Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 323: Line 323:


Please join a [[Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria|preference survey]] on how to divide our [[List of sovereign states]]. All responses are appreciated. Thanks, '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please join a [[Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria|preference survey]] on how to divide our [[List of sovereign states]]. All responses are appreciated. Thanks, '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== Input requested in article move discussion ==

Hi. Readers at this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at [[Talk:Jeffersonian democracy#Requested move]]. Thanks in advance for any input. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:40, 9 September 2011

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconPolitics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Women in Politics/Gender and Governance

I am collaborating with "Colleenfugate" to edit the current Women in Politics page. We aim to move it toward a broader discussion of gender and governance, incorporating current aspects of the page yet also widening the scope to address governance (rather than just politics). There is currently a great deal of information on the page about specific female leaders--if anyone has suggestions as to where this information should go (perhaps the biographical page?) we would greatly appreciate input. We also want to connect the page to other political pages, such as ones addressing specific legislative/executive/judicial branch issues. Areas for future inclusion might be a more specific discussion of historical approaches to gender/governance issues. Amr0316 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Territorial evolution of Canada 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

GA Reassessment of Suharto

Suharto has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Leo Ryan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib)

Relevant AFD: Santorum

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (sexual neologism). -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization

Members of this project may be interested in participating in this discussion about recent changes to the globalization article. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Beyond the First Amendment

New article, created, at Beyond the First Amendment. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Freedom of Expression(R)

New article, created, at Freedom of Expression(R). Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article: Net.wars

New article, created, at Net.wars. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article: The Best American Magazine Writing 2007

New article, created, at The Best American Magazine Writing 2007. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why

Is "the coming insurrection" article high importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.147.103 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The List of heads of state of the Soviet Union is currently a FL nom, would any of you care to review the list? If so, thanks in advance. --TIAYN (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject proposal

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Conservatism to create a related WikiProject. Please consider reading the proposal and commenting at that page. Alternatives include joining a related project (such as this one) or creating a WP:TASKFORCE under a related project with a larger scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state

I just want to direct the attention of those who are part of this project to a dispute at List of current heads of state and government. There's an RfC open at the talk page. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi

The naming of the Gaddafi articles are up for discussion, see Talk:Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi and Talk:Muammar al-Gaddafi

65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The above list is currently a featured list, but falls far short of 2011 standards. Issues include a brief, uncited lead section, a lack of images, and at least one of the references pointing to a generic page rather than a specific article. I've posted here in the hope of finding someone who might be interested in doing some restoration work, so that we can avoid taking the list to a featured list review. Regards, —WFC— 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor adding unsourced ideologies to infoboxes

Can someone take a look at the edits of 178.42.77.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He is adding unsourced "ideologies" to the infoboxes of political parties. Many of these additions are highly controversial, and I think these his edits should all be reverted. Nanobear (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Members of this project may be interested in assisting with the Good Article nomination of Tony Blair. The review can be found at Talk:Tony Blair/GA1. GA is reachable, but it will require hard work. Any assistance would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility

Hello, I am writing articles on english Wikipedia with lists of legislative speakers. Some of them, especially presidents of German Landtage, belonged to the nobility. Shall I add the peerage to their names? Shall I write Günther Graf von Versleben or just Günther von Versleben? Some German articles list both, while other only list the names. In the Portugese article about the Speakers of the Brazilian House of Representative both names and full titles are included. Hope somebody can help. Mbakkel2 15:29, 1 March 2011 (CET)

Importance of Middle East and North Africa protests

When I was editing the Middle East and North Africa protests-page I saw that the article had a Mid importance on this project. I mean that's a bit underrated as these protests have gargantuan geopolitically effects. Could this be scaled up to High or something? AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review request: Karl Marx

I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add "statistics" section to List of states with limited recognition

It has been proposed that a "statistics" section is added to List of states with limited recognition. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Statistics RFC. Alinor (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of deletion discussion

There is a "miscellany for deletion" within the scope of this wikiproject at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/userboxes/America Held Hostage. All interested parties are invited to give their opinion. Feezo (Talk) 08:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the "Women in Politics" Page

I am looking to expand the "Women in Politics" page to a the broader topic of Women and Governance. Women and Politics would be a subset of this page. Expanding this page would allow for the inclusion of Nussbaum's work on gender and governance and numerous UN documents on this topic. There is a need for a more holistic approach to this issue, rather than only focusing on politics. Please view the page's Discussion to comment on the potential changes to be made. I would appreciate any feedback on this idea. Colleenfugate (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly bannered US articles

