Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Politics

  • Republicanism in the United States - states that in USA "republicanism" has/can have a different meaning than in the rest of the world. What appears as a specific (and rather limited, even questionable) connotation is treated as if it were a separate definition of "republic". Not being a US citizen the whole setup of the article appears to me rather quirky. Further the article lacks references supporting the aforementioned thesis; the article is unstructured; the article gives no equilibrated space to "republicanism" in the sense of Republican Party (United States); the article doesn't mention that the predecessor to the present Democratic Party (United States) was in its early days also qualified as republican. Since the article was derived from text previously on republic/republicanism, some previous remarks on talk:republic (and its archives) were ostensibly also not taken into account. --Francis Schonken 12:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • List of Democratic Party celebrities - (I'm not sure if this is the best heading under which to list this) this page has all the flaws the List of republican celebrities page did before it was drastically re-written when it appeared on VfD. The main problem is that having "leftist" views does not make one a member of any party, as the title states. Look at List of celebrities with links to the US Republican Party for a page that is substantially better referenced and explained, and more accurate (though not without flaws still). If nothing happens here I'll list this on VfD in a couple weeks; that usually is the most effective way to address these issues. -R. fiend 18:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Center for Strategic and International Studies - has had facts inserted by someone angry at them for an alleged conservative bent. I don't know enough about this to NPOV, and the facts might themselves be valid, but needs another view. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Harry Jaffa - POV of somewhat cranky conservative critic of Jaffa. What is needed instead is a competent summary of Jaffa's work, with attention to his disputes with the leading lights of the American historical profession, and a paragraph (at most) on his disputes with fellow conservatives. The web links are a bad joke.
  • Men Among the Ruins - honestly don't know if this belongs in this section or not - this article about a book says so little about the book content that I'm not sure how to classify it, but I think it belongs here... --Dcfleck 12:31, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Shadia Drury - requires some serious NPOV work. I'm not sure whether the primary author is deliberately peddling a viewpoint or not. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the article desperately needs a number of other voices familiar with the issues to add some balance.
  • Vlaams Belang - article is strongly biased to reflect the current policies of this far-right Belgian party. The article is closely guarded by one user, who reverts nearly every effort towards NPOVing. -- LucVerhelst 16:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Verhelst, you said yourself that you are member of another Belgian political party. So I googled a bit and found that you are chairman for the Green party in Berchem County [1]. BTW, on your blog I read (December 18, 2005) that you insinuate that Vlaams Belang politicians have a low IQ and that they have an insane psychological texture. Ever heard about psychiatry in the former Soviet Union? I also remark on your blog an obscene caricature of Vlaams Belang’s party symbol. But remark, it is YOU who put these things on YOUR web-site. --Jvb – January 2, 2005
I wouldn't call the article excessively biased, but I have expanded on the introduction bit to give readers a better idea of the essence of the party. Miles 6:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the previous content was a copyvio. I NPOVed it completely. Still a stub that needs (non-partisan) work. Alcarillo
Made a few more changes but I feel the long list of party principles is way too wieldy. Virendra
  • Bushists - 9,800 hits on Google, so Wikipedia should not ignore the term. Right now the article is an orphan, and it is not wikified either. Is it NPOV? And should the title be singular (Bushist)? <KF> 08:55, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • This has at some point been redirected to neoconservative but I can't tell when. . . Soundguy99 06:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Bushists sounds needlessly perjorative, and I say that as a liberal Democrat. Does anybody actually describe themselves as a "Bushist?" How does a Bushist differ from a Bushite, a Bushista or a Bushovik?--Francisx 04:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Third party politics - looks to be a school essay on the history of alternative US political parties, was going to wikify but it needs a rehaul first. Rasa 00:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Period of Japanese Rule (Korea) - It doesn't seem to be NPOV, I can't tell what claims made in the article are true and which aren't. Need someone with more specialized knowlege about Korean and Japanese history who can verify the claims in this article and make the content more specific. --210.91.223.73 11:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) moved to this section by -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Occupation_of_Palestine: Restarting this page (which was subject to numerous edit-wars) from scratch. Please, we need more unbiased editors to write an NPOV article (see Talk for facts and disputes.) HistoryBuffEr 03:46, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
  • Democratic Kampuchea -- This article has no mention of US, Thai and UN support to the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese-sponsored Cambodian government after the Khmer Rouge had been driven from power - this is both a serious gap in the history of Cambodia and also a serious NPOV problem. Given that the content in the article is taken from the Library of Congress Country Studies an omission of American assistance to the Khmer Rouge is perfectly understandable, nonetheless to mantain NPOV this needs to be radically revised. --Ce garcon 07:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) moved to this section by -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Indian independence movement - Started it ages back, but nobody's really brought content to this article. It summaries the first 10-20 years of the movement, and then stops abruptly. I don't know enough about this part of India's history to write stuff. If there are any experts about, please help! Gaurav 02:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Politics of Georgia (U.S. state) is a poorly-written, somewhat biased, totally unsourced article. Most of the current text may need to be discarded. I'll work on it some myself but it would be nice for people who know much more than me to help out on what could be a solid, high-quality article. --SuperNova |T|C| 04:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement - POV, badly written, written by the lawyer it focuses on (yes, it focuses more on the lawyer and less on the case). Very biased, very pro-Nationalist. Slanted history. Jwilke 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolute_monarchy_in_France - Needs serious attention and to be wikified.--130.160.86.143 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Stonewall Democrats - The entire article is simply the copied text of the "About Us" section of the official Stonewall Democrats website: http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/about/ Kjl 22:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Temperance movement - This is extremely short for an article on such an important topic. There also seem to be some problems with its accuracy, since people have been pointing out on its talk page that it's not correct in its claim the movement was mainly in the U.S. and Wales.--Bcrowell 03:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Arthashastra - ancient Indian economic/political treatise. Needs knowledgeable abridgement and cleanup of some areas, expansion of others. Tearlach 02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • authorized use of force. This starts with a messy run-on non-sentence, and differs from Wikipedia conventions in a variety of other ways as well. Michael Hardy 01:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Macedonian Empire seems to be a text on the history of the Macedonian empire only, needs lots of work and more information on the empire itself, also after Alexander the Great, it jumps to the conclusion and ends the empire, it needs serious formatting, is copied/pasted from here (http://members.fortunecity.com/fstav1/macedon.html) although it could be written by the user himself.
    • Although it's kind of encyclopedic, it's a big big long long paragraph with lots of information on the history only, but not on why the empire fell. Someone with knowledge on the subject has to look into it. --leandros 22:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Roman Empire - Article does not really explain a lot about the Empire itself but is a simple overview of some emperor's reigns. Colipon 18:57, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) Also, there is no text at all from the Crisis of the Third Century onwards. Arkuat 22:54, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
I'd like to see a separate article covering the causes of the decline and fall of the empire. There doesn't seem to be much here in terms of root causes. -- RJH 23:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


— Do not add text below this point —