![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hey =)
Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder ( talk) 13:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC) PS: See also: commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#File:Political_System_of_the_United_States.svg_and_File:Politisches_System_der_Vereinigten_Staaten.svg
This WikiProject may be interested in the TfD discussion ongoing here. Please feel free to participate if you'd like. ~ Rob Talk 02:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see this RfC, which members of this project may wish to weigh in on. ~ Rob Talk 21:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of the United States#Importance assessments out of wack which concerns your project. – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 23:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors' views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about ballot proposition articles at WikiProject Elections and Referendums – please do contribute if you have an opinion. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I have initiated a merge proposal of the above mentioned articles. Discussion here. 2601:644:2:B64B:8183:231:EF80:A576 ( talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas ( talk) 06:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
120.155.99.16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a number of absurd edits. I reverted the ones I was sure were wrong, but he's added a few {{ New Democrats}}, {{ Bill Clinton series}}, {{ Hillary Clinton series}}, and {{ Bill Clinton}} to some articles, where I'm not sure they are inappropriate. Less than 50 edits overall, all since February 27, most alread reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a back and forth going on right now across alot of articles about US representatives. Snooganssnoogans added information to articles about US representatives that voted for the American Health Care Act. The information includes one consequence of the bill: "The version of the bill that he voted for scraps protections for people with preexisting conditions, allowing insurers to charge individuals with conditions such as cancer more." The information was removed by 1990'sguy and has been reinstated by Volunteer Marek. I do not believe the information belongs in the articles. We shouldn't be adding one consequence from the bill to individual articles. If anyone is interested in what the bill does they should read the article on the bill. To actually tell what the bill does we would need to add the whole article about the bill into the article of everyone that voted for it. We as editors shouldn't be deciding what is important about the bill, we need to let the reader decide. ~ GB fan 14:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I am in the process of removing that sentence from the articles (sheesh, there are 217 of them!) and I notice another user is doing the same. I am pointing out that this sentence is controversial and being discussed here, and should not be re-added without consensus. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I will definitely stop adding text on this until consensus is reached and will definitely self-revert whatever of the disputed text remains that I can. As for several of the concerns: (I) The idea that the vote shouldn't be mentioned in any way in a politician's page (per Jayron32) seems like a clearly erroneous approach to take. This is indisputably what every congressman has received the most coverage for in the current session of Congress: I'd wager that a LexisNexis search would show that the majority of mentions for GOP congressmen in 2017 is in association with this and the March 2017 vote - how these individual congressmen were going to vote and what kind of legislation they'd support has been national news coverage for months. I don't think this is a concern that other editors above share. (II) I think the concerns with how the bill should be described are valid, but I don't think it's valid to say that legislation shouldn't be described at all. Wikipedia would be of no use if every "political positions" section just listed HRXXX and stated whether they voted for or against it. Which legislation to describe and at what length would seem to be under Wiki policy on DUE, NOTABILITY etc. A piece of legislation that receives zero coverage by RS but is listed on the clerk.house.gov/ would never belong. A piece of legislation or a policy statement that receives extensive RS coverage would belong. I opted to use WaPo's list of votes, along with its description that the changes to the bill would remove protections for pre-existing conditions [1]. I have noticed that one part of the description (that it would allow insurer to charge the elderly up to five times more than young consumers) was not in the WaPo description (but in the AHCA WP article itself), which I thought it was and is an error I apologize for. (III) The intention was always to use this language as a start (using WaPo's list and its brief description) and then to elaborate by using in-depth articles (often from local news sources) on each vote. The current state of the Mimi Walters article [2] is a good example, as it lists the vote, her statement about the legislation and then RS coverage about the vote and her political stance, but even that's an early version. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
To the actual question, it depends on the importance of the bill. The ACA vote led to Representatives losing their jobs, or at least that's been suggested. The AHCA vote is arguably as important, the Republicans have been talking about the "repeal and replace" of Obamacare for years. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a content dispute on the article Greg Gianforte. As with the above discussion, Snooganssnoogans added info that I believe is POV and UNDUE (and off-topic as well). Other POV edits have been made by other editors. It would be great if other editors would review this article. Gianforte is currently in an upcoming special election, which I think explains the edits. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I've been asked by the consultancy Vianovo to request a few updates to their article, which falls under the scope of this WikiProject.I posted a note on the Talk page last month asking for help, but I don't think many editors are watching the Talk page and no one has responded yet. Would anyone here be able to look over the edits I'm proposing and make the changes if they seem OK? As I am working on behalf of Vianovo, I don't want to make any edits myself. Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm reaching out here to see if there are any editors who would be interested to help update the article for the Congressional Institute. The current article is overly detailed, has inline external links and content that is not properly sourced. The new draft I'm proposing is trimmed down and thoroughly sourced. There's an edit request on the Talk page here that provides more details. I have a COI as I'm working for the Institute as part of my work with Beutler Ink and I won't edit the article directly; I'm hoping to find uninvolved editors to review the draft. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 21:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
