand the article. Anyone interested in sharing that project? --Pass3456 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Medicare (United States) article + short request

Hi, I'm looking for an editor to look over a request I made for the Medicare (United States) article last week. I've put forward some new wording for the Premium support section that gives a clear overview of the concept and balances criticisms. The section uses a source published by The Heritage Foundation, where I work, so I'd like to get input from other editors instead of just adding the material. I'd appreciate it if an editor here could review this request and make the addition if it looks ok.

Also, I have a short request on the Supreme Court of the United States article. There I'd like to add a reference for information that's already in the article but doesn't have a reference now. Again, this source was published by The Heritage Foundation. I'll be watching this post, as well as the article talk pages, if there are any questions. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with Senator Bob Corker's article

Hi, I work for Senator Bob Corker's campaign and I have been working on improving his article with help from volunteer editors. Due to my conflict of interest, I've been reaching out to other editors to review my suggestions. I'd like to ask for editors to a request I placed on the article's talk page a few weeks ago. In the request on the talk page I've suggested two revisions for the sections of the article focusing on his Senate campaigns. While some editors have commented on the request and I've replied to their questions, there's been no discussion for a while and I'd like to see if other editors can help. I hope that an editor here can review and implement these changes for me. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Politics of Rhode Island

I am overhauling the article Politics of Rhode Island and have set a framework of (currently) empty sections in place to be filled with information and, hopefully, reliable sources. I have begun to fill in these sections. Unfortunately, I am likely to be off Wikipedia for an extended amount of time soon due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy. If anyone would like to help, it would be greatly appreciated. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Third party Asian American infobox representatives open nomination period

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Third party Asian American infobox representative nominees. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Foreign relations between countries articles

Hello project.

Where can I find the guidelines on the naming convention for "Country X–Country Y relations" articles? There is currently a discussion over a requested move at Talk:South Africa–Serbia relations, and I'm sure I've seen somewhere that the guidelines say that countries/entities should be in alphabetical order. HandsomeFella (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Guidelines. Road Wizard (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Election editnotice

I've created {{U.S. Election notice}} as an editnotice template for use on articles affected by the U.S. general election. Since the election is in early November and many of those elected don't take office until mid-to-late January, we tend to have a lot of jump-the-gun updating. This editnotice is intended to prevent some of that editing by reminding editors that there is a difference between editing and inauguration. I'm not mass-implementing it generally, but if you see that an article is drawing a lot of good faith errors, this is available. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from the Teahouse

This question was asked at the Teahouse. If someone could let me know, I can pass it along to the user in question. Question:

Has there ever been any consideration for some sort of project involving the rearrangement of articles into a uniform structure? That is subject permitted, of course; for example, pages encompassed by a general topic, such as classical liberalism and modern liberalism to political ideologies, would have a specific layout of content. As it stands, classical liberalism contains the following structure of contents 1 Core principles 2 History 3 Intellectual sources 3.1 John Locke 3.2 Adam Smith 3.3 Say, Malthus and Ricardo 3.4 Utilitarianism 4 Political economy 5 Free trade and world peace 6 Relationship to modern liberalism 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References. However, modern social liberalism contains the following layout of contents: 1 Origins 1.1 United Kingdom 1.2 Germany 1.3 France 1.4 United States 2 Implementation 2.1 United Kingdom 2.2 Rest of Europe 2.3 United States 3 Reversal 4 Active social liberal parties and organizations 5 Historical social liberal parties and organizations 6 Notable social liberal thinkers 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 10 Further reading Would I be within my rights, provided that all information (unless found incorrect or irrelevant) remains within the article, to restructure the articles, and, of course, others, to a peer assessed template that would allow a consistent layout of information for readers? This would imply I have the time to meticulously recreate a convoluted encyclopaedic article; hypothetically, though, just so I know for future reference!

Thanks--Go Phightins! 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are various guidelines around on the suggested structures of different articles, though I don't know if any exist for the examples mentioned above. The main issue to note though is that the suggested structures are only guides. They are often widely accepted as good practice but it may not be wise to try implementing them in every situation.

If the editor can't find a style guide for the relevant subject then a quick chat with an associated WikiProject may be beneficial.

Probably the key points for the editor to remember when changing the structure of an article are the principles of the bold, revert & discuss essay. They are welcome to start changing the structures of articles but should start a discussion the moment they hit resistance. Road Wizard (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

US election article names

Please see discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Article name, to change ", 2012" to "of 2012". Apteva (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Schulze method

Hello! I don't understand this article. There's too much code and the example is too complex, so I don't understand how the system works. In contrast, Ranked pairs is very simple to understand. Can you fix the article? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Example 1 (section 3.1) of my paper is simpler and more detailed. Markus Schulze 08:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 States petition to secede from the United States Controversy

Oh what a wacky week this has been, and this has been probably going on for years, but noticed from the first and possibly second secession coming from this source of states trying to "peacefully" secede and possibly stir up quite a celebrated controversy party. Any thoughts about the socalled frustration among states, on the article "Secession in the United States" to add from these sources as a fact, why may states "wish" a request to secede, please, be edited. --GoShow (............................) 15:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Congressman vs. Representative

Is there a policy, guideline, or consensus that expresses a preference between using the title "congressman" or "representative" with regard to members of the U.S. House of Representatives? I frequently see congressman used, although congressman could technically also refer to a U.S. Senator. I have been using congressman because it helps distinguish between U.S. Representatives and members of state houses of representatives, but another editor just went through one of the articles I was working on and changed all instances of congressman to representative. I've never seen that happen before, but I understand the logic. Just wondering, for future reference. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I've run into this problem as well, in particular at List of burials and cenotaphs at the Congressional Cemetery. In that context I tried to use "representative" throughout, though it is actually pretty hard to do. I think there is a need to have words for three categories of people. 1) U.S. representatives, 2) U.S. senators, and 3) the combined group of senators and representatives, i.e. congressmen. Nevertheless, "congressmen" is usually used just for representatives. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I see the need for the three categories you mention above, but for some reason "representative" sounds awkward in some contexts that "congressman" doesn't, plus there is the whole ambiguity between state and U.S. representatives (e.g. If I say so-and-so is a Kentucky Representative, does that mean a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives or a U.S. Representative from the state of Kentucky?) The need to disambiguate in this case makes using "representative" even more awkward. So your impression is that no consensus currently exists? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked at Talk:United States House of Representatives? As far as "Congressmen"'s definition goes, though, it does not include Senators. Perhaps it once did, but it certainly doesn't any more. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In practice, it doesn't, but technically I believe it should, as the two chambers of congress are the house and the senate, both's members should be classified as "congressmen" from a technical point of view. Though you're right that typically it ends up being used only to refer to house members. Go Phightins! 22:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This was my understanding as well. While convention has changed, in some cases, I wasn't aware of it if the actual official definition had changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Collins English Dictionary has updated the definition to "a male member of Congress, esp of the House of Representatives". It would be awkward to call Nancy Pelosi a Congressman, and definitely incorrect to call Barack Obama a former Congressman, as that would imply former representative. Apteva (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, in Pelosi's case, I would use "congresswoman", obviously. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I had not asked at the House of Representatives talk page. Perhaps a pointer to this discussion would be more appropriate? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointer

added. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that we avoid the ambiguity by using the category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. Apteva (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the best solution in the category context, but it doesn't work well in prose, sometimes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that "representative" is the formal and correct term -- the Constitution speaks only of "Representatives" -- but "Congressman" has long been used. Thus, the Clerk of the House offers, "Also referred to as a congressman or congresswoman, each representative...." "Member of Congress" is more accurate because not all of the Members of the House are representatives; there are delegates from the territories and District of Columbia and a Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. It should also be noted that some female Members of Congress, Marsha Blackburn being the primary example, prefer to be referred to as "Congressman", though Ms. Pelosi does seem to prefer "Congresswoman". Czrisher (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The New Oxford American dictionary defines Congressman as "a member of the U.S. Congress (also used as a form of address), usually specifically a member of the U.S. House of Representatives," nearly identical to what Apteva posted. It specifies that the term usually refers to Representatives, but also covers Senators. I don't think this means that congressman implies that a person is a representative and not a senator, only that it is used to describe one position more often than the other (probably because representative is a more clumsy word than senator). Therefore, when clarity is most important, representative should be used, and congressman could be used when context is clear and the slight ambiguity is understandable. In my view, confusion between senators and representatives is worse than confusion between federal and state representatives. Coppaar (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

One problem with "Representative" is that the person doesn't represent the U.S., instead he or she is a Representative TO the U.S.. So, for example, it's confused with the U.S. Trade Representative or other such position.—GoldRingChip 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an insult to call a Senator a Congressman or Congresswoman. By the way, Senator is a title that people carry for life - Barack Obama, is both a Senator and a President. The Congress certainly includes both the House and the Senate, but it is a huge step up to become a Senator. Congressman/Congresswoman is not a title that people carry for life - when they leave office they become former members of Congress. The gender issue mentioned above is very real, with some female members preferring Congressman, some preferring Congresswoman. I am sure that each article should take that sensitivity in mind when it is known - which is unlikely in all cases. I would not worry about the subtlety of representing a district to the Congress vs. representing the country to the rest of the world. The word Representative is well established. So the answer is that Congressman/Congresswoman should not be used for a Senator, but can be interchangeably used with Representative, for male reps, and with caution for female reps. Apteva (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

