Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Burr-Hamilton duel GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed Burr-Hamilton duel. I am leaving this message on this project's page, along with the other editors to the article, since the banner for this project is included on the talk page on the article and I figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past Political Scandals and Controversies from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Create - Wikipedia:WikiProject Past Political Scandals and Controversies

Description 
A project dedicated to accurately describing past and current political scandals and controversies so that readers will have an accurate account of the facts and sources
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name below)
  1. — dkatten 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. — Sholom 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. — --Uncle Ed 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. — Kylesandell 05:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. — Psdubow 13:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Potentially interested Wikipedians with suggested changes to the proposal:

(Please make a brief and numbered (#) suggested alteration and sign-- see the comments for discussion of proposed changes.)

  1. Consider basing the project only on widely-accepted past political scandals. Ukulele 06:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll change it and start it. Remember 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  1. I think this would be a good project for a focused group to work on so that current political scandals and controversies have accurate information and are done in a NPOV way. Because so many people rely upon wikipedia to get access to current controversial information, it is important that we make sure to provide the best information we can. Remember 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to do this now so someone else please take charge. Remember 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe a group focused on political scandal has a very strong possibility of becoming a de facto decider of fact and the potential to become a POV hit-squad. I think the idea is well intentioned, but I just see too many potential problems with a group dedicated to scandals & controversies (groupthink, POV, infighting, etc.). I respectfully decline the offer and hope that this project does not meet with the fate I predicted. Good luck! /Blaxthos 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it will be just the opposite of that, Blaxthos. The purpose, as I see it, is to identify when there is a controversy and then to prevent a Wikipedia article from trying to "decide" facts. I've been a Wikipedian longer than 99.99% (I am user #188), and the perennial problem has been a groupthink which has the effect of making Wikipedia endorse certain POVs. If we try, we can counter this trend. --Uncle Ed 19:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I see your point, but looking from other side of the looking glass, I would hate to see this group become the self-appointed "guardian of what's right." I've seen (most notably in AfD discussions) a particular organized group or wikiproject able to organize enough support / likeminded editors to dominate WP:CONSENSUS discussions (becoming the de facto authority). High minded ideals aside, the obvious solution would seem to be what Lincoln did in the civil war days -- include enough viewpoints in your council that none shall dominate. I think, however, that such a group which consciously forms to become the deciding body is inherently dangerous. I'm glad to see its stewardship in experienced / capable hands.  :-) I still must respectfully decline. /Blaxthos 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion there are probably more "controversy" articles than we really need (at least in certain high-profile areas, like American politics), and I hope that this project could narrow these down and improve their quality, rather than see a proliferation of new "controversy" articles.--Pharos 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that it is a very good idea, if the main focus is on addressing POV and source issues, but it depending on how it runs it could be quite vulnerable in the ways User:Blaxthos mentioned. I do however think it's worth the attempt. baby_ifritah 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that focusing only on widely-accepted past political scandals may satisfy the POV issues discussed here. Published history has its own process of peer review. The humble and well-intentioned Wikipedian has a better chance of avoiding the specter of POV with the judgment of history and the reputation of its authors on the other end of the scale. I would feel better about signing my name to this proposal if the author removed "current" from the description and added "past" or "widely-accepted" to the title. Ukulele 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Remember 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A potentially great topic. I'll keep an eye out for it & watch the articles under it, even if I don't contribute heavily to them. It would be great to see slightly more definition -- are we talking the era of relatively modern politics with parties, republican systems, etc.? Or politics more broadly to mean any kind of governance? --Lquilter (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intent to remove

As a perpetually neglected project with a broken template, I intend to de-link the articles currently transcluding the template. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a shame it never got off the ground. Remember (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)