In the United States, people tend to equate their arguments in bars with "politics." Articles are constructed accordingly. The articles on the Project Page seem to agree with mine, suggesting that it is a US problem only. See Politics of Vermont as it existed before I changed it. This article, which someone from here evaluated, is almost entirely about Elections, not politics at all. The author(s), obviously American(s), were typically confused. We need help here. Please check US articles labeled "Politics in X" and ensure that they are really about politics and not elections. BTW I will move the Georgia article to "Elections" shortly if I don't get any grief over the proposed move. Typically, there is no higher level article on Elections and they could use one. How convenient!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on criticism, particularly about Parties and active politicians

Hello people! This topic may have been presented before, but I'd like to get a clarification. I have been working on BLPs like Sonia Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Yeddyurappa and L.K. Advani from some time, as well as Indian National Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party. I am accustomed to IPs and new users coming and adding stuff to criticism sections. Many a times, the IPs did have solid references, but some of the allegations are very small (in comparison to bigger, more publicised allegations probably). Is there any particular policy, with respect to politicians, regarding the sensitive aspect of criticism sections? Yes Michael?Talk 14:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cromwell

An article that you have been involved in editing, Oliver Cromwell has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free election

The usage of free election is under discussion, see Talk:Free election (Polish throne). 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Young Democrats of America. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

Guidelines on writing about Demonstrations

Simple question: how do you structure an article of a street demonstration so it could be advanced to a GA? More specifically in the last 10 years London has seen two massive 500,000 plus demonstrations. There was the 2004 Stop the War demonstration (750000 - 2 million) which has no WP article of its own, and last weekends March for the Alternative, This intensely discussed and referenced article is classified as a C, has no Infobox but still reads well, in spite of tensions to convert it into an article about a small independent protest- the policing of which has gathered a lot of media attention. Has anyone thought up a skeleton of what a article on a demonstration should contain? This type of topic is outside my normal WikiArea so has anyone any got any suggestions? Thanks in advance.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)b[reply]

United States Bill of Rights is a candidate for the U.S. Collaboration of the Month

The United States Bill of Rights article has been submitted as a possible candidate for the U.S. Collaboration of the Month. --Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help on this party article

On the article and discussion page for the Svoboda Party there has been an edit war and now a debate over the use pipe linking 'Social-Nationalism' to the Left-wing nationalism article. The argument by me is that SN (their stated platform) and LWN are synonymic, while the other user is saying that since the party is both Right-wing and they have a nationalist platform, that this makes some sort of contradiction between the two. I've already provided a journal citation stating that Left-wing nationalism is also known as social-nationalism, and figured that would be enough. Also, the Left-wing nationalism article in Ukrainian and Russian are both called "social-nationalism" when translated in their respective languages (but apparently this doesn't "count" as a reliable source, somehow). Can anyone chime in?--Львівське (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Lvivske (Львівське) for bringing this here, but the above is a mis-statement of my position. Lvivske is inserting a piped link to left-wing nationalism for "Social-Nationalism" in the infobox section of the ideology for Svoboda (e.g. [1]), but there are no sources that describe the party as "left-wing" or "left-wing nationalist." (I have appealed to Lvivske to find such sources many times.) On the contrary, I have found various reliable secondary sources (such as the Kyiv Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, and others) which state that the party is right-wing or right-wing nationalist (see our talk page discussion [2]), but Lvivske refuses to accept any of these sources, since his assertion is that they are "all out of context" - and actually demands to see sources that state they are not left-wing nationalist ([3]). My position is that Wikipedia is written according to reliable secondary sources, not our own (or Lvivske's) interpretation of primary sources (per WP:SECONDARY, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.") I guess it is his burden to find secondary sources that state they are "left-wing nationalist" - because he is the one insisting on adding that into the ideology section in the infobox. Could somebody hitherto uninvolved please weigh in on that? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are both sources stating that their ideology is for "Social-nationalism" and there are sources confirming that "Left-wing nationalism" is also called "Social[ist]-nationalism", these together should eliminate any dispute over whether "Social-nationalism" should pipe link to "Left-wing nationalism". They are social-nationalist, and thus, the are left-wing nationalist. That they are a right-wing leaning part is neither here nor there in regard to the form of nationalism they adhere to and you should not be applying WP:SYN reasoning that, because they are right wing, they cannot be left-wing nationalist (and thus social nationalist? even though that is their stated policy?)--Львівське (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article here because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article but I need major helping doing so. The article is in really bad shape and needs some major work on it. I wish I can get some editors to work on it and maybe help me because I honestly dont think I can get to GA standards on my own. We can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.

Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen Square deletions

Image:Tianasquare.jpg and Image:Tiananmen Square protests.jpg have been nominated for deletion. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TankMan.JPG has also been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso government reported toppled

News reports tend to be very unclear but there is some sore sort of protests/uprising/revolt/revolution going on in Burkina Faso right now, including a curfew on Ouagadougou and some reports that president Blaise Compaore has fled. How about an article, 2011 Burkina Faso uprising, based on the French version or its translation here? If there really was a government shift, then this is an urgent article to be created. Metaknowledge (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instant-runoff voting has been proposed to be renamed Alternative Vote (apparently, the British term), see Talk:Instant-runoff voting. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is presently a debate over whether the list article Declaration of independence ought to include a hatnote pointing specifically to the United States Declaration of Independence. Those in favor argue that historical, demographic, and practical factors justify this treatment, while those in opposition argue that no country's document should receive special treatment under any circumstances. I am bringing the discussion to your attention because Declaration of independence and United States Declaration of Independence are both included in this wikiproject. Please see here if you are interested in weighing in on the matter. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move discussion

Please comment at Talk:Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges#Requested_move on moving Rod Blagojevich corruption chargesUnited States v. Blagojevich.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notability advice

Hi people, does this project have a specific guideline for the notability threshold of political parties? Or do you recommend the WP:GNG? For example, English People's Party - as far as I can tell, there is no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", but is being registered with the Electorial Commission enough for inclusion? Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism)

Santorum (neologism)

This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox legislature improvements

{{Infobox legislature}} now has parameters for the language of the native name (|native_name_lang=; for example "RO" for "Parlamentul of României" in Parliament of Romania) and date of creation (|Foundation=). Please make use of them! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Monetary Fund

Please help moderate the page and stop people from adding information on DSK's sexual affairs on it.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a brief, neutral, and balanced discussion would be better. Removing any mention at all, despite extensive coverage in reliable sources, is no way to write a good article. However, you could shop around some more forums if you don't like the response you get here. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I repeat, the current managing directors personal actions (or supposed actions since he's not found guilty yet) is of no relation to the IMF's operations. Simpel analogy: Does your bosses extramarital affairs depict your comapany's operations? You can't tell me of going else where if I don't like the answer.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalism as a Religion

I am seeking assistance in writing a section to the article Environmentalism regarding a significant minority opinion that Environmentalism can be viewed as a religion. As the primary subject is tagged as falling under this wikiproject perhaps there would be interested parties willing to assist in this endeavor. Please see the current discussion at Talk:Environmentalism#Enivironmentalism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National cabinets

Your comments are requested at a discussion about the titles of national cabinet articles here. Any constructive contributions would be appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics related navigational template nominated for deletion

The navigational template {{Political neologisms}} has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Template:Political_neologisms. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently expanded article

Skipping Towards Gomorrah - I recently expanded this article. Check it out, if you are interested. Feel free to suggest additional secondary sources, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for NPOV review

  • Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
  • I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
  • However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

Here are the articles:

  1. Joel Anderson
  2. Jose Peralta
  3. Hiram Monserrate

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC pertaining to Kosovo

The placement of Kosovo on List of sovereign states is currently being debated. We need further input from uninvolved editors about how best to proceed. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is being held at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria#Kosovo's placement on the list. Nightw 00:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,862 (as of 16:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). Thank you for all of the work you've done to date, but we are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Planet

I think that this recently-created article falls within the scope of this wiki-project.

