Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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).

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?

Political group redirect

Some additional opinions are needed at Talk:Lion_Guard#Possible_merge?. The article has not really been worked on that much except by two editors with very few comments from outside parties. There have been some WP:OWN issues raised on the talk page, thus more opinions are needed, especially from third party editors unconnected with the edits thus far. -O.R.Comms 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


Not sure if this issue has come up before on this project for consensus, but most BLP articles for politicians and other government officials have a portrait in the infobox. Many of these are standard size, (example, see left);

uncropped, upright=1

While some articles may have a "cropped" version of the image, (example, see right);

cropped, upright=1

One editor at least has a preference for the cropped version and has edited several BLPs infobox portraits from standard to cropped. I don't see the benefit to zooming in on the person's face, while excluding any accoutrements from the background, such as flags, officials seals and other trappings or symbols of office, but that's just me. I'm just curious to see if this has come up before and/or what others have to say. Thanks - wolf 00:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

DNI's full portrait is shown later in the article and if others truly want to see a full portrait, they can visit the official's article. Plus, it's not what's in the background of the picture... it's who is in the picture. A close-up provides a better view for our readers. Corky 00:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
A "better view" of what? Wrinkles? Errant nose hairs? Zits trying to hide under layers of spackled-on make-up? Do you really think "our readers" are having that much difficulty seeing these people's faces? Or that they're incapable of clicking on the image to select a larger size? There is a reason officials have items such as flags and seals in the background (protocol), but conversely there is no reason to cut them out. These cropped images diminish the dignity of the BLP subject. (imho) - wolf 02:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
uncropped, upright=0.85
cropped, upright=0.65

Your examples are too big (in the case of the uncropped) and WAY too big (in the case of the cropped). Generally portrait-oriented images should be sized down a bit, as I've done here. As to cropped vs. uncropped, that's up to editors of the page, but for a lead image I'd take the uncropped. EEng 03:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about px size (I thought that was clear... guess not) This is about cropped vs non-cropped. The sizes of the images here are irrelevant, they're just examples. - theWOLFchild 03:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Candidates order for upcoming election in Pakistan

The project members opinion is requested at Talk:NA-1 (Chitral)#Candidate order regarding how to order the candidates for 2018 election based on previous party performance or previous individual candidate performance in case of changing party affiliation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy

There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ 03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Choice of infobox on articles about constituencies

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{infobox constituency}} and {{infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - reference probems

There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

While reference cleanup isn't the standard domain of the WP:GOCE, they may be more likely to respond than people here. From a quick glance, most of the reference information is in the article (if you read the notelist in order), it's simply not formatted correctly. (the Charmley 1995 v. 1996 probably requires accessing the source to ensure that it's simply a difference of edition). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not just formatting, it's works not being listed, or no indication of which of numerous works by an author are intended. DuncanHill (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
This is better suited to the talk page. The Soames refs, for example, it's clear to me that 587 and 588 are the same work, and 589-599 are a separate work by the same author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I did point people to the talk page. We shouldn't be guessing what works refs refer to. They need to be checked and fixed. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Bipartisanship info in political bios

A few editors, most prominently Sarah Dinner (talk · contribs) have been adding information about the Bipartisan Index to various political bios diff1 diff2. Is this reasonable information to include in these articles, or is it unduly promoting The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • @Power~enwiki and Sarah Dinner: I don't think it is promotional towards the sources. I'm familiar with the Lugar Center and I think it is reliable, and the McCourt School sounds reliable. I personally think those two edits were great, as long as you don't over-rely on those sources. If you are concerned about undue weight, I would include content discussing what the subject and their supporters think about their voting records and political beliefs, as well as what their detractors think about their politics. I might also include bills they sponsored that became enacted, etc. This is all just me: I don't know what other people in the project think about this. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend changing:
and then add the "publisher" parameter to the ref e.g. | publisher = [[Richard Lugar#The Lugar Center|The Lugar Center]] and [[Georgetown University|Georgetown's]] [[McCourt School of Public Policy]]. In the edit summary I would say "Tweaking quote and ref to avoid unduly promoting The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy." That way the publisher of the the metric (The Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy) is contained in the ref and not in the quote. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Protests against Trump footer

Template:Protests against Trump footer has been nominated for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Stateless nation

There is an RfC at Talk:Stateless nation#RfC on sources required for inclusion on sourcing requirements for the article. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Presenting some interesting findings

Hello guys. As you probably known, Romania was an Axis country during WW2. However, unlike Germany and Italy, it is not afraid to publicly honor people frowned upon, like overt antisemites and Fascists and even convicted war criminals. I spent hours today on Google Maps, ticking in the search bar the name of every single entry given by the Wiki categories "Romanian people convicted of war crimes" and "Romanian fascists", with the latter's two viable subcategories. Took me hours. Hey hey, I know this isn't related to improving an article, you don't have to shove a WP:Something in my face, okay? I just wanted to share my findings. I do believe this is something unique that wasn't done before, and I worked hard on this list. Just take a look and tell me what you think if you feel like replying. Otherwise please excuse me for the bother. (User:Torpilorul/sandbox). Torpilorul (talk) 20:36, 17 July 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