Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:17, 15 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Politics and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:PLT WT:POLITICS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Politics Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

WikiProject Politics

Main page + Talk Portal Talk Help Talk To-do list Talk Recognized content Talk Departments Assessment Talk → Requests Talk Collaboration Talk Peer review Talk Project organization Article alerts Talk Participants Talk Deletion sorting Stubs Talk New articles Talk Project banner Talk Project category Talk Unreferenced BLPs Talk Task forces American politics Talk Gun politics Talk Political parties Talk Related projects Australian politics Talk Capitalism Talk Chinese politics Talk Conservatism Talk European Union Talk Libertarianism Talk Law Talk Socialism Talk Voting Systems Talk Elections and Referendums$ Talk Indian politics Talk New Zealand politics Pakistani politics UK politics Talk UK Parliament constituencies US Congress U.S. Supreme Court Cases U.S. Government U.S. presidential elections view · edit · changes

Green Party of England and Wales

There is currently an ongoing discussion surrounding wording and tone issues with the Green Party of England and Wales Please feel free to joining the discussions here. This will help to contribute to the general clean up of the article and improve the article. Sport and politics (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding media commentary to BLPs of politicians

Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Adding media commentary to BLPs of politicians. I have asked for guidance on how much media commentary should be added to the pages of politicians, noting that it varies widely. Please discuss there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Same party name - split info?

I am writing about various socialist political parties in the United States and I've come across an issue. Often, political parties go inactive. However, in the case of the Socialist Party of America, the party disbanded and then reform later under the Socialist Party USA. When writing about the different parties named "Socialist Party of X state", should I split the articles into separate articles based on affiliation or include both histories on the same page?--TM 12:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Two questions: Firstly, are the state parties actually separate parties, or just branches? If the latter, are separate articles actually needed? Secondly, if they are separate parties, do they have continuous existences between the dissolution/re-establishment of the national party? If so, then you should probably call them by their current name. Number 57 14:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Socialist Party USA considers itself the successor to the Socialist Party of America nationally, which would seem to indicate that the same named party should be kept as one article.--TM 16:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability of political parties

Do we have a guideline of the notability of political parties? Should recognition by a sub-national body be sufficient evidence of notability?--TM 00:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

By default, WP:Notability and WP:ORG govern organizations. However, as political parties generally get at least some pro forma media coverage by virtue of their mere existence, I would discount any coverage that is given to all (especially "all including minor") political parties when assessing whether the party has received significant coverage. I would also discount "flash-in-the-pan/15-minutes-of-fame" coverage associated with a party's formation if such coverage would be given to any newly-formed party. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that any party that wins seats in a national legislature is definitely notable. Beyond that, it's probably down to WP:GNG. Number 57 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the initial question, recognition doesn't guarantee significant coverage. Or in the strange case of the Danig Party of Australia, any coverage at all. Hack (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank, I put a note on the essay Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Political parties and referenced that AFD. "Common outcomes" is currently silent on political parties. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Political bosses

Category:Political bosses, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: transhumanist politics

There is a Request for Comment at the Talk page for transhumanist politics. The Transhumanist Party recently finished an American bus tour – should it be mentioned in the "History" section of the article? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Monarchies in Africa, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Misplaced Pages'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 04:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Deep Throat

Category:Deep Throat, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Numbering of the Speakers of the US House of Representatives

According to reliable sources, Paul Ryan is the 54th Speaker of the House & not the 62nd, which would mean that those who've served non-consecutive tenures as speaker, are only numbered once. However, there's been disagreement about this - note the numerious reverts I've had to make across the many bios of speakers, today. So, how should we number them? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your methodology. Number 57 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of individual numbers for split terms is based upon the very clear practice of giving President Grover Cleveland two different numbers. It was probably the wrong decision, but it has been consistently followed for more than a century in the case of Presidents. --Gary J (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's apparent however, that a different numbering scheme is used for the House speakers. Note aswell, that both numbering schemes are used for state governors. Some of those number non-consectutive term governors only once, while others number their's multiple times. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oregon Refuge occupation - name of the group at AFD

Please consider joining the discussion whether to morph article into a redir at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Citizens for Constitutional Freedom NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"State Pension"