User:JFG has spent the morning/night removing text about whether congresspeople endorsed Trump or not in the 2016 presidential election, see for instance [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The text on the endorsements is in every case reliably sourced and unique to the congressperson in question. It is notable, and in many cases earned national news coverage (not a lot of things revolving around individual congresspersons get national news coverage). The claim that it is not a 'political position' is false: an endorsement of a candidate or a failure to endorse the candidate is as much a political position as you can get, as it bears on the policies and character of the candidate and whether the congressperson believes he is fit to hold the most important position in the US government. Many Republicans did not endorse Trump because they did not believe that he was fit to hold the presidency, other Republicans endorsed reluctantly, other Republicans endorsed without any stated concerns. Even if the user disagreed that it was a political position, it should be moved to a relevant subsection, not deleted. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
In February 2017, he voted against resolution that would have directed the House to request 10 years of Trump's tax returns, which would then have been reviewed by the House Ways and Means Committee in a closed session.This struck me as an undue detail of a vote among hundreds, not worthy of including in this person's overall biography. Then I noticed that the exact same text (and same grammatical error) had been included in the pages of a dozen Republican congresspeople who happened to have made this vote. By the same reasoning, I removed all such mentions. While going through this, I sometimes removed mentions of the congressman's support for Trump during the campaign, and justified this with "not a political position". However this edit comment essentially applied to the tax return vote. I agree with you that early support for Trump was a political position and deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the relevant bios. I would oppose the reinstatement of the tax return vote, unless some congressperson made a particular public point of endorsing or opposing this resolution. — JFG talk 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Adding signature for timestamp/archival purposes. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in this discussion over whether or not the Impeachment March article should be merged into Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC at Political appointments by Donald Trump that might be of interest to editors here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump#RfC:_Should_we_include_career_diplomats.3F -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to notify you guys of two instances of congressional staff employing the Wikipedia pages of their employers this summer:
I get the feeling that this is more common (esp. with IP numbers and red accounts that don't have the same name as the staff). The aforementioned accounts removed content, tweaked language to make it less neutral and added dubious content. Something to be aware of. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm reaching out to see if members of this WikiProject would be able to look at some updates for the Washington, D.C.-based Republican lobbying firm CGCN Group. Since the topic falls under the remit of this WikiProject, I wondered if editors here might be interested. I have written a full updated draft for the company and have posted two short edit requests to get started with improving the article. As I do have a conflict of interest (I am proposing the updates on behalf of CGCN as part of my work at Beutler Ink) I'm seeking uninvolved editors to review the proposed draft and offer their feedback. Would anyone here be able to help? Any input or questions are welcome. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 20:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Two new RfCs have been created regarding the political position of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, more specifically in the infobox at the top of the page. Input has been gathered for a while now, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, you can go to the respective talk page section (I linked them for convenience) and give input after reading what has been discussed so far. Apolitical or non-American Wikipedians may be required to reach a efficient consensus and avoid (perceived) bias. They are some of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox (especially considering the fact that they have an identifiable ideology), and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. I have placed this notice on this page, as well as the main WikiProject Politicstalk page. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Help is appreciated, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 02:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
message TxStateAlum17 ( talk) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC) |
For all your hard work and dedication.
Task force are invited to help expand and improve the newly-created Cole Memorandum article. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!
-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a new RfC on the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners [10]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theories, but this issue seems to be getting increasing press and Wikipedia lacked an article about it. So I created an article, and in the past four days it's gone from 150 views/day to 300, and it's creeping from page 4 of Google hits for "qanon" to page 2.
