Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics / American (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by American politics task force (marked as High-importance).

420 Collaboration

The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cold War II

What can be done about Category:Cold War II, created by Psychiatrick? I thought about removing the subcategories and the pages, but I would like to hear other suggestions first please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


There is an RfC on the talk page of the article Neo-Nazism which may interest members of this project. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. –dlthewave 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun politics task force

I'm interested in starting a task force to improve coverage in areas related to gun politics. A few topics have become contentious and would benefit from having a central discussion point as well as more widespread community involvement:

  • Neutrality in articles about organizations involved in gun politics such as NRA
  • Coverage of criminal use in gun articles such as Colt AR-15
  • Identifying and addressing potentially biased or politically motivated editing in gun-related articles

Gun rights, legislation, etc. would also be within scope. A core group of roughly a dozen editors has been active in this area. Would folks be interested in implementing this under the umbrella of WP:POLITICS? –dlthewave 16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors who may be interested: @RAF910, PackMecEng, Springee, Geogene, K.e.coffman, Thewolfchild, MrX, Pharos, NeilN, Niteshift36, and BullRangifer:dlthewave 16:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm adminning in this area and so obviously will limit my comments accordingly. --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think there would be value in creating such a task force, and I would be interested in participating. There are quite a few cross-article discussions that take place, so this would centralize and focus some of those discussions. It could also be a forum for developing best practices for gun politics-related content.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Keep me in the loop. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
What's the difference between a "task force" and a canvassing list? Is this kind of thing OK? I have given up on these articles due to the obstinate POV editing that still has them in gridlock, even after a few improvements via the Arbcom case. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There are examples of similar initiatives at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Task forces.–dlthewave 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a good idea; how much of a role I'll have in it is to be determined. Geogene (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be interested in getting some wider spread input on things like reciprocity of weight. Sometime I'm nervous when we talk about improving neutrality because there may be serious disagreements as to what makes the article more neutral. If the ultimate product is a group of a few editors who apply and enforce through local consensus a uniform vision of what they think the articles should look like (which ever way that looks) then we may not make Wikipedia better for it. Conversely, if we explore some of the ideas that might make things more uniform, and ways we might structure things so that all sides can be happier then this could be a real positive for Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking that a discussion at WP:NPOVN may be in order. Weight is one of the biggest sources of policy-based disagreement. –dlthewave 21:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Since at least a couple of these fall squarely in the Firearms project, why are we bringing it to another project? Why not try the same task force there? I guess I'm seeing some duplication and curious how that will improve things? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Few Firearms project members have shown interest in improving our coverage of these topics or implementing community consensus decisions. –dlthewave 22:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, the RfC simply said that it wasn't OK to have a blanket prohibition or a blanket edict that information could only be contained in a "see also" link. That doesn't mean that refusal to include criminal or political information on any particular firearms article is against the RfC consensus. Effectively the RfC did almost nothing since it didn't offer new guidance as to when material should or shouldn't be included. It is still possible to cite the firearms project recommendations etc. It's understandable that those who were against inclusion based on their reading of WP:Weight etc. still feel that way. Springee (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be interested in the new task force. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Few Firearms project members have shown interest in improving our coverage of these topics or implementing community consensus decisions". I guess that depends on your POV. Given that you have an interpretation of the Village Pump closure that is questionable, I find it difficult to support your claim that nobody is supporting 'improvement'. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Niteshift36: I assume this comment refers to me. What exactly do you find questionable about my interpretation of the RfC? –dlthewave 15:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You interpret the close as saying "there was no support for limiting criminal use". It supported case-by-case and there was as much support for limiting it as for any other option. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
To keep it in one place, I'm continuing this conversation at WP:Firearms.
  • What you've said there impacts my response to what you're saying here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to join the task force and help develop best practices in this area. –dlthewave 19:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:American Guard

Please comment on content that has been called into question.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun politics task force

Gun outline.svg Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. . If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

This may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks –dlthewave 19:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Spanish transition to democracy, 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 Wikipedia'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 talk 00:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Donation = Endorsement?

At Maine gubernatorial election, 2018, User:MAINEiac4434 contends that a donation from an individual to a candidate equals an endorsement and thus should be included under that section on the page. I contend that an affirmative statement by the candidate or endorser is necessary to include the article and that including donors as endorsers is a violation of BLP. What are your thoughts?

Consensus-seeking discussion notice

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ 00:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notification

There is an RfC at the John Bolton article talk page members of this project might interested in taking part in here. -- ψλ 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA