This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
For the People Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Submitting for review in case it becomes an issue, I have removed this edit today, this one back on March 8th, and one on March 5th. The Green Party of the US is considered fringe, they hold no national offices, no statewide office, just a handful of local ones. As such, IMO, their opinions on federal legislation is not relevant. Select members of national parties may champion small-g green initiatives, like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal, but they have no ties to the Green Party itself when doing such. Zaathras ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
No. This is a big part of the bill. And the green party is the 4th largest political party. It is important for people to know about this kind of thing.
Colonizor48 (
talk) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe the opinions of minor parties on legislation that would influence elections is important no matter what party it is or where in the world it is. It doesn't have to focus on one party, it doesn't have to take up a huge part of the article, but it's an important aspect of the legislation and people who want to understand the bill deserve to know about it. DominateEye ( talk) 18:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Pressure groups have no direct impact, and yet their opinions are included in this article. The bill would have a disproportionate impact on third parties, and that makes them relevant to the issue. DominateEye ( talk) 05:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
https://www.gp.org/hr_1 Can someone nonbiased sources for critisisms based on the socalled "poision pills" in HR_1? That would supposedly hurt 3rd parties? Perhaps this should be added to the critisizm section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonizor48 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Colonizor48 ( talk) 05:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Yes. However there are sources from the actuall bill's text to my knowlage. That should be mentioned in the article from a npov. It doesnt have to be in the critisism secxtion. It could just mention that It would increse the cost for 3rd parties.
Then by all means, find & present sources independent of the Green Party that discuss this. Zaathras ( talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
How about these two?
They're both sites which present strong but informed and non-partisan opinions. (For full disclosure, I am an active Green Party member, and contribute to the discussions on both sites -- but I am not a post-writer for either.)
-- 35.62.1.106 ( talk) 17:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)jalp5dai
Okay, this has been reverted enough times that I figure we should have an actual discussion. There are several areas in the article where the word false/falsely is being added and removed:
I am of the opinion that false/falsely should remain, given that independent fact checkers have repeatedly found that these claims are false (sources are in the article if you feel like checking) and we should not be spreading misinformation without clearly disclosing that it is, indeed, misinformation. It seems that others believe that using the false/falsely is biased. Thoughts? Did this need a discussion?
Pinging @ Jarshewa, Gcjnst, Soibangla, 2601:cf:4780:7eb0:900b:8c02:dfa1:4018, and Squeakachu. Aerin17 ( talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Politics and Religion are divisive subjects. Shall we add "falsely" before every Jim Jones or Joseph Smith quote? Should we add a bias to the ridiculous conspiracy theories? This is obviously controversial enough to warrant this discussion. Adding "false" creates a controversy unnecessarily. There is no reason to create a controversy. It is best to leave the quote without a bias. The subject should be presented academically, without influence from the author. Show the subject. present the supporters, the history, the opposition, and whatever other subcategories that add information to the subject. Jarshewa ( talk) 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I have two proposals for changing section order. I list them here rather than perform them immediately, because they are major:
In addition, what makes a provision "key"? Especially in the first division (voting), there are many notable findings, so which of them should be listed? I think that's a major discussion to be had. 72.86.39.245 ( talk) 16:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
For the People Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Submitting for review in case it becomes an issue, I have removed this edit today, this one back on March 8th, and one on March 5th. The Green Party of the US is considered fringe, they hold no national offices, no statewide office, just a handful of local ones. As such, IMO, their opinions on federal legislation is not relevant. Select members of national parties may champion small-g green initiatives, like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal, but they have no ties to the Green Party itself when doing such. Zaathras ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
No. This is a big part of the bill. And the green party is the 4th largest political party. It is important for people to know about this kind of thing.
Colonizor48 (
talk) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe the opinions of minor parties on legislation that would influence elections is important no matter what party it is or where in the world it is. It doesn't have to focus on one party, it doesn't have to take up a huge part of the article, but it's an important aspect of the legislation and people who want to understand the bill deserve to know about it. DominateEye ( talk) 18:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Pressure groups have no direct impact, and yet their opinions are included in this article. The bill would have a disproportionate impact on third parties, and that makes them relevant to the issue. DominateEye ( talk) 05:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
https://www.gp.org/hr_1 Can someone nonbiased sources for critisisms based on the socalled "poision pills" in HR_1? That would supposedly hurt 3rd parties? Perhaps this should be added to the critisizm section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonizor48 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Colonizor48 ( talk) 05:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Yes. However there are sources from the actuall bill's text to my knowlage. That should be mentioned in the article from a npov. It doesnt have to be in the critisism secxtion. It could just mention that It would increse the cost for 3rd parties.
Then by all means, find & present sources independent of the Green Party that discuss this. Zaathras ( talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
How about these two?
They're both sites which present strong but informed and non-partisan opinions. (For full disclosure, I am an active Green Party member, and contribute to the discussions on both sites -- but I am not a post-writer for either.)
-- 35.62.1.106 ( talk) 17:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)jalp5dai
Okay, this has been reverted enough times that I figure we should have an actual discussion. There are several areas in the article where the word false/falsely is being added and removed:
I am of the opinion that false/falsely should remain, given that independent fact checkers have repeatedly found that these claims are false (sources are in the article if you feel like checking) and we should not be spreading misinformation without clearly disclosing that it is, indeed, misinformation. It seems that others believe that using the false/falsely is biased. Thoughts? Did this need a discussion?
Pinging @ Jarshewa, Gcjnst, Soibangla, 2601:cf:4780:7eb0:900b:8c02:dfa1:4018, and Squeakachu. Aerin17 ( talk) 22:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Politics and Religion are divisive subjects. Shall we add "falsely" before every Jim Jones or Joseph Smith quote? Should we add a bias to the ridiculous conspiracy theories? This is obviously controversial enough to warrant this discussion. Adding "false" creates a controversy unnecessarily. There is no reason to create a controversy. It is best to leave the quote without a bias. The subject should be presented academically, without influence from the author. Show the subject. present the supporters, the history, the opposition, and whatever other subcategories that add information to the subject. Jarshewa ( talk) 06:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I have two proposals for changing section order. I list them here rather than perform them immediately, because they are major:
In addition, what makes a provision "key"? Especially in the first division (voting), there are many notable findings, so which of them should be listed? I think that's a major discussion to be had. 72.86.39.245 ( talk) 16:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)