Template talk:Infobox Political party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Addition for 'dissolved' 2 New proposal 3 Political position 4 variable on this template 5 NPOV 6 More wings 7 Leadership posts

[edit] Addition for 'dissolved'

Could someone more knowledgeable with the conditional template variabled please add an optional "dissolved" or "disbanded" parameter? I would like to use this infobox with historic parties. Thanks, dewet|✉ 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

I have made a new proposal for an update on this template so that we can get rid of all the national "Template:Infobox National Political Party" and use this template for all of them, see Template:Infobox Political party/test.

Some general issues that it would be good to have some input to are:

• Should the fields {{{leader}}}, {{{chairperson}}}, {{{spokesperson}}} be abolished in favour of using only the {{{leader[1/2/3]_title}}} fields? This is how this is resolved in Template:Infobox Country, and I would say that this is quite a similar case. There are many kinds of political parties that use different styles for their leaders, such as the "General Secretary" (not the same as Secretary general or Party secretary I suppose) of the Communist Party of China, and other parties who use one or more spokespersons as their leaders. Whatever the case, I think there must be some customizable fields for leader titles that are used in only on country (such as Senate and House Leaders from Template:Infobox American Political Party.)

• How should the fields for international affiliations be organized? Should there be only one {{{international}}} field that should be used for all international organizations that the party is affiliated with, or should we add separate fields such as {{{european}}}, {{{nordic}}} etc. as is done in the infobox templates for European political parties? Or should we use customizable fields such as {{{leader[1/2/3]_title}}} above?

• The phrase "Political ideology" have been changed to "Official ideology" to point out that this field should only state what is the official, self-stated ideology of a party, and not what is the opinion of media and other outside observers. To use anything else than the party's official position here would be against WP:NPOV and will only lead to edit wars and disputes over what is to be considered a reliable source.

• The "political position" fields that is used in templates such as Template:Infobox British Political Party and others have been added. However I would propose that this field is removed, as there is most of the times no neutral way to place a political party on the left-right scale and this is often very disputed and controversial.

/Slarre 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political position

For political position, I would suggest two subheadings: "Economic position" and "Social position." This would be much more revealing, especially with parties that do not fall into the traditional left-right scale very easily, like the Libertarian Party (United States).

Messages left at Template talk:Infobox American Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Political party, Template talk:Infobox Afghan Political Party, Template talk:Infobox American State Political Party, Template talk:Infobox American State Political Party Green, Template talk:Infobox French Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Historical American Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Irish Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Japanese Political Party, Template talk:Infobox Dutch Political Party, and Template talk:Infobox Dutch Political Party. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly U.S.-centric, other countries have other dimensions than the American economic and social dimensions. Canada has the issue of Quebecois autonomy, the Nordic countries a rural/urban divide etc. I think every country should have its own dimensions. C mon 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is why separate countries have separate infoboxes. Perhaps they can also have subheadings for those different issues. However, I think that internationally, there are two main facets to political ideology: economics and social policy (or three facets if you count foreign policy, but that is sometimes hard to place on a left-right scale). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Luckily I have got more than intuition to go on. Arend Lijphart in his Patterns of Democracy, a core book in the field of comparative politics lists the issue dimensions which characterize 36 democratic polities. The socio-economic cleavage is present in each one of them. The issue of religion and government is present in 22 of them (note that it is not present in the US). Divisions between language groups is present in twelve. Urban-rural cleavage in 8. The issue of regime support in 8 as well. Foreign policy is in present in 12. And post-materialism is present in 4. So I see no basis to include the social policy issue dimension because it is present in none according to this external reliable academic source (which is even named in a US centric way, in the Netherlands it would be called the ethical policy dimension, as social policy involves social affairs, the welfare state). And this also supplies a basis to use only one dimension, since that is present in every one of Lijphart's cases. Finally, note that the United States has been blessed with its own party templates. C mon 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with C_mon here. —Nightstallion (?) 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So a good idea would be that every country has its own infobox, but leave this one alive as copy&paste reference --Andersmusician VOTE 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] variable on this template

Am I wrong or we have different variables?? see the two syntaxs at the doc page --Andersmusician VOTE 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I have just placed a {{NPOV}} tag on the template. The problem is that the template does not allow for the existence of "Chairman". Could someone help sort out this template so that political organisations with Chairman can use the term as per their constitution, rather than using the inapplicable neologism "Chairperson". Ohconfucius (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More wings

I would appreciate if the was an option to also add student, farmers, women and labour wings (along with youth wings). Also I think 'General Secretary' should be included after chairman. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership posts

I left only "Leader" among the leadership posts. If one wants to put other leaders, he can do it by putting these in the correct order. Indeed the "Spokesperson" is not everywhere a leading figure and in some countries (as Italy) the "Secretary" is far more important than the "President". The template is now as neutral as possible. --Checco (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)