Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Created article on satirical comedy film - Climate Change Denial Disorder

I've created a new article on the satirical comedy short film Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Help with additional research would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

About some new proposals on WT:VA/E

I've proposed to add political spectrum, left–right politics and electoral fraud to WP:VA/E. Hope that members of this WikiProject participate in the voting of these proposals, so that they won't be tagged as NO CONSENSUS in the near future.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

American Council for Capital Formation -- help please

I had some concerns about a Wikipedia political article. It doesn't have a talk page, so I hope it's okay to take them here. I'm interested to work with someone here to help improve it, but I don't want to jump right in on something that might be controversial. It's about the American Council for Capital Formation (link: American Council for Capital Formation).

• It looks like the entire "History" section is taken from a book by long-time Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal, but instead of being identified as a subjective account by a Democratic Party activist (or just by Blumenthal's name), it's presented as an authoritative. Obviously the Democratic Party's views should be included for a fair article, but it's a little troubling to see only the Democrats writing the history of a right-leaning think tank. (I'm sure others would feel the same if that section was written solely by, say, Karl Rove!) Would it be all right if I tried to add some balancing voices to this section?

• Walker's views are clearly identified as Walker's, while Blumenthal's views are presented as the encyclopedia's own voice. When dealing with interpretative material, I think it would be fairer to say something like "Blumenthal argued that the predicted spurt in investment never materialized. Walker argued that other economic factors were in play and in November 1979 he told the Council's annual meeting that the tax cut had saved the economy from yet worse trouble." Can I more clearly attribute subjective opinions to Blumenthal, the same as the article's current author did for Walker?

• I'm also not sure that using "claimed" to describe the Council's opinions is as neutral as it could be--it carries a heavy whiff of suspicion. Maybe just "argued"? (Greenpeace, in contrast, is described as "documenting" things, even though the cited sources gives zero evidence for their claims.)

• The group actually has a Connecticut Ave address, not K Street. (see their website). They could be said to be in the K Street neighborhood, I guess, but it's not right to say that they're on the street itself. Could I fix this?

• There seems to be a lot of stuff here that's not directly related to the ACCF. For example, an e-mail Banks sent in a previous job as a senator's aide is given a full paragraph, even though none of the coverage I found about it mentions the ACCF. (And nothing about the ACCF mentions the e-mail.) Maybe this material should be moved to individual pages on these people instead of trying to collect it all here?

• "Bloomfield openly expresses pleasure at the fact that half the members of the House Ways and Means Committee have attended his dinners" -- to me, this makes him sound like he's rubbing his hands together and cackling. I also don't even see a source for this claim, while the most positive part of the source's portrayal is omitted: "Sununu, who has been to a dozen dinners, said that when lawmakers stopped viewing issues in overt political terms the dinners generated substantive discussions."

• Is there a good source for "The Council supported ending the ban on export of crude oil from the United States"? I looked at the two citations much further down in the paragraph. It's true that they once hosted a panel discussion where a senator said that, but I'm not sure that's quite the same thing. Would it be all right if I clarified this, in lieu of a more direct source?

• "The Council has been active in the climate policy space for the past twenty years." -- does this have a source? Looking at the book that's cited a few sentences later in Amazon preview, I see a brief reference to the ACCF but nothing like this figure. Maybe we could try to find one?

I hope my suggestions are helpful and not a nuisance. Let me know if I can do these myself or if someone else can look at it. Thanks to all the volunteers who work here, EllenMcGill (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

President Imelda Marcos

Was Imelda Marcos once an unofficial president of the Philippines? See these edits [1] -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Conjugal dictatorship"

Imeldific (talk · contribs) has created a new article at Conjugal dictatorship, which you may wish to evaluate -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Superdelegate

Hi everyone. Another editor and I are having a discussion about the lede to the Superdelegate article. I think we would both appreciate some input. [2] Thanks so much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC over at MilHist

Just FYI, I've requested comment on an issue that might be relevant to this WikiProject over at WikiProject:Military History. The relevant thread can be found here. kthxbai. TimothyJosephWood 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of sourced content about violence against Biharis and different points of view about figures of people killed and women raped / Removal of unsourced content

Please comment at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Serious disagreements at Education of the British Royal Family

There has recently been an influx of fans of this celebrity family who have engaged in concentrated whitewashing of this article. Additional eyes would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notification of move discussion

There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of popular vote at Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Hello. There is a standstill at Template_talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Inclusion of popular vote and Template_talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Idea for Popular Vote, where a number of editors have removed the popular vote from the Democratic primaries template and refuse to allow its inclusion, citing a lack of consensus. Feel free to comment on the RfC, which has been going on since March (or, if you're an admin, feel free to close the discussion and help determine an outcome). -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Should a government use a "former country" infobox?

There's a discussion at Talk:Czechoslovak government-in-exile on whether a former-country infobox is appropriate to the article. All comments welcomed.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

An RfC for you

Talk:Alternative_for_Germany#RFC:_Anti-Islam_in_the_infobox_in_Political_positions_field -- Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Olympic Games and political red-herings

Can we please have input at List of people who have opened the Olympic Games article? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's lame, but we really need to get this done before the Rio Olympics starts. Travelmite (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Burial sites of political families of the United States has been nominated for discussion

Category:Burial sites of political families of the United States, 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) 12:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on John Miller incident related to Donald Trump

Please see this RfC, which members of this project may wish to weigh in on. ~ Rob^Talk 21:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:POLOUTCOMES and AfD

Could people familiar with articles on local politicians please look at Libby Garvey and its associated AfD? I have concerns about sourcing (or lack thereof), weight, neutrality that call into question not only whether or not this article needs to be "fixed" but should the article about this local politician exist in the first place?That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• update: That man from Nantucket has been revealed to be a bad faith sockpuppet... Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: image montages of individual faces on ethnicity and other demonym articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. It is a proposal to vacate the previous consensus reached in the February 2016 RfC that resulted in the creation of the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES provision at MOS:IMAGES, and also relates thematically to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (all of these discussions are ultimately about using infoboxes to identify individuals as members of particular ethnicities, and this relates also to MOS:IDENTITY).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)