Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

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: 30 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Politics 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

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

Hi. I'd be interested to hear what contributors to this WikiProject feel of the categorisation criteria that should be applied to the sub-cats of Category:Political parties of minorities by country. And whether it is self-evident or should be clarified in a WP:CATDESC. I raise this thread following a recent discussion with Gorgonopsi at User talk:Gorgonopsi.

The editor, who has created several such categories (for example Category:Political parties of minorities in Finland) has populated a number of categories with political organisations that, to my view at least, are not parties which represent minority groups. (I don't see, for example, how the "Sustainable Initiative" party is a political party of a minority. Nor does the body/sources/context of the article appear to support this categorisation.) Other examples include adding the "Northern Independence Party" article to Category:Political parties of minorities in United Kingdom. Or (as the group is described in the article) the "right-wing extremist" group Freie Sachsen to Category:Political parties of minorities in Germany.

(Absolutely, for example, the Shetland Movement article should be included in Category:Regionalist parties in the United Kingdom. But, should it also be in Category:Political parties of minorities in United Kingdom? Certainly I don't see why it would be...)

While I have reverted some of these changes, as have other editors like Czello (explaining that people from the North of England aren't a minority group in the North of England, nor are Bavarians in Barvaria or "right-wing extremists" in Saxony), I wonder if the WP:CATDESC for these categories should be made clearer.

I say this as, per the editor's Talk page, it is perhaps not clear (not to everyone anyway) that these categories perhaps shouldn't simply be populated with parties simply "representing one specific group of people". (Happy to be corrected but, to my understanding, not every "specific group of people" is a "minority". Not in the political sense or that seemingly applied in other such categories.)

Thoughts? Do we need clear(er) WP:CATDESCs? Guliolopez (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgonopsi continues to create "Political parties of minorities in [country X]" type categories. And to populate new and existing "parties of minorities" categories with organisations that do not appear to represent minorities and organisations that do not appear to be political parties. As above, I particularly question the classification of regionalist/separatist/nationalist (or fascist) groups as "political parties of minorities". And would welcome input/discussion so that consensus (on whether, for example, (all) indigenous groups are "minorities") can be established. (Ping @Gorgonopsi:, @Czello:, @Yuchitown:, @Soman: for thoughts). Guliolopez (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorgonopsi: please stop adding this category to articles, it's clearly contentious and seems to be being added to articles that aren't about minorities. Please wait for this discussion to conclude first. — Czello ^(music) 13:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Gorgonopsi should pause the mass categorization drive and in future be more stringent on the categorization criteria. For example, Category:Diaspora organizations of political parties was clearly not apt for this category. --Soman (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a set of all sets is still a set in itself thus can include itself in it, in most countries native americans are considered minorities. Gorgonopsi (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gorgonopsi. How do either of your notes above (about the "set of all sets [being] a set" and indigenous peoples) address the primary concerns raised? Where those concerns are about categorisation being supported by the text/references in the article and also ideally based on a defining characteristic that is used commonly/consistently in reliable sources?

What references, for example, support the classification of the National Democratic Party in Namibia as one which represents a minority or minorities? (The text and references in that article don't appear to support that classification. Nor do, seemingly, the text or refs in any other articles. So what are you relying upon for that classification?) Same goes for the classification of the American Vegetarian Party? Or the (UK) Women's Equality Party. None of these articles appear to refer to representation of minority groups?

What am I (and the several other editors who have questioned and/or reverted these changes) missing? What sources do you, seemingly uniquely, have access to? That I and others do not? Guliolopez (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A minority in a political context doesn't just refer to any group of people that are few in number – they typically refer to ethnic minorities. Even still, I'm not sure what minority the Women's Equality Party represent – women aren't a minority. — Czello ^(music) 07:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Gorgonopsi § WP:CATV / WP:ES

 – Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to:

• requests to "[p[lease provide a reliable reference which describes the Bavaria Party as representing a minority", Gorgonopsi stated that the following links are "reliable enough for wikipedia https://www.ethnologue.com/language/bar/ [..] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/germany-population/". Not only do neither of the linked webpages describe the Bavaria Party as a party representing a minority (or even mention the party), they do not even describe Bavarian people/speakers as a minority. Whether in Germany or otherwise. Requiring OR and SYNTH to come to even a remotely related conclusion.
• queries on how "the article/body/references/context support the classification of the National Democratic Party as a "political party of a minority in Namibia"", Gorgonopsi implies that it is covered by the text of the National Democratic Party (Namibia) article, because its text states the party has "its base amongst the Ovambo people implies quite clearly, that it was primarily for their interests". Again, not least given that the Ovambo people are seemingly a majority in Namibia, this doesn't address the concern. Including the request for sources.