While I'm unaware of any "for life" issue, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of what Apteva said. Dictionary technicalities aside, "Congressman" and "Representative" are synonyms when it comes to actual usage - per the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR, one usage should not be replaced with another without a good reason. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, would you mind giving an example of Congressman being insulting towards Senators? I've never heard of it, and it sounds unreasonable. From the discussion, it seems like although Congressman can refer to both houses of legislature, it's on the whole less ambiguous than Representative. It would appear that most news organizations are content with using Congressman in lieu of Representative. I still contend that Representative is the official (albeit ambiguous) name for the position, but I'm in favor of using Congressman, except in article introductions when specificity is required (And where longer and more detailed language can be used to disambiguate). Basically, we should use Representative for leads and introductions as the official name, and elsewhere use congressman wherever possible. Coppaar (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, "members of both houses are technically Congressmen, but certainly in the public's mind of the word Congressman identifies to members of the House".[3] Note that it mentions considering the member's preference as to Congressman/Congresswoman/Representative. It is a great deal harder to become a Senator than a Representative. Here is a reference to Senator for life, but the explanation is obscure.[4] I also found that in Nigeria they follow the same convention.[5] Apteva (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Asian American representative approval period (Now until 18 December)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Representative approval. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

bot banner consolidation

Would anyone object to requesting that a bot remove all the {{WikiProject Political parties}} banners and insert {{WikiProject Politics|political-parties=yes}} in their place? I think that User:SatyrBot does this sort of thing. I would certainly be open to any other suggestions.Greg Bard (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections at this stage, but what are the benefits of the change? Road Wizard (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Instead of having talk pages with two separate banners, it will be consolidated into one. In some cases there are conflicts arising from the fact that these banners automatically create categories. Also, I am thinking of the future, where more features are incorporated into the single banner. (However, that is an entirely different issue.) Greg Bard (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Greg Bard asked on my user talk page if it would be possible for my bot to do this. The terms of my bot's BRFA don't go as far as to cover that kind of transformation. Sorry about that. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Puerto Rico government finances

A request for comment has been opened regarding the Puerto Rico government budget balance and the public debt of Puerto Rico. Please see the discussion at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Request for help: Puerto Rico government finances

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss Islamism

The article on Islamism needs to change. I made some comments about that over on the article's talk page. I hope that some editors with more knowledge on the topic will come weigh in. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Activism and Activism Industry

I have proposed that Activism and activism industry should be merged. Since these articles are under the scope of this WikiProject, some of you may be interested in discussing this merger. If so, go here. --The Kakistocrat (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

provincial assembly house redirects

Provincial Parliament and Provincial legislature point to country/body specific articles, shouldn't these redirect to a generic overview article? -- 70.24.245.172 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stonewalling nominated for deletion

The article Stonewalling has been nominated for deletion. Participants of WikiProject Politics may like to contribute to the discussion. Bazonka (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Police state

There is a discussion going on at the police state talk page regarding US claims. Discussion has stalled and outside input is needed; any users with expertise or interest in the topic are invited to join the discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 19:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What do you mean "stalled"? Where I live (California), statewide the police arrest about 74,000 people in any given day, or about 1.2 million per year (out of 35 million people). Does that make it a police state? That is a matter of opinion. And opinions don't really belong, per se, in articles on Wikipedia. That people hold such opinions is enough said. Int21h (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Political System of the United States.svg and File:Politisches System der Vereinigten Staaten.svg

English version
German version

Hey =)

Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC) PS: The main talk is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics (but I don't know if somebody recognizes it there ;)

Yes, except for one common mistake: only states hold elections, not the federal government. States hold federal elections according to federal law (as well as state law), and hold state elections to state law (as well as federal law, just way fewer of them.) A good example is the recent spat over election observers in Texas where Texas election officials holding a federal election in Texas were threatening to arrest election observers if they came within 100 ft of polling locations. This is the source of the ambiguity in your statement "normally 18 years and older", as it is a state law thing, and what the actual law is for any given state is often difficult to assertain as for example I assume Texans know about as much about the Law of Texas as Wikipedians do. Int21h (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay's system of government

Hello, folks! This article says that in Uruguay "Presidency is independent of legislature". However, the parliament can remove ministers. See Section VIII of the constitution: "La desaprobación pronunciada [...] determinará la renuncia del Ministro, de los Ministros o del Consejo de Ministros, según los casos." So there a head of state / head of government, but it's rather semi-parliamentary, am I right? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you are confusing the President and his Cabinet. If by "Presidency" it is meant "President and his Cabinet", then it is dependent on the legislature if what you say is true. But if by "Presidency" it is meant "President" then it not necessarily dependent as your statement does not mean the legislature can remove the President. Since I assume "presidency" mean "president", I do not think one can say it is dependent. (On the other hand, there is not enough information to say the "Presidency is independent of legislature" based on this information.)

