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 Wikipedia? 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, 47Auto-archiving period: 90 days

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia'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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Hello everybody! I'm an italian user, I wanted to inform you that the "new" Forza Italia party of Berlusconi is not an opposition party yet. If Berlusconi will not be pushed out from his seat (an improbably but possibile thing), he can chose to remain in the government coalition. Also, FI has got one vice-minister and one secretary in the italian government! For now, then, it is better to correct the voices about Forza Italia, the parliament and the Letta Cabinet...in 10 days will be all more clear. Bye for now! --Franci---juve 21:46, 20 nov 2013 (UTC)

Just stopping by to let someone part of the project here to reassess Progressive Labor Party (United States) in its class rating. It is undergoing some changes at the moment due to the lack of sources, wp:soapbox, and POV problems that plagued the article before. xcuref1endx (talk) 14:52 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of her template navbox concerning what name to use as the visible name of the template, 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' or 'Hillary Clinton'. Randy Kryn 21:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the disambiguator "(state)" have a special meaning to not mean "state" in general, if used in Chinese history articles? See Talk:Song (state) where we are discussing whether "state" does not mean any state, but only means non-Imperial states -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Liao (state) where we are discussing if "(state)" only applies to some states and not other states named "Liao" -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently expanded the article Political corruption in Illinois and welcome corrections or suggestions from other more experienced political editors, especially as it is a sensitive subject. I further wonder if there would be interest in expanding this format to encompass other US states. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position before giving a chronological discussion of how it may have evolved or changed over the years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I wanted to let you know of four recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Taylor & Francis, WP:Erudit, WP:World Bank and WP:Cairn. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usage and primary topic of Galicianism is under dispute. For the discussion, see talk:Galicianism (Galicia) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion about describing the premise of the documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her in the lead section. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested for Crimean crisis to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Crimean crisis, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: .2444M of .24140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to the request for comment. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

This is an update to the request for comment and a request for wider participation. The RfC question asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the funding section of a political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a political advocacy group that is not legally required to disclose their funders. Attention from uninvolved editors with some experience with articles on political advocacy groups is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate use of funding information and investigative journalism results in Wikipedia remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gateway Protection Programme article is currently a featured article candidate. The last time it was nominated, the review was archived due to a lack of comments, so I would be grateful if interested editors could take a read of the article and submit comments to the review. It's a topical issue at the moment, and you might even learn something about refugee resettlement to the UK (or the lack of it)! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester arguments is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Terrebonne—Blainville where a discussion is taking place to determine if "electoral district" only refers to "federal electoral district" thus all "provincial electoral districts" are not ambiguous with "federal electoral districts" if federal ones use "(electoral district)" to disambiguate them from "(provincial electoral district)" disambiguators -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can people please keep an eye on said article? I interned there in summer 2007 and that article was edited from work with neocon additions (you can probably see the IPs that edited that summer from the history). I also moved from the politics to "business development" and, having signed a non-disclosure agreement, know full well who the majority of donors were, including by far and away the biggest donor. (Sheldon Adelson)120.62.11.149 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.0.22 (talk) [reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Liberal Theory of State. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Opinions from participants in this project would be greatly appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting people know that there is a discussion occurring on Talk:Debate about moving article content related solely, or mostly dealing with, competitive debating into a new article to allow Debate to be more about the form of discussion instead of styles of competitive debating. This notice is being put up here due to the page being categorised under WikiProject Politics, and to ask for more editors to contribute to the discussion. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

template:South African Parliament Party Leaders has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a situation about what the WP:COMMONNAME (and hence the correct article title) should be for an American political strategist, which I wanted to ask for some assistance in resolving.

The situation is that the article was created at Mari Maseng in 2010, following which just two months later a request was posted somewhere (I can't remember where) for the article to be moved to Mari Maseng Will on the grounds that she was known by her married name. I complied with the request, but then one year after that an anonymous IP posted an angry rant to my talk page demanding that the article be moved back to "Maseng" on the grounds that she wasn't known by her married name — I did a quick Google search, and indeed was unable to find any significant sources at that time in which she was known or referred to by "Will", so I complied with the request despite their impolite tone. The article then remained stable for almost four years, until a few weeks ago another editor moved it back to "Will" again on the grounds that she is known by her married name.

So obviously there's a dispute, and a slow-motion edit war, here. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody who has access to a broader range of US news sources than I do — I can only Google, while other people might have access to a much more comprehensive news database, or a range of political science journals, or some other specialized sourcing which might help — could assist in figuring out which title we should preference. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I saw are about split between those that use the "Will" and those that don't, with one item of palpable bias: some sources on the left use the name "Mari Maseng Will" prominently as part of an attack on one or both of the Wills for being married while having opinions. However, [1] and especially [2] give the lie to the idea that there's something wrong with using her full married name. As to which is actually more common - I think it's a wash, but I'd lean toward the full name. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The usage and topic of Rest of the world is under discussion, see talk:Rest of the world -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an established way to mark "joke" and "publicity only" candidates or "candidates" who are ineligible for office (e.g. animals, minors, non-citizens, inanimate objects, etc.) in infoboxes?

See Deez Nuts (candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page for a specific example where editors (including myself) are "winging it" because we don't know Wikipedia's precedent on this is. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

template:Communist Party (UK)/meta/shortname has been proposed to be renamed to ((Communist Party (Great Britain))), see template talk:Communist Party (UK)/meta/shortname -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may wish to check Imelda Marcos content as someone called Imeldific (talk · contribs) (see wikt:Imeldific for its meaning) has made some large changes to the article. This person seems to be an SPA since edits are only registered in relation to Imelda -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to anyone from this portal willing to help! – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 15:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to protect the Proportional representation article from some poorly informed changes, and in the end opened an adminstrator's noticeboard incident. But no admin seems interested in touching the problem, so the dispute resolution is not going anywhere. Perhaps members of the politics portal could do something/advise what I can now do. Otherwise the article will continue down the splippery slope as it and so many other political articles have in the past. BTW, the problem user has also corrupted the template Template:Electoral_systems which is used in some 75 articles, but no-one seems to have noticed yet. --BalCoder (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]