To my mind, both of these responses are examples of OR and SYNTH. And suggests that the contributor is classifying (seemingly all) limited-interest groups with those representing "minority groups". (Whether vegetarians, women, secessionists, indigenists, "fascists" or whatever, I do not see that all regionalist or "special interest" parties should automatically be classified as representing a "minority". Not in the political sense. And certainly not according to many of the (re)classified articles. Or the sources which currently support those articles).

Gorgonopsi is encouraged to respond here. So that consensus on approach (involving other interested editors) can be agreed. And not, piecemeal and stand-alone, on own User Talk page. My own opinion is that should only classif political parties within the "political parties of minorities" hierarchy where the body/text/sources clearly and verifiably describe the subject as representing a minority group. And would welcome other thoughts on this position. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said at CFD this category tree is being applied inappropriately "for example the Australian Equality Party is in the category because they advocated for same-sex marriage and gay rights while Gaza List was in the Austrian category for no apparent reason. Savoy Region Movement is in the French category because it's a regionalist party. In the UK category we have Labour Muslim Network which isn't a political party and Bahrain Freedom Movement which again isn't a political party but an exile organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has failing to mention content removals in edit summaries. These edits added substantially to article wordcounts, so it is not obvious from the page history that content has been removed.

I'd like to be clear that these content removals were done among genuinely useful edits, and I've talked to the editor about the purpose of edit summaries.

The removed content seems to be stuff the PRC doesn't like; Ai Weiwei, and domestic political protest, and historic domestic ethnic diversity, and probably some content reflecting on national space programs, etc.. I'm not sure how far back the problem goes; not more than dozens to hundreds of edits are affected.

As these removals of controversial content haven't had the level of peer scrutiny that they would likely have had had they been correctly described, could these edits get some scrutiny now, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of governors of Ohio#Requested move 12 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Juan Fageda#Requested move 5 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:South Yemen#Requested move 24 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abo Yemen✉ 11:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 The Republicans alliance crisis#Requested move 7 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stoicism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Smart on Crime could use additional participation regarding the handling of plagiarism allegations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be helpful to get more eyes at this new article:

• 2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ link to another new article about a rally: Donald Trump town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fisher has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aneurin Bevan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haile Selassie has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Head of State has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be a RfC for the image gallery at the Head of government page. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some eyes on this. Pasting what I wrote there for context:

This article needs pruning, but I am unsure of where to begin, or what the end result should ultimately look like. If there is a policy for what "Political positions of ______" pages should look like, I am unaware of it (and would appreciate a link to). However, I think we can all agree that there is no reason why the article on Jeb Bush's political positions should be 605.99% larger than his brother's.

Jeb Bush hasn't been in a position to directly influence American policy since leaving gubernatorial office in 2007. Since then, he had an infamously unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, has been involved with a number of lobbyist groups (e.g. Foundation for Excellence in Education, United Against Nuclear Iran, the James Madison Institute), and occasionally contributes to media outlets as an op-ed columnist. This article gives WP:UNDUE weight to his stated positions on the 2016 campaign trail; eight years down the line and three presidential elections later, it is safe to say that they ultimately fail the WP:10YEARTEST.

By the end of this discussion, I'd like to set up an outline for how the article should be restructured and discuss what should or should not remain. My immediate thoughts:

• I'd like to avoid splitting the article into sub-subsections unless absolutely necessary to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION.
• I believe the most weight should be given to his political positions during his tenure as governor, followed by his post-gubernatorial career as a lobbyist and op-ed columnist, followed by comments made on the 2016 campaign trail.
• Anything that did not influence public policy probably does not deserve a section unto itself. For example, his opinion on the Confederate flag, the name of the Washington Commanders (né Redskins), or his comments about the "French workweek" seem particularly superfluous.

Discuss.
— User:Kodiak Blackjack 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]