Talk:Green Party candidates, 2003 Manitoba provincial election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The former article is a flood of non-notable info. Write bios on any of these candidates who are notable for other reasons. The info remaining here could be best embodied in a table with one line per candidate. But the result is likely to be best merged into Manitoba general election, 2003 and a future Manitoba general election, 2005 article.
--Jerzy•t 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I'm going to have to disagree. There are several pages like this on Wikipedia: the format was chosen as a compromise between inclusionists (who favoured individual articles for each candidate) and deletionists (who wanted all such information to be removed).

Also, Wikipedia defines persons active in party politics as "politicians". The category is accurate. CJCurrie 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• _ _ Ad hoc compromises on other articles, even if reasonable, do not overcome the requirement that content be encyclopedic, and we make policies and guidelines bcz "precedents" are so likely, in this space of 1.5 million articles, to reflect very narrowly agreed-upon consensuses. (And compromises, by definition, are expedients that are less likely to serve consistency None of the people listed are remotely notable, nor will they collectively amount to anything until they have some measurable effect on the outcome of the elections they enter. Their performance in the election is a matter of public record that makes our coverage of the elections complete, but the rest is trivia that is adequately covered outside WP.

_ _ My first and only draft on Category:Politicians (last i checked, unchanged & uncommented on there) is not a binding definition, but a step toward making the scope of the page more objective than i found it. "Politician" is defined as follows (emphasis as in orig):

• 1. a person experienced in the art or science of government; esp: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
  2. a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession

  b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usu. short-sighted reasons

  (And those bios are themselves further evidence of being not politicians in those terms, but political activists.) My first cut didn't capture the distinction, and so far i haven't judged it to be a priority worth pursuing. But perhaps the efforts of Canadian Greens and British Trots and for all i know the Monster Raving Loony Party mean that i have to take my damn sword off the wall and fight for a meaningful consensus for a refinement of my original wording in the direction that this real definition suggests. I predict that no one, other than some of those situated similarly to their partisans, will think that lumping the process of governing with the efforts of outsiders/outside-chancers/builders-for-the-politics-of-the-future/independent-populists (successful at best in terms other than verifiably shaping public policy), however serious-minded and wise, serves the NPoV foundation of WP. And i urge you against making me do so, bcz i predict that the net effect would include needless reinforcement of the misconceptions of those among our (IMO overwhelmingly) progressive colleagues who see political progressives as dream-ridden would-be wreckers of this project's social-change potential.
  --Jerzy•t 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  

Jerzy,

I think you may be over-reacting to my comments. In the first instance, our own article on Politician defines the term as being applicable to participants in party politics. The individuals listed on this page may not have experience in the art of government, but they are actively engaged in political controversies and party affairs. This means that they are politicians, but not administrators.

Second, the consensus concerning list pages has already withstood several challenges, and it does no harm to have short biographical sketches on candidates for public office. I'm not certain why you would object to this so strongly. (I'm also puzzled as to why you deleted the electoral histories of those candidates who campaigned for public office more than once.) I'd prefer to avoid a revert war, but I don't believe there's any purpose in removing this information. CJCurrie 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ‘Politician’ or not?

Wikipedia is not a platform for redefining what terms mean—even if you disagree with the established definitions. The definition of the term ‘politician’ “includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions.” It does not in any way limit the term only to people who successfully “seek those positions.” People who run for political office are therefore—by definition—politicians. —GrantNeufeld 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001 edition) agrees:

"politician n. a person who is professionally involved in politics, esp. as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office." (emphasis added) CJCurrie 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of biographical details

As CJCurrie has pointed out, there is much established precedent on Wikipedia for inclusion of biographical information in articles like this one. That said, the requirements for NPOV and verifiability stand (as they do for every article on Wikipedia). So, if you have specific objections to any of the content on those terms, please flag the specific items with the appropriate templates ({{POV-section}} or {{Fact}}). Please do not just bulk remove content without giving the other editors here a chance to respond to any specific concerns you may have regarding NPOV or verifiability. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Articles like this one provide useful information for those interested in learning about fringe political parties -- something you can't find in traditional encyclopaedias. Deleting this article will not improve Wikipedia. All of these people are public figures in that they presented themselves for public service. English Wikipedia surpassed 1.5 million articles some time ago. The notion that we can limit content to a narrow definition of "notability" was lost about 1.2 million articles ago. Ground Zero | t 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)