Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

File:Political System of the United States.svg and File:Politisches System der Vereinigten Staaten.svg

  • English version
    English version
  • German version
    German version

Hey =)

Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC) PS: See also: commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#File:Political_System_of_the_United_States.svg_and_File:Politisches_System_der_Vereinigten_Staaten.svg

I uploaded a new version (before - after). — Allrounder (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

TfD of Template:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities

This WikiProject may be interested in the TfD discussion ongoing here. Please feel free to participate if you'd like. ~ RobTalk 02:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: This link appears to be broken now. Can you update it? Jarble (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You can look at the archived motion page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions#2015. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Discussion of interest

There is a discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of the United States#Importance assessments out of wack which concerns your project. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

Editors' views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote

There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ballot proposition articles

I have started a discussion about ballot proposition articles at WikiProject Elections and Referendums – please do contribute if you have an opinion. Cheers, Number 57 16:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of "2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots" into "Protests against Donald Trump"

I have initiated a merge proposal of the above mentioned articles. Discussion here. 2601:644:2:B64B:8183:231:EF80:A576 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

US Presidential Timeline work

The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

IP vandal

120.155.99.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a number of absurd edits. I reverted the ones I was sure were wrong, but he's added a few {{New Democrats}}, {{Bill Clinton series}}, {{Hillary Clinton series}}, and {{Bill Clinton}} to some articles, where I'm not sure they are inappropriate. Less than 50 edits overall, all since February 27, most alread reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Does one consequence of a bill belong in the article of every politician that voted for the bill?

There is a back and forth going on right now across alot of articles about US representatives. Snooganssnoogans added information to articles about US representatives that voted for the American Health Care Act. The information includes one consequence of the bill: "The version of the bill that he voted for scraps protections for people with preexisting conditions, allowing insurers to charge individuals with conditions such as cancer more." The information was removed by 1990'sguy and has been reinstated by Volunteer Marek. I do not believe the information belongs in the articles. We shouldn't be adding one consequence from the bill to individual articles. If anyone is interested in what the bill does they should read the article on the bill. To actually tell what the bill does we would need to add the whole article about the bill into the article of everyone that voted for it. We as editors shouldn't be deciding what is important about the bill, we need to let the reader decide. ~ GB fan 14:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Way premature. For all we know in a week the Senate will have voted it down and the whole ordeal will be forgotten. Besides, it comes off as a WP:SYNTH-reliant way to slam the representatives in question by implying without outright stating that they endorse the bill along with the consequences - something we have no sources for. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if it gets voted down in the senate, it's very likely to have - and already has had - consequences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you please elaborate? I (and others) don't see any way how this bill, which has only passed the lower house, has already had consequences. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I have seen this done before, and IMO it is unacceptable and POV. It is OK to say that a representative voted for or against a particularly notable piece of legislation, even if it never becomes law. It is POV to point out one consequence of the bill, or even to try to describe what the bill does except in the most general and neutral terms. The version you quote here should be removed as POV, or replaced by a neutral statement. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The Senate has said they are not even going to take up the AHCA and will write their own bill- but I agree there is a POV issue in posting the supposed negative effects of the bill on the page of every congressman who voted for it. That's what the article on the bill is for. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed the information because it violated WP:CHERRYPICK. The info only discusses one aspect of the AHCA (it has many). The reader can easily click on the link to read about all the facts/reactions/consequences of the bill. It is POV just to point this one fact out. This is the equivalent of adding info that a politician voted for ObamaCare and then pointing out a negative fact about that Act. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Does one consequence of a bill belong in the article of every politician that voted for the bill?
THE QUESTION IS Do the alleged/perceived/selectively chosen purported consequence of all bills belong in the article of every politician that voted for any bill? If not, why? Why just this one bill? Quis separabit? 16:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The text in question which is the subject of an edit war (add, delete, readd, redelete) is plainly recentist and synthetic. The bill has not even passed (and may not pass) the US Senate (certainly in its current form) and yet some editors (some more arrogantly than others) want to allow/are assisting outside forces/blatantly partisan IPs to manipulate Wikipedia into being a catspaw in the political battles that will lead into the 2018 elections. These editors are either naive or compliant. The question amounts to: are we going to allow Wikipedia to become a tool in the culture war(s) going on or are we going to preserve her integrity? Quis separabit? 16:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I am in the process of removing that sentence from the articles (sheesh, there are 217 of them!) and I notice another user is doing the same. I am pointing out that this sentence is controversial and being discussed here, and should not be re-added without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think. They didn't actually put it on all 217 articles. Just 50 or 60 of them. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's nothing really important about the voting record on one bill such that it is recorded in every representative's article. It would probably be better handled at the article about the bill itself, where the voting record would not present WP:UNDUE problems. --Jayron32 16:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it can be appropriate to note in a representative's article how they voted on high-profile bills. That's an important part of their public record. We just need to be sure that note doesn't become a coatrack for POV intended to make them look good or bad. Details about what the bill did are just a link away for those interested in more detail. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I will definitely stop adding text on this until consensus is reached and will definitely self-revert whatever of the disputed text remains that I can. As for several of the concerns: (I) The idea that the vote shouldn't be mentioned in any way in a politician's page (per Jayron32) seems like a clearly erroneous approach to take. This is indisputably what every congressman has received the most coverage for in the current session of Congress: I'd wager that a LexisNexis search would show that the majority of mentions for GOP congressmen in 2017 is in association with this and the March 2017 vote - how these individual congressmen were going to vote and what kind of legislation they'd support has been national news coverage for months. I don't think this is a concern that other editors above share. (II) I think the concerns with how the bill should be described are valid, but I don't think it's valid to say that legislation shouldn't be described at all. Wikipedia would be of no use if every "political positions" section just listed HRXXX and stated whether they voted for or against it. Which legislation to describe and at what length would seem to be under Wiki policy on DUE, NOTABILITY etc. A piece of legislation that receives zero coverage by RS but is listed on the clerk.house.gov/ would never belong. A piece of legislation or a policy statement that receives extensive RS coverage would belong. I opted to use WaPo's list of votes, along with its description that the changes to the bill would remove protections for pre-existing conditions[1]. I have noticed that one part of the description (that it would allow insurer to charge the elderly up to five times more than young consumers) was not in the WaPo description (but in the AHCA WP article itself), which I thought it was and is an error I apologize for. (III) The intention was always to use this language as a start (using WaPo's list and its brief description) and then to elaborate by using in-depth articles (often from local news sources) on each vote. The current state of the Mimi Walters article[2] is a good example, as it lists the vote, her statement about the legislation and then RS coverage about the vote and her political stance, but even that's an early version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think all text was reverted whilst writing this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think I got them all. No hard feelings, I think you added this in good faith and I know you will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
So... should we add a uniform description of the bill to all House-members' pages? Or should the description of the bill mirror whatever language that the RS uses that we happen to use on a particular politician's page (see, for instance, the language about AHCA on Mimim Walters' page as an example)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm very concerned after examining the Mimi_Walters article. The sources for her Mimi_Walters#Political_positions are almost all primary (e.g. a youtube video of the house, her facebook page, etc.) or simple lists without any detailed coverage. Of the hundreds of votes she cast our article chooses to highlight a few. How were they chosen? The selection process appears to violate WP:WEIGHT. How many other articles are similarly affected? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk)

To the actual question, it depends on the importance of the bill. The ACA vote led to Representatives losing their jobs, or at least that's been suggested. The AHCA vote is arguably as important, the Republicans have been talking about the "repeal and replace" of Obamacare for years. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

But the 2018 elections haven't even started. How can we say that this bill and its consequences will play a large impact on the election? That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The coverage has been wall to wall, and the big celebration by Trump and House Republicans adds to it. Presuming this vote will be important in 2018 is not CRYSTAL on our part. It might be CRYSTAL on the media's part, but our job is to reflect the importance they give it. The general interpretation (common wisdom?) is that this vote will be highly consequential for these representatives. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte NPOV dispute/concerns

