This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Truly I don't think it's right for different people who believe in two different things to join together, because it will cause more violence in the world. It's really a question to have bipartisan system in order to serve people better. second, every 2 years every house reps,6 years senator also almost every year local gov official. No time, concentrated effort for the citizen of the u.s.a.what about the presidential election? One of the most important independent spirits is equality. The current voting system is not adequate to reflect all the voter's rights.
Removed the reference to Canada as we currently have three political parties - Conservative, Liberal and NDP (Center, Left and Lefter). Urbanriot ( talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagging NPOV. This article has a distinct liberal slant (one which I happen to agree with, but nonetheless a slant). 76.201.147.205 ( talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what the discussion is about. Do y'all disagree with the definition of the word bipartisan btw not bypartisan which the first writer specified. If so then write about that, not all this other garbage. Please either get this word defined only not a bunch of partisan retoric crazy talk.
Dujulan -- 70.140.121.177 ( talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe the above writer may be referring to items such as the paragraph from the Huffington Post article which is not based in fact, but is an editorial opinion slamming Republicsns. That has no place on an encyclopedic site and should ABSOLUTELY be deleted, just as it should if they had linked a bash of bipartisanship from a Republican perspective. The paragraph is cited as a political analysts observation of bipartisanship but is actually just an attempt to insult Republicans (and in truth, Democrats too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSG314 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is starting to get cluttered. It needs to be divided into suggestions. I will do this in a couple days if it hasn't been fixed by then, but we need to have this sorted out. I propose the following sections be made in this layout: General Information Advocacy -In the United States Criticisms
As of now, the article is needlessly US-centric, and is getting very messy. I recommend all quotes either be removed, moved to references, or moved to Wikiquote.
Omniferous ( talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the "US-centric" tag for this reason: bipartisanship applies to situations where there are two-party systems; and there are few two-party systems around the world, and the US is one of the few examples (see Two party system. So, it seems reasonable to focus on the US and US politics when talking about bipartisanship; this issue doesn't play out to the same extent in multiparty systems. So, to criticize this article as being "US focused" doesn't make sense; it would be like tagging the article "Mississippi River" with a similar tag because there were too many mentions of the US. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011
I would like to know whether or not bipartisanship (or related words, as bipartisan) actually and more than sporadically is used by notable sources for references to phenomena outside the US. (@ The Mighty Glen: I'm not asking whether it should be used, but whether it is used.) I see the term nonpartisan (or equivalent terms in e.g. Swedish) now and then, but bipartisan only in US political contexts. If it is chiefly used with references to US contexts, then I think this should be mentioned in the lead.
I also would like to know to what extent it is used as a synonym to or replacing nonpartisan(ship) in US use. All the examples given in the article concern political activity, where Democrats and Republicans in their rôle as politicians have taken an essential part. On the other hand, I sometimes see other use elsewhere, as in the article Heterodox Academy, which starts
Reading on, this indeed seems not to be an initiative by politicians; and I strongly suspect that it also involves professors and other 'academicians' who do not primarily consider themselves as either Democrats or Republicans. I fully agree with calling e.g. Freedom House bipartisan, but if the section Bipartisanship#Usage is correct and reasonably exhaustive, then probably some other term should be better for the Heterodox Academy. JoergenB ( talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This article does a poor job of fleshing out the various criticisms of bipartisanship that have popped up ion recent years, at least with regard to the American political system. Here are some additional criticisms that have been expressed in by notable individuals in the past (about the U.S. bipartisanship as a concept) that should be added to the article (appropriately sourced of course):
-- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 20:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Curious how this term seems to reappear in headlines when the congress would like the public to believe there to be a beneficial compromise between parties when, in truth, it seems, both have made little progress for public good but rallied together for corporate interests. There is the 'Bipartisan Policy Center' (biparticanpolicy.org) which seems to highlight many neoliberal and neoconservative battle buddies who now join hands to coordinate efforts against the American people's efforts to achieve medical care and clean energy. This site is very proud to list many government 'servants' who are now lobbyist. It shows photos of flag waving, throws out words like 'PATRIOT' and lists career opportunities (currently available) such as 'Major Gifts Manager'. As serendipitous that this might seem to some, it strikes this non-Washington, non-media, average American as exactly why most of us who lead such lives have distrust and dislike for people 'like that'. This article is biased. It has a strong corporate right lean. I have little doubt it was sourced from exactly the same sources which, according to Pew, have also moved Americans to Right- add independent media has been squashed or eliminated- which quiets any dissent. Noah Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' might provide a useful tool. QuietChickenChaser ( talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Truly I don't think it's right for different people who believe in two different things to join together, because it will cause more violence in the world. It's really a question to have bipartisan system in order to serve people better. second, every 2 years every house reps,6 years senator also almost every year local gov official. No time, concentrated effort for the citizen of the u.s.a.what about the presidential election? One of the most important independent spirits is equality. The current voting system is not adequate to reflect all the voter's rights.
Removed the reference to Canada as we currently have three political parties - Conservative, Liberal and NDP (Center, Left and Lefter). Urbanriot ( talk) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagging NPOV. This article has a distinct liberal slant (one which I happen to agree with, but nonetheless a slant). 76.201.147.205 ( talk) 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what the discussion is about. Do y'all disagree with the definition of the word bipartisan btw not bypartisan which the first writer specified. If so then write about that, not all this other garbage. Please either get this word defined only not a bunch of partisan retoric crazy talk.
Dujulan -- 70.140.121.177 ( talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe the above writer may be referring to items such as the paragraph from the Huffington Post article which is not based in fact, but is an editorial opinion slamming Republicsns. That has no place on an encyclopedic site and should ABSOLUTELY be deleted, just as it should if they had linked a bash of bipartisanship from a Republican perspective. The paragraph is cited as a political analysts observation of bipartisanship but is actually just an attempt to insult Republicans (and in truth, Democrats too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WSG314 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is starting to get cluttered. It needs to be divided into suggestions. I will do this in a couple days if it hasn't been fixed by then, but we need to have this sorted out. I propose the following sections be made in this layout: General Information Advocacy -In the United States Criticisms
As of now, the article is needlessly US-centric, and is getting very messy. I recommend all quotes either be removed, moved to references, or moved to Wikiquote.
Omniferous ( talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the "US-centric" tag for this reason: bipartisanship applies to situations where there are two-party systems; and there are few two-party systems around the world, and the US is one of the few examples (see Two party system. So, it seems reasonable to focus on the US and US politics when talking about bipartisanship; this issue doesn't play out to the same extent in multiparty systems. So, to criticize this article as being "US focused" doesn't make sense; it would be like tagging the article "Mississippi River" with a similar tag because there were too many mentions of the US. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011
I would like to know whether or not bipartisanship (or related words, as bipartisan) actually and more than sporadically is used by notable sources for references to phenomena outside the US. (@ The Mighty Glen: I'm not asking whether it should be used, but whether it is used.) I see the term nonpartisan (or equivalent terms in e.g. Swedish) now and then, but bipartisan only in US political contexts. If it is chiefly used with references to US contexts, then I think this should be mentioned in the lead.
I also would like to know to what extent it is used as a synonym to or replacing nonpartisan(ship) in US use. All the examples given in the article concern political activity, where Democrats and Republicans in their rôle as politicians have taken an essential part. On the other hand, I sometimes see other use elsewhere, as in the article Heterodox Academy, which starts
Reading on, this indeed seems not to be an initiative by politicians; and I strongly suspect that it also involves professors and other 'academicians' who do not primarily consider themselves as either Democrats or Republicans. I fully agree with calling e.g. Freedom House bipartisan, but if the section Bipartisanship#Usage is correct and reasonably exhaustive, then probably some other term should be better for the Heterodox Academy. JoergenB ( talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This article does a poor job of fleshing out the various criticisms of bipartisanship that have popped up ion recent years, at least with regard to the American political system. Here are some additional criticisms that have been expressed in by notable individuals in the past (about the U.S. bipartisanship as a concept) that should be added to the article (appropriately sourced of course):
-- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 20:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Curious how this term seems to reappear in headlines when the congress would like the public to believe there to be a beneficial compromise between parties when, in truth, it seems, both have made little progress for public good but rallied together for corporate interests. There is the 'Bipartisan Policy Center' (biparticanpolicy.org) which seems to highlight many neoliberal and neoconservative battle buddies who now join hands to coordinate efforts against the American people's efforts to achieve medical care and clean energy. This site is very proud to list many government 'servants' who are now lobbyist. It shows photos of flag waving, throws out words like 'PATRIOT' and lists career opportunities (currently available) such as 'Major Gifts Manager'. As serendipitous that this might seem to some, it strikes this non-Washington, non-media, average American as exactly why most of us who lead such lives have distrust and dislike for people 'like that'. This article is biased. It has a strong corporate right lean. I have little doubt it was sourced from exactly the same sources which, according to Pew, have also moved Americans to Right- add independent media has been squashed or eliminated- which quiets any dissent. Noah Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' might provide a useful tool. QuietChickenChaser ( talk) 20:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)