Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 1.0 assessments and this work group

Thanks to kingboyk, we now have the assessments split into work groups to make things easier to digest! What does this mean? Well, now we have a nice work list that shows not only the quality scale, but also any comments left in the project banner template. Also, you'll notice we now have stats for this workgroup displayed on the workgroup page, and you also now have your own log of changes to quality and importance... plange 05:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check please

If someone wouldn't mind going back and checking Rick Jore's formatting. I just added the infobox to the main page and the template to the talk page, and wanted to make sure I had them right. --Tim4christ17 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok to me-- sorry for the delay in responding-- I've been on a wikibreak :-) Do you have a photo? plange 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to {{WPBiography}}

Dear workgroup, After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography the importance= field has been changed on the Project template. The changes and how they affect this workgroup are as follows:

  • importance= has been deprecated in favour of priority=.
  • priority= is the same as importance, it's just a friendlier word. The meanings of the grades haven't changed.
  • Importance params should be removed (not an urgent task, just don't use importance= from now and on change any you see to priority= if you feel like it)
  • importance/priority is no longer assessed on a Project scale, except for the ~200 top core articles which use a new parameter core=yes
  • this means that the priority= ratings are now for the exclusive use of the workgroups
  • The workgroups are free to work out their own "importance" (priority) ratings. priority=Top is no longer off limits. So, for example, I've upgraded John Lennon to priority=Top. He's not on the core bios list but that doesn't matter, as the priority is only for the workgroups and Lennon is no doubt top priority/importance in the arts & entertainment field.

Hope that helps. Any questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography please. --kingboyk 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a result, I've upgraded George W. Bush to "top" priority. I don't plan on putting any others at that level w/o a concensus, but figured that since he's the current president of the U.S. ... --Tim4christ17 00:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branimir Glavaš

Branimir Glavaš was tagged as non-neutral back in May by an anonymous user who promised to register and make the necessary changes, but who I haven't heard from since. I want to remove the tag because no one else has raised any objections. If anyone wants to take a look at the article and make comments, please do. Cordless Larry 13:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, more appropriate tags seem to be usage of WP:PEACOCK terms, and no citation of sources, a major violation of WP:BLP since there's negative, unsourced information in there. --plange 14:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. From my knowledge of the subject the article is factually accurate, but it could certainly do with an improvement in the wording, and of course some sources. Cordless Larry 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've placed a request here for some help with sources. Cordless Larry 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've replaced the neutrality tag with one flagging the lack of references. Cordless Larry 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting Roman biographies

According to Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, "Glaucia, who had escaped into a house, was dragged out and killed", while Gaius Servilius Glaucia says "In a fit of rage he killed the man and fled to the home of one his supporters, where he committed suicide". Zocky | picture popups 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know-- I'll see if I can locate editors for those subject areas --plange 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch Bill Sali Please

Please watch the article on Bill Sali (new Congressman from Idaho). 66.233.250.90 has now twice edited in his personal bias. This user has made some decent edits to the Idaho First Congressional race page itself, but his edits to the Congressman-elect's page are out of line. I wouldn't care, but it's been repeated twice - same edits. Here's the post I just made on the Sali page: I have reverted 66.233.250.90's most recent edits. This is the second time he has vandalized the page with his views. I'll admit that most of the FACTS I put in the article do not reflect well on Sali; I have put in few facts that do make him look good because I myself don't know those facts. But one thing I have not done is to try and charactize the information myself with unflattering adjectives and commentary, something 66.233.250.90 does often. Some of his edits - particularly to "religion" in the info box - were good ones, and I redid them. Most were not. For instance, he likes to change the line "The third place finisher, moderate Sheila Sorensen, said of Sali," to "said moderately." Her quote has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, or moderate. It's character-based, not issue-based. And it's wrong to use Wikipedia to mock her political stances. He also changed the line "Many of these papers, such as the Spokesman Review, typically endorse Republicans, giving their anti-Sali endorsments of Grant added weight." to "Many of these papers, such as the Idaho Statesman, rarely endorse conservative Republicans, giving their anti-Sali endorsments of Grant dubious credibility." First of all, "weight" is different than "credibility." How much credibility an endorsement has is not the same as its weight and its importance; credibility is an opinion issue, and does NOT belong in a Wikipedia ENCYCLOPEDIA article. It is also silly to delete the line about the Spokesman. Finall, 66.233.250.90 changed "anti-gay marriage" to "affirms the heterosexual definition of marriage" - another opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think 66.233.250.90 reads the discussion page, as suggested by his anonymity, so please keep an eye out for him. I'm unfamiliar with some of Wiki's editorial policies, so if you know an editor or whatever they're called, let him know. I'm certainly not against putting in facts that make Sali look good, such as a list of his legislative accomplishments, but personal opinion is a whole different story. --texasmusician 9:17 PM, 16 November 2006 (Pacific)