There is a content dispute on the article Greg Gianforte. As with the above discussion, Snooganssnoogans added info that I believe is POV and UNDUE (and off-topic as well). Other POV edits have been made by other editors. It would be great if other editors would review this article. Gianforte is currently in an upcoming special election, which I think explains the edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This was my response on another dispute resolution page: Gianforte's statements on social security and retirement have been covered by reliable sources. They are notable and would belong on any politician's page. Gianforte's extensive financial backing of a creationist museum is also notable, and has unsurprisingly been extensively covered by reliable sources. The backing of the museum is notable because of the theories that the museum espouses to its visitors, it would therefore be inexplicable for the Wikipedia article not to mention what these theories are (this is something that reliable sources do - why shouldn't the WP article?). It's also disingenuous to say that the Wikipedia article covers this three times: (i) one is in the lede; (ii) two is a brief mention about how his support for the creationist museum were the subject of protest; (iii) third was a brief mention under the activities that his charity runs. It's quite common that politicians' takes on scientific matters are featured in their pol positions subsections. The content could, however, be easily moved into a 'religion' subsection or be added under the subsection on his charity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've had this article watchlisted for quite some time. The Creationist museum issue is well-known and well documented. The Fundamentalist Christianity of Gianforte is also verifiable, as is the problem that he doesn't mention it in his speeches except in an indirect fashion. I'll look at the newer content and most likely use tags and hidden text to suggest improvements. Montanabw(talk) 04:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with Vianovo?

Resolved

Hi. I've been asked by the consultancy Vianovo to request a few updates to their article, which falls under the scope of this WikiProject.I posted a note on the Talk page last month asking for help, but I don't think many editors are watching the Talk page and no one has responded yet. Would anyone here be able to look over the edits I'm proposing and make the changes if they seem OK? As I am working on behalf of Vianovo, I don't want to make any edits myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am continuing work on the Vianovo article in place of my (now former) colleague, User:Heatherer. I am still looking for volunteers to review one or both of the edit requests seen here. I'm happy to respond to any questions or concerns on the article's talk page, or on my user talk page. Thanks for your consideration! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The edit requests have been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Congressional Institute article

Hi there! I'm reaching out here to see if there are any editors who would be interested to help update the article for the Congressional Institute. The current article is overly detailed, has inline external links and content that is not properly sourced. The new draft I'm proposing is trimmed down and thoroughly sourced. There's an edit request on the Talk page here that provides more details. I have a COI as I'm working for the Institute as part of my work with Beutler Ink and I won't edit the article directly; I'm hoping to find uninvolved editors to review the draft. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done This edit request has been reviewed. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Endorsements of Trump are being removed from multiple congresspeople's Wikipedia pages

User:JFG has spent the morning/night removing text about whether congresspeople endorsed Trump or not in the 2016 presidential election, see for instance [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The text on the endorsements is in every case reliably sourced and unique to the congressperson in question. It is notable, and in many cases earned national news coverage (not a lot of things revolving around individual congresspersons get national news coverage). The claim that it is not a 'political position' is false: an endorsement of a candidate or a failure to endorse the candidate is as much a political position as you can get, as it bears on the policies and character of the candidate and whether the congressperson believes he is fit to hold the most important position in the US government. Many Republicans did not endorse Trump because they did not believe that he was fit to hold the presidency, other Republicans endorsed reluctantly, other Republicans endorsed without any stated concerns. Even if the user disagreed that it was a political position, it should be moved to a relevant subsection, not deleted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans! Let me explain a bit what happened. I first noticed the following sentence on some congressman's page: In February 2017, he voted against resolution that would have directed the House to request 10 years of Trump's tax returns, which would then have been reviewed by the House Ways and Means Committee in a closed session. This struck me as an undue detail of a vote among hundreds, not worthy of including in this person's overall biography. Then I noticed that the exact same text (and same grammatical error) had been included in the pages of a dozen Republican congresspeople who happened to have made this vote. By the same reasoning, I removed all such mentions. While going through this, I sometimes removed mentions of the congressman's support for Trump during the campaign, and justified this with "not a political position". However this edit comment essentially applied to the tax return vote. I agree with you that early support for Trump was a political position and deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the relevant bios. I would oppose the reinstatement of the tax return vote, unless some congressperson made a particular public point of endorsing or opposing this resolution. — JFG talk 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
JFG, will you then restore the endorsements to the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You can go ahead with Trump endorsements (as a phrase with citation, not as a separate section unless the person took an active role in his campaign). I would still be opposed to the vote on tax returns. — JFG talk 16:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm restricted from doing mass edits (same edits across two or more pages in quick succession), so these edits would most likely fall under my ban, so you or someone else will have to do the edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
JFG, are you going to fix the content that you yourself admitted that you removed for no legitimate reason? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
MelanieN, can you restore the endorsements, seeing as how JFG refuses to? I can't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Adding signature for timestamp/archival purposes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment March

Resolved

Project members are invited to participate in this discussion over whether or not the Impeachment March article should be merged into Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Political appointments of Donald Trump article

There is an ongoing RfC at Political appointments by Donald Trump that might be of interest to editors here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump#RfC:_Should_we_include_career_diplomats.3F --1990'sguy (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Congressional staff editing pages

I just wanted to notify you guys of two instances of congressional staff employing the Wikipedia pages of their employers this summer:

  • Lee Zeldin[8] - staff: Patricia Bober, an intern.
  • French Hill[9] - staff: Caroline Thorman, communications director.

I get the feeling that this is more common (esp. with IP numbers and red accounts that don't have the same name as the staff). The aforementioned accounts removed content, tweaked language to make it less neutral and added dubious content. Something to be aware of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Updates + fixes for DC-based lobbying firm article

Hi there! I'm reaching out to see if members of this WikiProject would be able to look at some updates for the Washington, D.C.-based Republican lobbying firm CGCN Group. Since the topic falls under the remit of this WikiProject, I wondered if editors here might be interested. I have written a full updated draft for the company and have posted two short edit requests to get started with improving the article. As I do have a conflict of interest (I am proposing the updates on behalf of CGCN as part of my work at Beutler Ink) I'm seeking uninvolved editors to review the proposed draft and offer their feedback. Would anyone here be able to help? Any input or questions are welcome. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

New RfCs have been created (Democratic and Republican Party positions)

Two new RfCs have been created regarding the political position of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, more specifically in the infobox at the top of the page. Input has been gathered for a while now, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, you can go to the respective talk page section (I linked them for convenience) and give input after reading what has been discussed so far. Apolitical or non-American Wikipedians may be required to reach a efficient consensus and avoid (perceived) bias. They are some of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox (especially considering the fact that they have an identifiable ideology), and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. I have placed this notice on this page, as well as the main WikiProject Politicstalk page. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Help is appreciated, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 02:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Participated! I've participated in both discussions. Just so future commenters to this WikiProject talk page are aware, I am still listening. :)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideology of Drudge Report

You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Award

The Working Man's Barnstar
message TxStateAlum17 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

For all your hard work and dedication.

Cole Memorandum

Task force are invited to help expand and improve the newly-created Cole Memorandum article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on NRA advocacy for black gun owners

There is a new RfC on the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners[10]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Could use more watchers at QAnon

I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theories, but this issue seems to be getting increasing press and Wikipedia lacked an article about it. So I created an article, and in the past four days it's gone from 150 views/day to 300, and it's creeping from page 4 of Google hits for "qanon" to page 2.