On the talk page, a user has raised concerns that it is overly dependent on primary sources; I think that is true. So, if anyone can help improve it, trim out anything inappropriate, etc. - please do. Best,  Chzz  ►  03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Bill of Rights, an article within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards by July 4th, 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a reassessment requests bit of the project, I've expanded the article and it's no longer a stub. I've been told off before for removing ratings tags by other projects (even blatantly incorrect ones). Could it be reassessed please? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created new portal = Supreme Court of the United States

I've created a new portal for this topic. Collaboration and help would be appreciated, just drop a note at Portal talk:Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Prime Ministers of Canada 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. 117Avenue (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at peer review

A new portal Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. I put a bit of effort into this and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the proposed merger of Lawmaking procedure in India with Parliament of India at Talk:Parliament_of_India#Merge_Lawmaking_procedure_in_India_with_Parliament_of_India.-- R.Sivanesh © 20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Webster FAR

I have nominated Daniel Webster 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. Brad (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article or redirect?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sexual preference#Own article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States at Featured Portal candidates

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States is a candidate for Featured Portal, with discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Supreme Court of the United States. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've placed this article up for featured article review (here). Your project may be interested. The FAR is open to comment. I'll hopefully find the time to look into the article over the coming months myself. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Declaration of Independence article needs to be adopted

I have performed a review at Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1. However, the nominator has exercised his WP:RTV. The article needs someone to adopt it and address my concerns in order to regain its GA status. I will allow seven days for someone to step forward.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need input at election-related FAC

I have nominated the article United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 for featured article, but so far it has received no actual comments or either support or oppose votes. I really do not want it to fail for lack of input, so could anybody spare the time to weigh in there? Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Marcos and TfD:Template:The Marcoses

Is there anyone here with an interest in the Philippines? If so, please come and have a look at TfD:Template:The Marcoses. There is a discussion there which is relevant to this project. In the course of considering a proposal to delete Template:The Marcoses I discovered that links to articles about many opponents of - and some collaborators with - Ferdinand Marcos are not linked to the text in his article, merely to this badly named and concealed navbox, which is now proposed for deletion. These include Insurgency in the Philippines, New People's Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Assassination of Ninoy Aquino, NAMFREL and People Power Revolution. Also, Constitution of the Philippines is a link hidden underneath alternative text, and Rolex 12 only appears without elaboration under "See also". Some of these are in danger of being orphaned. I sincerely hope that someone here will take an interest in rectifying the situation. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Marcoses

I have opened a discussion topic Template name and contents at Template_talk:The_Marcoses. Rubywine . talk 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template for articles on bills and laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI <-- I think the "notable individuals and groups" and "timeline" sections are fantastic on here and should be standard for articles on pieces of legislation in the future. Chursaner (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes; but I'm concerned that a detailed list of "notable individuals and groups" could be a magnet for problematic editing on some of the more controversial legislation articles. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Still really need help at the featured article nomination for United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. There have been no oppose votes but very little input at all, and I don't want to see it fail for lack of participation. Any help would be very much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short story: I don't think we should be claiming that Gadaffi and his cronies are no longer the heads of Libya. Another user thinks we can say that he and friends has gone. See reverts here and here. I have provided sources which still refer to Gadaffi as leader. This is clearly a reliable sources showing that Gadaffi is still one of Libya's two claimants to head of state for now. It's not up to Wikipedia to preempt history. Could do with a few extra views on this? --Pretty Green (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since multiple reliable sources report recognition of the "rebel" government by an increasing number of foreign governments and embassies, and since sources also report that Gaddafi's de facto control over Libya has evaporated (de facto is all that matters now; it's not as though he was a legitimate elected leader), I think it would be unreasonable to give Gaddafi primacy in articles like that. As a minimum, we should say that the position is disputed between Gaddafi and the rebels; preferably, we should make it clear that the rebels now control most of the country. bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My previous compromise had been to list them together, both in power. I agree entirely that in a week we might go back to this article and edit it as '22nd August' when Gadaffi lost power. But we shouldn't be doing that now. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Online Ambassadors with an interest in politics

Hi WikiProject Politics members! I wanted to let you know that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a number of classes on politics and political science, and it'd be great to have some people who know their way around Wikipedia's politics coverage to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated League of Nations 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.

I would like a third party to take a look at. I have tried to edit it, but I am getting reverted by a possible WP:SPA named Mayor Smith (talk · contribs) that I feel is having some WP:COI issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with American political parties

The page List of political parties in the United States contains several "parties" that are really political organizations, not parties. Some of these have been included on the page for multiple years, so I don't feel completely confident about removing them. Is there a page where I can place them? I thought there was a "list of political organizations in the United States" but I can't find it now. 71.184.241.68 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC pertaining to List of sovereign states

Please join a preference survey on how to divide our List of sovereign states. All responses are appreciated. Thanks, Nightw 13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested in article move discussion

Hi. Readers at this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Jeffersonian democracy#Requested move. Thanks in advance for any input. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]