[edit] George_W._Bush

I have rated the George_W._Bush article for the Biography Project. It seems to fall within this workgroups remit. However, I wasn't sure if it was being supported by this project, so didn't tag it as such. I would imagine this workgroup would want to support the article. However, I felt it was best to leave the tagging of this article to you guy's. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to definitely tag, he's part of the project, definitely, thanks! --plange 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Commissioners template

Trying to expand the article on Leonard Orban, I was wondering if there is any special template for European Commissioners. I couldn' t find something. If there isn't any, maybe it is a good idea to have one. --Michkalas 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama FAR

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gzkn 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Edward Langworthy

Greetings! I come under the auspices of WikiProject Abandoned Articles, a project working towards bringing abandoned articles back to life. Edward Langworthy is one such article, and it probably needs a bit of work to expand it and make it a bit more comprehensive. If anybody is able to help with this article, please lend us a hand! --Lord Pheasant 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congressman Leo J. Ryan

[edit] Religion parameter discussion

A discussion has begun here to establish consensus regarding the religion parameter. All editors are invited to join the discussion. This message has been cross-posted to other relevant talk pages. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV review of Bill Janklow article

I would ask this group to look at the Bill Janklow article from an NPOV point of view. I have been trying to neutralize some the language and keep getting it changed back. At first I was irritated, but now I am asking for your help and guidance.

Bill23rdpower 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Bill23rdpower

[edit] Jack Layton Page - Neutrality disputed

Where to start?

This article seems to be under the protection of Layton supporters and any comment that reflects poorly on Layton is removed quickly and unceremoniously. The pattern of writing seems to be if Layton initiates a political action in which he is cast as the good guy, it's in the article. If Layton does something that may have a negative effect on his popularity it is deleted under the premise of trivia or not following NPOV guidleines.

An example of Cause and effect used in the article that seems to be allowed if it enhances Layton's image in the minds of his supporters:

Layton takes this action:During the 2004 federal election, controversy erupted over Layton's accusation that Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin was responsible for the deaths of homeless people because he failed to provide funding for affordable housing.

This additional comment is allowed:While rates of homelessness and homeless deaths skyrocketed during the eleven years of Liberal government, the Liberals argued that funding for affordable housing was cut under the government of Brian Mulroney.

Why is the additional comment allowed? To enhance Layton's image at the expense of others perhaps?

Cause and effect that is not allowed:

This comment allowed: Jack Layton and the NDP caucus voted to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 [4]

The effect is not allowed and dismissed as unrelated trivia: The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy [2]. According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy [3]

Yet this is not considered relevant. Why are Layton supporters uncomfortable talking about Layton's support of the right wing Conservatives?

The NDP under Jack Layton's leadership support the Conservative Plan. A leader gets to take the credit when the plan bears fruit but when Layton's decision does real economic damage to everyday Canadians, Layton supporters want to suppress the information.DSatYVR 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph McCarthy

I'd be interested in attracting a broader group of editors to this article, also for a RFC regarding the introduction. Kaisershatner 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Biography_Politics_and_government_e655.html"