I would guess that once it hits page 1 of ghits, people invested in it might start showing up trying to slant the article, so I would invite more Neutral people to watchlist it to keep an eye out for that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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 ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump's executive order boiler-plate language

Some editor wrote that Trump's Muslim ban executive was intended "to temporarily curtail Muslim immigration until better screening methods are devised" into dozens of Wikipedia articles (just google "to temporarily curtail Muslim immigration until better screening methods are devised"). This language is erroneous and should be fixed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States

List of diplomatic visits to the United States was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone should create a Wiki page for Scott Lloyd

He's the head of HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement[11]. There's substantial RS coverage of him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 21 June 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 ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at Suicide of Vince Foster

Editors with expertise in US politics would be much appreciated. TeraTIX 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A possible U.S. food policy topic

In connection with a master's level class in U.S. food policy at Tufts University, I am tempted to help organize students to make some coordinated edits to pages on (topics) food policy, agricultural policy, food labeling policy, (programs) SNAP, WIC, (legislation) Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, Farm Bill. We have been learning how to use templates for infoboxes for organizations, legislation, court rulings. Question: Is there anybody at this WikiProject who I should tap for advice or coordination before beginning? Parke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkewilde (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

  • Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
  • I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
    • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
  • Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination dates of federal judges

A discussion is underway at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump/Archive 2#Ordering of pending nominations. Interested editors may want to comment. — JFG talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

A discussion of interest to the members of this project can be found at Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Green New Deal

Paging some competent and experienced writers on US politics and/or the environment! A clear NPOV article about the Green New Deal would be a great resource. But instead the article section on "Positions and Principles" is blank, and there's a lot of POV pushing elsewhere. If anybody has time to work on it, we could make a real contribution to public discourse. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent possible meatpuppetry by /r/the_donald

  • Title of thread: [12] The best timeline is the one where we take back Wikipedia Quoted comments:
  • Fuck Wikipedia. The site where it's only true if a journalist said it. They are straight up Nazis who protect child porn rings.
  • Wikipedia is a kafakesque labyrinth of leftist faggotry
  • Title of thread: [13] Have you guys seen the Wikipedia page for Jack Posobiec of OANN? It's absolute liberal cancer!
  • Title of thread: [14] Wikipedia article about DJT Jr. These cucks are still salty...
  • Title of thread: [15] Wikipedia: Stalin isn’t as bad as Hitler. He only killed 6 million people. SOCIALIST LEFT
  • Title of thread: [16] Wikipedia is FAKE NEWS. The citation on this falsehood is, you guess it, #NPCNews. Stop the bias.
  • Title of thread: [17] WELL, THEY TRIED=> The Wikipedia article about MuH RuSsiA CoLLuSiOn is a massive 18,000 words long and is based on nearly 500 Fake News articles - Hey, Media Matters propagandists & TDS mental patients! Feel free to waste thousands MORE hours on this! Mueller is the failed messiah you deserve! WOMP WOMP
  • Title of thread: [18] In case anyone doubts Don Jr’s tweet about Wikipedia, get a load of the official article on the Spygate scandal. Uncorrected, unrepentant. Quoted comment:
  • Can Wikipedia be blitzed with people making changes?
  • Article is very one sided and doesnt even touch into the intricate connections between Halper...
  • Title of thread: [19] The reason Wikipedia cannot be cited as a credible source. #StopTheBias Quoted comments:
  • I can change it, and I will. Unless it’s blocked. I have an account It’s right saying it has multiple issues
  • It’s no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s conspiracy fact. Fuck Cuckipedia.
  • False conspiracy theory as in proven correct
  • Wikipedia must die.
  • Title of thread: [20] 1984: Wikipedia Edition VERY FAKE NEWS Quoted comments:
  • Time to archive all the edits coming in the next few months. something tells me there will be a lot.
  • Untrustworthy citations were always the biggest issue but now we see that bad actors/editors are a significant issue also.
  • Title of thread: [21] Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter: "Wow this is a big deal, Wikipedia is everywhere and a primary search tool for many. Who wants to bet which side was protected???" Quoted comment:
  • General thread: [22] Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures DRAIN THE SWAMP
  • Possible target: Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory). The only evidence you need to know that Wikipedia is complete 1984 Orwellian wetdream: Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) Someone please archive it so we have complete proof that Wikipedia is fake news bullshit.
  • Possible target: One America News Network. On the top overview on the One America News Network on Wikipedia- “The channel has also been noted for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[9][10]” Here are the links to their footnotes. 9 10
  • Possible target: /r/The_Donald I haven't read it. I can only imagine what it says about us lol Exactly what I expected / Islamophobic and antisemitic at the same time? Hmmmmm. / Doesn't say slandered anymore?
  • Possible target: List of projects supported by George Soros This one's a battlezone:
  • Possible target: Pizzagate conspiracy theory yep they called Pizzagate a "debunked conspiracy theory" cited Snopes as a source and locked the page / That always made me laugh. You can't debunk something like that without proving that all the evidence is incorrect. Yet within 24 hours everybody was like "nope not true DeBuNkEd!!1!"
  • Possible target: Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory Wanna see some bullshit, look at the wikipedia article about cultural marxism. Every single fucking setence begins with 'the conspiracy theory' and it constantly states that its has nazi origins. So you read the multiple references cited and every reference simply says it is comparing marxism of class, to marxism of identity. No mention of conspiracy, no mention of nazis, no mention of frankfurt school. You would think they are 2 entirely separate articles. The references completely counter what is written. And of course, the article is locked. / The page clearly leaves out Yuri Bezmenov, who explained how the Soviets sought to undermine American culture.
  • Possible target: 1924 Democratic National Convention One of the most glaring examples of their bullshit - The 1924 Democratic National Convention called the Klanbake and the extensive involvement of the KKK with the Democratic party back then That is just the list of the individual edits and changes people have made to the page. They've spent years trying to bury the story. / but its fun clicking UNDO and Publish!
  • Possible target: Foreign electoral intervention My personal favorite recent change is the page on foreign election interference used to have a large section on Chinese interference in the 1996 presidential election to help Bill Clinton. The entire section was removed and turned into a footnote in the “Campaign Finance Reform of 1996” article after Russiagate took off.
  • General comments
  • We have departed the "Age of Information" and are entering the "Age of Disinformation." We must fight this battle now or forever suffer the inevitable outcome of global fascism.
  • No surprise. Any Wikipedia article on anything important is completely false at this point. They don’t even hide it. Pure propaganda.
  • It is also a really stupid idea to start out on articles like Donald Trump or Barack Obama as your first edit. Start out with some fairly obscure topic that might interest you like a cartoon character or a video game you might like to play before you get into the controversial articles. Even experienced Wikipedia editors would have a hard time getting more than a couple words added to some of those more controversial articles.
  • Yestersay I was making some edits but the obscene volume of "Russian Collusion" wrapped into so many pages is mind numbing. It's going to be a monumental scavenger hunt.
  • I would say it's full of the DISEASE of intellectualism and academia ... I guarantee you if these lgbt folks could have been left alone in a natural environment without media, academia, medical fields poking around in their brains, 90% of them would be normal people, 8% would have suffered some kind of mental illness, and 2% would be gay ... These people don't need academic explanation, they need to shut their mouths and go work in a coal mine or dig trenches. They'll find all the douchey enlightenment they could ever imagine but that doesn't appeal to them ... They'll never understand just how inferior they truly are.
  • I believe our fields of science, psychology, medicine, financial, have all been corrupted and have to be sifted through and re-examined ... These people have to burn and they must burn publicly.
  • They want you and I dead. Period. And we just smile along as we use there services.

The above are quotes. - starship.paint ~ KO 02:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Donald Trump & Portal:Barack Obama are suggested for deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Barack Obama, a former featured portal, which is now also suggested for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oregon Progressive Party

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Oregon Progressive Party as to whether the historic party should be included on the same page as the current party. Please add your thoughts.--TM 10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15

Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:


The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

CGCN Group

There is a request of mine to update outdated information at Talk:CGCN Group. As you gather from my username, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I am an employee at the Republican advocacy and strategic communications firm.

Thank you, Lauren at CGCN (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Balance at Forced into Glory

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.

The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: AP2 noticeboard

There is a discussion which relates to this task force happening here. Please feel free to weigh in there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Update

Can someone please update https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:USSenators --NL19931993 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics/Archive_1&oldid=1228968040"