I would guess that once it hits page 1 of ghits, people invested in it might start showing up trying to slant the article, so I would invite more Neutral people to watchlist it to keep an eye out for that. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Some editor wrote that Trump's Muslim ban executive was intended "to temporarily curtail Muslim immigration until better screening methods are devised" into dozens of Wikipedia articles (just google "to temporarily curtail Muslim immigration until better screening methods are devised"). This language is erroneous and should be fixed. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
List of diplomatic visits to the United States was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States. Cunard ( talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?. -
Mr
X 🖋
18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
He's the head of HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement [11]. There's substantial RS coverage of him. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Editors with expertise in US politics would be much appreciated. Tera TIX 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
This month: WikiProject X: The resumption
Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!
-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
In connection with a master's level class in U.S. food policy at Tufts University, I am tempted to help organize students to make some coordinated edits to pages on (topics) food policy, agricultural policy, food labeling policy, (programs) SNAP, WIC, (legislation) Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, Farm Bill. We have been learning how to use templates for infoboxes for organizations, legislation, court rulings. Question: Is there anybody at this WikiProject who I should tap for advice or coordination before beginning? Parke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkewilde ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is underway at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump/Archive 2#Ordering of pending nominations. Interested editors may want to comment. — JFG talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion of interest to the members of this project can be found at Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Paging some competent and experienced writers on US politics and/or the environment! A clear NPOV article about the Green New Deal would be a great resource. But instead the article section on "Positions and Principles" is blank, and there's a lot of POV pushing elsewhere. If anybody has time to work on it, we could make a real contribution to public discourse. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The above are quotes. - starship .paint ~ KO 02:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump. Espresso Addict ( talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Oregon Progressive Party as to whether the historic party should be included on the same page as the current party. Please add your thoughts.-- TM 10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A final update, for now:
The third grant-funded round of
WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the
final report for more information.
Regards,
-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a request of mine to update outdated information at Talk:CGCN Group. As you gather from my username, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I am an employee at the Republican advocacy and strategic communications firm.
Thank you, Lauren at CGCN ( talk) 13:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.
The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion which relates to this task force happening here. Please feel free to weigh in there. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please update https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:USSenators -- NL19931993 ( talk) 05:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hey =)
Recently I uploaded these two graphics describing the political system of the United States. It would be nice if someone could review and may improve them or do some bugfix (in case I've depicted sth wrong). Thanks and greetings — Allrounder ( talk) 13:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC) PS: See also: commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#File:Political_System_of_the_United_States.svg_and_File:Politisches_System_der_Vereinigten_Staaten.svg
This WikiProject may be interested in the TfD discussion ongoing here. Please feel free to participate if you'd like. ~ Rob Talk 02:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see this RfC, which members of this project may wish to weigh in on. ~ Rob Talk 21:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of the United States#Importance assessments out of wack which concerns your project. – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 23:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
01:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Editors' views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page that project members might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about ballot proposition articles at WikiProject Elections and Referendums – please do contribute if you have an opinion. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I have initiated a merge proposal of the above mentioned articles. Discussion here. 2601:644:2:B64B:8183:231:EF80:A576 ( talk) 22:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas ( talk) 06:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
120.155.99.16 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a number of absurd edits. I reverted the ones I was sure were wrong, but he's added a few {{ New Democrats}}, {{ Bill Clinton series}}, {{ Hillary Clinton series}}, and {{ Bill Clinton}} to some articles, where I'm not sure they are inappropriate. Less than 50 edits overall, all since February 27, most alread reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a back and forth going on right now across alot of articles about US representatives. Snooganssnoogans added information to articles about US representatives that voted for the American Health Care Act. The information includes one consequence of the bill: "The version of the bill that he voted for scraps protections for people with preexisting conditions, allowing insurers to charge individuals with conditions such as cancer more." The information was removed by 1990'sguy and has been reinstated by Volunteer Marek. I do not believe the information belongs in the articles. We shouldn't be adding one consequence from the bill to individual articles. If anyone is interested in what the bill does they should read the article on the bill. To actually tell what the bill does we would need to add the whole article about the bill into the article of everyone that voted for it. We as editors shouldn't be deciding what is important about the bill, we need to let the reader decide. ~ GB fan 14:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I am in the process of removing that sentence from the articles (sheesh, there are 217 of them!) and I notice another user is doing the same. I am pointing out that this sentence is controversial and being discussed here, and should not be re-added without consensus. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I will definitely stop adding text on this until consensus is reached and will definitely self-revert whatever of the disputed text remains that I can. As for several of the concerns: (I) The idea that the vote shouldn't be mentioned in any way in a politician's page (per Jayron32) seems like a clearly erroneous approach to take. This is indisputably what every congressman has received the most coverage for in the current session of Congress: I'd wager that a LexisNexis search would show that the majority of mentions for GOP congressmen in 2017 is in association with this and the March 2017 vote - how these individual congressmen were going to vote and what kind of legislation they'd support has been national news coverage for months. I don't think this is a concern that other editors above share. (II) I think the concerns with how the bill should be described are valid, but I don't think it's valid to say that legislation shouldn't be described at all. Wikipedia would be of no use if every "political positions" section just listed HRXXX and stated whether they voted for or against it. Which legislation to describe and at what length would seem to be under Wiki policy on DUE, NOTABILITY etc. A piece of legislation that receives zero coverage by RS but is listed on the clerk.house.gov/ would never belong. A piece of legislation or a policy statement that receives extensive RS coverage would belong. I opted to use WaPo's list of votes, along with its description that the changes to the bill would remove protections for pre-existing conditions [1]. I have noticed that one part of the description (that it would allow insurer to charge the elderly up to five times more than young consumers) was not in the WaPo description (but in the AHCA WP article itself), which I thought it was and is an error I apologize for. (III) The intention was always to use this language as a start (using WaPo's list and its brief description) and then to elaborate by using in-depth articles (often from local news sources) on each vote. The current state of the Mimi Walters article [2] is a good example, as it lists the vote, her statement about the legislation and then RS coverage about the vote and her political stance, but even that's an early version. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
To the actual question, it depends on the importance of the bill. The ACA vote led to Representatives losing their jobs, or at least that's been suggested. The AHCA vote is arguably as important, the Republicans have been talking about the "repeal and replace" of Obamacare for years. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a content dispute on the article Greg Gianforte. As with the above discussion, Snooganssnoogans added info that I believe is POV and UNDUE (and off-topic as well). Other POV edits have been made by other editors. It would be great if other editors would review this article. Gianforte is currently in an upcoming special election, which I think explains the edits. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I've been asked by the consultancy Vianovo to request a few updates to their article, which falls under the scope of this WikiProject.I posted a note on the Talk page last month asking for help, but I don't think many editors are watching the Talk page and no one has responded yet. Would anyone here be able to look over the edits I'm proposing and make the changes if they seem OK? As I am working on behalf of Vianovo, I don't want to make any edits myself. Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm reaching out here to see if there are any editors who would be interested to help update the article for the Congressional Institute. The current article is overly detailed, has inline external links and content that is not properly sourced. The new draft I'm proposing is trimmed down and thoroughly sourced. There's an edit request on the Talk page here that provides more details. I have a COI as I'm working for the Institute as part of my work with Beutler Ink and I won't edit the article directly; I'm hoping to find uninvolved editors to review the draft. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 21:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
User:JFG has spent the morning/night removing text about whether congresspeople endorsed Trump or not in the 2016 presidential election, see for instance [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The text on the endorsements is in every case reliably sourced and unique to the congressperson in question. It is notable, and in many cases earned national news coverage (not a lot of things revolving around individual congresspersons get national news coverage). The claim that it is not a 'political position' is false: an endorsement of a candidate or a failure to endorse the candidate is as much a political position as you can get, as it bears on the policies and character of the candidate and whether the congressperson believes he is fit to hold the most important position in the US government. Many Republicans did not endorse Trump because they did not believe that he was fit to hold the presidency, other Republicans endorsed reluctantly, other Republicans endorsed without any stated concerns. Even if the user disagreed that it was a political position, it should be moved to a relevant subsection, not deleted. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
In February 2017, he voted against resolution that would have directed the House to request 10 years of Trump's tax returns, which would then have been reviewed by the House Ways and Means Committee in a closed session.This struck me as an undue detail of a vote among hundreds, not worthy of including in this person's overall biography. Then I noticed that the exact same text (and same grammatical error) had been included in the pages of a dozen Republican congresspeople who happened to have made this vote. By the same reasoning, I removed all such mentions. While going through this, I sometimes removed mentions of the congressman's support for Trump during the campaign, and justified this with "not a political position". However this edit comment essentially applied to the tax return vote. I agree with you that early support for Trump was a political position and deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the relevant bios. I would oppose the reinstatement of the tax return vote, unless some congressperson made a particular public point of endorsing or opposing this resolution. — JFG talk 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Adding signature for timestamp/archival purposes. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Project members are invited to participate in this discussion over whether or not the Impeachment March article should be merged into Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC at Political appointments by Donald Trump that might be of interest to editors here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump#RfC:_Should_we_include_career_diplomats.3F -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to notify you guys of two instances of congressional staff employing the Wikipedia pages of their employers this summer:
I get the feeling that this is more common (esp. with IP numbers and red accounts that don't have the same name as the staff). The aforementioned accounts removed content, tweaked language to make it less neutral and added dubious content. Something to be aware of. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm reaching out to see if members of this WikiProject would be able to look at some updates for the Washington, D.C.-based Republican lobbying firm CGCN Group. Since the topic falls under the remit of this WikiProject, I wondered if editors here might be interested. I have written a full updated draft for the company and have posted two short edit requests to get started with improving the article. As I do have a conflict of interest (I am proposing the updates on behalf of CGCN as part of my work at Beutler Ink) I'm seeking uninvolved editors to review the proposed draft and offer their feedback. Would anyone here be able to help? Any input or questions are welcome. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 20:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Two new RfCs have been created regarding the political position of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, more specifically in the infobox at the top of the page. Input has been gathered for a while now, but for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, you can go to the respective talk page section (I linked them for convenience) and give input after reading what has been discussed so far. Apolitical or non-American Wikipedians may be required to reach a efficient consensus and avoid (perceived) bias. They are some of the few remaining political parties to not list a position in the infobox (especially considering the fact that they have an identifiable ideology), and each time someone tries to bring it up again to possibly change it, people come in from both sides and it ends in no new consensus. I have placed this notice on this page, as well as the main WikiProject Politicstalk page. This will keep being an issue/will continue to be brought up until a decision is reached. Help is appreciated, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 02:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
message TxStateAlum17 ( talk) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC) |
For all your hard work and dedication.
Task force are invited to help expand and improve the newly-created Cole Memorandum article. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!
-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a new RfC on the NRA's lack of advocacy for black gun owners [10]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theories, but this issue seems to be getting increasing press and Wikipedia lacked an article about it. So I created an article, and in the past four days it's gone from 150 views/day to 300, and it's creeping from page 4 of Google hits for "qanon" to page 2.
I would guess that once it hits page 1 of ghits, people invested in it might start showing up trying to slant the article, so I would invite more Neutral people to watchlist it to keep an eye out for that. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Some editor wrote that Trump's Muslim ban executive was intended "to temporarily curtail Muslim immigration until better screening methods are devised" into dozens of Wikipedia articles (just google "to temporarily curtail Muslim immigration until better screening methods are devised"). This language is erroneous and should be fixed. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
List of diplomatic visits to the United States was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diplomatic visits to the United States. Cunard ( talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?. -
Mr
X 🖋
18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
He's the head of HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement [11]. There's substantial RS coverage of him. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Editors with expertise in US politics would be much appreciated. Tera TIX 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
This month: WikiProject X: The resumption
Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!
-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
In connection with a master's level class in U.S. food policy at Tufts University, I am tempted to help organize students to make some coordinated edits to pages on (topics) food policy, agricultural policy, food labeling policy, (programs) SNAP, WIC, (legislation) Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, Farm Bill. We have been learning how to use templates for infoboxes for organizations, legislation, court rulings. Question: Is there anybody at this WikiProject who I should tap for advice or coordination before beginning? Parke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkewilde ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is underway at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump/Archive 2#Ordering of pending nominations. Interested editors may want to comment. — JFG talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion of interest to the members of this project can be found at Talk:Conspiracy theory#"Without credible evidence". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Paging some competent and experienced writers on US politics and/or the environment! A clear NPOV article about the Green New Deal would be a great resource. But instead the article section on "Positions and Principles" is blank, and there's a lot of POV pushing elsewhere. If anybody has time to work on it, we could make a real contribution to public discourse. HouseOfChange ( talk) 02:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The above are quotes. - starship .paint ~ KO 02:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump. Espresso Addict ( talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Oregon Progressive Party as to whether the historic party should be included on the same page as the current party. Please add your thoughts.-- TM 10:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The RfC located here may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
A final update, for now:
The third grant-funded round of
WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the
final report for more information.
Regards,
-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a request of mine to update outdated information at Talk:CGCN Group. As you gather from my username, I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I am an employee at the Republican advocacy and strategic communications firm.
Thank you, Lauren at CGCN ( talk) 13:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.
The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion which relates to this task force happening here. Please feel free to weigh in there. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please update https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:USSenators -- NL19931993 ( talk) 05:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)