For example, here in the United States (and in California) the legislature can remove ministers. In fact, they can remove anyone from office, including themselves and the President (and Governor). But the President (and Governor) are still considered independent of the legislature. It is a term of art. Int21h (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy Official Portrait.jpg

file:Sarkozy Official Portrait.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Defining the isms

While editing a topic covered by this project: feminism, it was brought to my attention that we should define movements, their aims and the words for those aims, by proponents rather than opponents.

Nazism is also part of this project. Do we define it by its proponents, or also by its opponents?

I am thinking that articles should define ideas by describing what proponents say it is about and then neutrally looking at what something is actually about based on real-world evidence.

There are philosophies where actions taken behind the scenes diverge from the surface picture painted by official statements. Ranze (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We can always show both sides, right? "***ists say they aim to blabla. Opponents claim that ***ists actualy blabla2". Good bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations to Category:Legislatures of religious organizations

I have proposed renaming Category:Legislatures of non-governmental organizations to Category:Legislatures of religious organizations I am making this proposal because all the articles placed in this category are related to the legislative bodies of religious groups. I think members of this project may wish to way in over on its entry. --Devin Murphy (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of delegates to the Millennium Summit/archive1. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Schultz

I've requested a good article reassessment of Arthur Schultz. See: [6] -- Mesconsing (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Heavy POV spin by Tories on Idle No More

I swore I'd never come back but I couldn't add the POV tag without doing so: please see Clear evidence of Tory talking points on Talk:Idle No More. Indigenous watch on this article needed, also a rewrite as a lot of what I'm reading is an echo of the spin put out by the PMO (Prime Minister's Office).Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Should political spectrum be in the lede?

On a political party article I've been working on, some editors insist on including words like "far right" and "radical" in the opening sentence, as well as the infobox. What is the correct MOS for including loaded, and subjective terms like these? While the party in question at times has been radical in the past, and was IMO far-right years ago, it's much more moderate these days. The editors I'm contesting with are relying on news articles from other countries, but what a journalist says in a slam piece is hardly objective or neutral from an encyclopedic point of view.

Is political spectrum supposed to be included? Are loaded terms allowed? Does it have to be defined as "far" or just broadly between left or right?--Львівське (говорити) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding title change of Public choice theory

Interested editors are invited to look at the discussion regarding a proposed article title change for Public choice theory. The discussion is here: "Proposed title change from Public choice theory to Public choice".--S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Representative peer FAR

I have nominated Representative peer 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Public choice theory

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Public choice theory#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Commissioner Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Commissioner Government has been flipping back and forth between being an redirect and an article. See talk:Commissioner Government for the issues. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Opperhoofd of Mauritius

The naming of Opperhoofd of Mauritius is up for discussion, see talk:Opperhoofd of Mauritius -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels, 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 will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy it is a Top-Importance article, but it has almost no content. It needs to be entirely re-written. it gives minimal relevant information on the topic, and what it has, is only focusing on a single, small aspect of it. Aunva6 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with Monetary Sovereignty?

Hello Politics People,

I've been working on the monetary sovereignty page for a bit and this topic seems closely related to politics. Recently there has been some debate in the talk section (eg. this and this). Any help on these or other topics would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Chetrasho (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

~~Not really, or maybe just a little. Assuming good faith, but this almost seems like forum shopping. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)~~ Striking my former comment. I was wrong. If anyone is interested in this please join in the conversation. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Unincorporated body

Hi, folks! I found that temer in several articles but there's no description of the concept anywhere. Can you create that article? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I need help to avoid an edit war at Bill Clinton

Please comment at Talk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F or just step in and edit as you see fit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-X era

FYI, the naming of several "Post-X era" political articles are up for discussion, see Talk:Post-PC era -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"How close was the X election" exterior links gone

It appears that the external link at MIT for "How close was the X Presidential Election" in on the various US Presidential elections page is gone. (For example in 1876_presidential_election#External_links I'm not sure this is the right WP location to let know about it...Naraht (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New 'Women in the Arab Spring' article

I'm planning on writing a new 'Women in the Arab Spring' article as part of my Poverty, Gender and Human Development course at Rice University. I will add the page to this WikiProject because the Arab Spring represents a major change in the politics of the Arab world. The topic of women in the Arab Spring is not currently discussed in the Arab Spring article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I plan to cover the role of women before, during, and after the Arab Spring with my article (see the Arab Spring talk page for details) and would greatly appreciate any feedback on my plans. Thanks! Nadhika99 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)