The usage and topic of State Pension is under discussion, see talk:State Pension -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

david scott

wrong david scott linked to wiki article dont know how to fix heres correct https://en.wikipedia.org/David_Scott_(Georgia_politician) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.141.193.98 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Which article is the link wrong on? Number 57 16:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of links to David Scott but I somehow managed to find one that was wrong and fixed it: . Is that the one you had in mind? Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders party affiliation

There is a discussion at Talk:Vermont as to whether Vermont's Senators should be listed in the infobox as "Patrick Leahy (D); Bernie Sanders (I)" (because Sanders was elected to the Senate as an Independent) or "Bernie Sanders (D)" (because he is now a Democrat). We could probably use some help achieving consensus on this if anyone wants to weigh in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Burial sites of the Bush family has been nominated for discussion

Category:Burial sites of the Bush family, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 2015 Rfc

We need input at that article's Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Stump speech (politics)

Stump speech (politics) has had an expert-subject infobox on it since 2010. Could somebody from this WikiProject take a look at it, figure out why it was flagged, and remove the template (after taking any necessary steps to rectify)?

I tried to fix it up, and added some useful citations. Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:43rd Canadian federal election#Requested move 9 February 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders endorsements

Good evening. I am engaged in a dispute at List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Some editors have added the names of 17 economists as Sanders endorsers. But the endorsement is not of his candidacy but his economic policies: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-14/sanders-says-170-experts-support-his-wall-street-plan and https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf. I would appreciate some assistance dealing with the partisans trying to restore the names; they have not responded to my talk page message. Thanks Syek88 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Syek88: This notice is rather one-sided request for help, so I suggest you refresh your understanding of WP:CANVASS. Also, you appear to edit warring and not respecting WP:BRD (your comments on the talk page were less than three hours ago, so I think it's a bit premature to say they have not responded). Number 57 21:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks but perhaps the substantive issues are more important than acronyms? Syek88 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages

An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is Australia's Head of state?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Who is Australia's head of state? At the moment we seem to have doubts about this individual's identity at Australia, Government of Australia, Monarchy of Australia, Governor-General of Australia & related articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey: Australia's head of state

See Constitution of Australia current version (15 February). This could be more definite if responses here so advise or propose. Qexigator (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II - Re the preceding comment, I'm not much interested in what "viceroys, politicians, legal scholars, and the media" have to say about it for our purposes. They have opinions, perhaps some of them even convincing opinions, but we're looking for fact. For now, and this may change as a result of current political debate, the Australian government clearly says the Queen is their head of state.. Note gov.au in the URL. Until they say differently, that's what Misplaced Pages should show. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II followed by Sir Peter Cosgrove, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia according to United Nations Heads of States. Wykx (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Unclear When those stating that the Governor-General is the head of state include Prime Ministers, a Governor-General, and the United Nations, it is evidence of a division of opinion. The UN document gives the full title of the Australian Head of State as "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia", while the Queen is listed in brackets. Contrast this with the entry for the United Kingdom, where the Queen alone is listed. The Australian head of state dispute article is well sourced and discusses the various opinions. The Australian Parliament has issued a research paper briefly stating the situation. I might add that User:GoodDay is well aware of the article, and that Misplaced Pages does not determine the identity of heads of state. Yet. --Pete (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II as per all government sources, all academic texts, Queen's website, GG's direct statements,school textbooks, and the definition of Head of State, and definition of a monarch, and how all constitutional monarchies function. The GG represents Head of State, and mostly acts as Head of State, and this is the source of some minor confusion. Travelmite (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: Australia's head of state

• Comment - I prefer having the rest of the wiki-community taking a gander at this topic. Neither myself or Pete (aka Skyring), will be the judge of what is & isn't acceptable :) GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I never have any problem with getting more eyes on a discussion. I hope that you agree that discussion is best when it is an informed discussion? --Pete (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Informed discussion, is in the eyes of the beholders. The beholders in this case? the rest of the wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Individuals saying things does not make them true, no matter who they are. That's why democracies have legislative bodies. As a sovereign nation, Australia (the Australian government in this case) decides who their head-of-state is, and the UN is entitled to their opinion. The UN does not constitute a world government that decides these things, as far as I know. If the Australian Constitution does not address the question, we look for the next best official source, and, until you produce something better, that is the government's website. Discuss the debate and controversy all you like in article prose, but any wiki voice (infoboxes, etc.) should agree with the Australian government's current official position. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Project-Class politics pages
• NA-importance politics pages
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Pages at move review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment