Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

"political parties of minorities"

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

Requested move at Talk:2024 The Republicans alliance crisis#Requested move 7 October 2024

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)

Foster parents needed for Draft:History of French bureaucracy

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France § Foster parents needed for Draft:History of French bureaucracy.[edit]

Draft:History of French bureaucracy has apparently been abandoned by The Star Baron (talk · contribs). The topic is unquestionably a notable one, and this draft deserves to be developed and released. I'd like to see more citations added to it—I added a Further reading section with numerous sources that could be mined for the purpose—but it is already an advanced stub at this point, and probably releasable with some minor changes. It would be great to find someone to take this on, whip it into shape, and release it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I work full-time and am a family man so I will be the first to admit I have worked on this article very slowly, but I do consider myself working on it incredibly slowly rather than abandoning it entirely. I do understand my edits have been beyond sparse at this junction, but I'm not going to claim I'm all hat no cattle. I'm a ton-of-tabs open kind of guy so I still have a few open dedicated to this topic, I just have had trouble getting my research on the cultural fame of French bureaucracy to a publishable state. Any help getting this article to the state I agree it deserves is always appreciated, and I do thank you Mathglot for taking an interest in it. Articles definitely have to be group efforts to reach their best form, but I wasn't trying to leave this article on anyone's doorstep! I do plan to be a life-long contributor to this article and to the project at large, and I will be a better contributor as I continue my education and become smarter about such things. The Star Baron (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The Star Baron, great to hear from you. This is a volunteer project, and your creation of the draft is laudable. Real life takes precedence always, and when, or if you get back to it, is entirely up to you. If you do find the time, please note that the § Further reading section has a bunch of new references you can mine to flesh out the story of French bureaucracy; I left them there for that purpose, so feel free to use them if you wish, or develop your own sources. I hope other editors will see the call, and join in to help out as well. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Alerted by Mathglot: Interesting. Adjoins the administrative law topic that I have been meaning to get to for forever. I see some sentences that I would like to pull out of passive voice, but this is common and no big deal, and there is little point in polishing the English until it is fleshed out a bit more. It is true that the article feels light for the topic, which is huge, actually. I am very busy right now but would like to contribute here and there eventually. Thanks for the Further reading, Mathglot. I guess I could start by reading some of it, ans I guess let The Star Baron know which one so we don't duplicate? One partially formed thought that I can bring to the article for consideration right now is that the French Revolution brought a lot of reforms and rationalizations to rather creaky French systems including the metric system and the civil law legal system. To oversimplify quite a bit the latter brought some deceptively simple-looking principles to government, for example that laws must be written down and could not be retroactive. There was very strong feeling at the time about the whims of kings. There are a number of start-class articles out there about these fundamental principles, about which Mathglot can tell you a lot more, as Mathglot has been tending them, whereas I have been in and out in bursts doing deep dives. I did not know about Germany, but it makes a great deal of sense. A couple of Polish editors of my acquaintance once told me that Napoleon is still to this day rather popular in Poland, because he brought the civil law system to, for example, the Duchy of Warsaw. I was surprised and said he seemed like an invading mad tyrant, but ah, they said, he was nonetheless better than the sort of invading mad tyrant that they had been getting from Russia. So they were all in favor of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, which of course failed. But Poland to this day has a civil law system, a hybrid one, I believe. So there is lots of stuff that could go in a background section. There is also a more indirect link to the law and administration system of Brazil, which imported a Bonaparte to be Emperor at one point. That is what surfaces off the top of my head. Hope is is useful. If you don't get to it I probably will at some point, so... note to whomever, possibly me. Also don't forget all the French possessions and colonies in North Africa, DR Congo and Vietnam, although I am not as conversant with the details of those systems. The way that is handled the discrepancy between liberte, egalite, fraternite and the mechanics of regulating slavery and predatory colonialism are probably interesting, but the French had wheat and coral concessions in Algeria well before the French Revolution, and apparently a lot of small wars were fought over the rights to export to Marseilles. HTH Elinruby (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added rudimentary mention of ENA (which of course has been famously renamed during the Macron administration). I was also surprised to see that "civil service" was not mentioned in the proposed entry, so I moved the French civil service.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Stoicism

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)

Smart on Crime

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

2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden

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)

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

Good article reassessment for Andrew Fisher

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)

Good article reassessment for Aneurin Bevan

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)

Good article reassessment for Haile Selassie

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)

Head of State has an RfC

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)

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

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#Article size, structure, and focus

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)

Requested move at Talk:Shiv Sena (1966–2022)#Requested move 11 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shiv Sena (1966–2022)#Requested move 11 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Natg 19 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Joseph McCarthy

Joseph McCarthy 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) 02:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Neal Boortz

Neal Boortz 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) 02:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Iskandar of Johor

Iskandar of Johor 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) 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:European Union law#Requested move 16 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Union law#Requested move 16 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney 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) 22:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)