Talk:Political party

message: I removed the following for PoV:
: [Nonpartisan systems...], an important model of which is found in the practice of Baha'i administration.Abizadeh 2005.
Baha'i administration appears to be "important" only to those with an intense interest in Bahai. Googling
: "Bahá'í administration" 
: "Bahai administration"
and 
: "Baha'i administration"
produce 6,040, 789, and 5,120 raw hits respectively. The majority of these hits are for the difficult correct spelling with special characters, reflecting the topic's interest to those with sufficient interest in Bahá'í to be invested in showing extraordinary respect for that spelling. The URLs and page titles, except on WP and in cases where explicitly Bahá'í-written texts have been included among other e-texts, reflect Bahá'í-specific groups of pages. The claim that a relatively small religion has made an "important" contribution to political and social theory is an extraordinary claim, and taking it seriously will require extraordinary evidence that academic political scientists and sociologists consider the contribution important, and that notable organizations verifiably not dominated by Bahá'ís say that it has been important to them to have adopted the approach from Bahá'í or from sources that are verifiably derived from the Bahá'í  methods. --Jerzy•t 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Bahai references 

message: what does UNA mean on a registration card & does it mean they can vote for anyone in the primary &the general election  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.230.228 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  registration cards 

message: I think it should be needed to put in this article.--MaGioZal (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the history of the formation of political parties?

message: :Political party → Civil government political party — This article deals only with political parties in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole. User:91.176.13.181 13:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politician which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  RFC bot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in process

message: I dispute "Political change is often easier with a coalition government than in one-party or two-party dominant systems."  The opposite case is more often made, in the context of plurality vs proportional systems: that a complete change of governing party affords opportunity for sweeping change, whereas an incoming coalition will likely negotiate a compromise programme similar to the outgoing coalition (especially if some parties are in both). jnestorius(talk) 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The "partisan style" section currently has the following subsections:
* Non-partisan - the entire concept of parties doesn't exist
* One-party system - only one party is allowed to hold power
* Two-party system - two strong parties hold all actual executive power
* Multi-party system - two strong parties hold almost all actual executive powers, but there might be a few minority parties holding a small share of it
There is no actual mention at all about true multi-party systems where actual executive power is shared pretty much equally among more than two major parties. This system is actually used in at least Finland, Sweden, and Germany. It is, however, not used in either the United States or the United Kingdom which are, in effect, two-party systems (Democrats vs Republicans in the USA, Labours vs Tories in the UK), but this is not the "American and British" Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia in the English language, and so it should cover all aspects of the world. JIP | Talk 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Partisan style" section is completely missing information about true multi-party systems 

message: The page claims that "Extensive studies including simulations and polls[4] by Donald Arthur Kronos, have shown." I was surprised when I followed the citation link to an online blog page with an internet poll. While I find the topic of interest, I don't think this paragraph is anything more than somebody's blog opinion. If there is legitimate research which reveals the effectiveness of this style of voting, then I think it should be discussed on this page, but as it stands, I think this entire section should be deleted. Here is the link for those who'd like to take a look: http://sodahead.com/blog/6690/
Jwhester (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Citation Justification for "Balanced Voting multiple-party systems" Section 

message: I am looking for suitable places to introduce links to an article on curvilinear disparity. I helped create the article but it is currently an orphan. Curvilinear disparity is a political theory proposed by the English political scientist John D May, which posits that in catch-all or mass parties, rank-and-file members of the party are more ideologically driven that the party's leadership or its voters. 
It is an idea that is commonplace in the media and political commentaries, although May himself is rarely cited. For example, the British media often talk about "old Labour" members being more ideological than other members. Likewise, the US media often talks about the Republican or Democratic "bases" needing to be placated by the party leaderships (because they are more ideologically charged than the "independent" Republicans or Democrats).
Would it be too much of a stretch to introduce a link in the "Types of Parties" section? Perhaps just one sentence after mass parties are mentioned. getoffmycloud 13:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curvilinear Disparity 

message: In some political party systems around the world, there is a formal membership process, and members have to pay dues. Those dues are used, in part, to finance electoral campaigns.
In the two major US political parties, membership is signaled through voter registration, and as far as I know doesn't require any dues paying. The Democratic National Committee FAQ says of the Democratic Party, "Membership in the Party is open to anyone who is registered to vote as a Democrat or who generally votes for Democratic candidates or who identifies with the Democratic Party."
Is there a clear distinction between these two styles of political party systems? Are they named? Is the US unique, or are there other countries that have this looser style of membership? --ESP (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership and dues 

message: It is a political party in bihar its National President is md targheeb alam ansari Bldparty (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahujan Lok Dal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following text was added in these 38 edits without any citations. After it was tagged as uncited here, I removed it on the grounds of WP:V, but in the spirit of WP:BRD I'm inviting discussion about what can be cited and added to the page. For my part, though, I'll say I certainly don't think this should be a new section, because the section on party structure is already about exactly this sort of thing. In my opinion whatever is new and verifiable here should just be added to that existing section, with citations. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party structure material 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :List of banned political parties and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 18#List of banned political parties until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TartarTorte 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of banned political parties" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The two images in the section "Party positions and ideologies" present original research and point of view that I think goes beyond what is permitted on Wikipedia. Both images present unsourced models of political ideology that appear to be based on the opinions of the image creators. The map claims to show "identification from international recognition or self-proclaimed party ideology" but provides no sources for these identifications and appears to be the author's opinion of what they might be. Similarly, the one-axis spectrum image does not show an agreed upon model, and it raises issues of where these ideologies should fall and how they compare to one another (the inclusion of socialism as a separate ideology to the right of communism in particular seems tenuous and unsupported). I'd like to remove both of these images from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought the same thing, but was hesitant to act on or mention it, for fear of falling into an ownership bias after working on this page a lot. I would support removing these images as being uncited and therefore failing basic content policies like WP:V. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

text: In particular the images I'm talking about are :File:Democracy claims.svg and :File:Political Ideology - Wiki.png. In contrast, :File:2022 Freedom in the World.png needs to be cited, but it's obvious that it's not original research, and it's clear what work it's referring to (as is it comes close to parenthetical referencing, but that's been deprecated, and anyhow the source needs to be in the References section). So I think the correct approach would be to remove the former two as simply being original research, and to cite the third one. Though I think there is also also a conversation to have about whether Freedom House ratings are relevant to the topic of political parties. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In my opinion, :File:Political Ideology - Wiki.png, :File:Conventional political spectrum.svg, and :File:Democracy claims.svg probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. :File:2022 Freedom in the World.png would be fine with a citation, but like you said, I'm skeptical of whether it's applicable to this article. And since we're talking about images, I'll add that :File:Donkey and elephant - democrat blue and republican red - polygon rough.jpg sticks out as a low quality image. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on all counts. I encourage you to be bold and make those changes. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images with unreliable information 

message: This is a narrowed definition of a political party. There are countries through history which have not held regular elections through some periods, but the ruling party in these cases would still be considered a political party. A3f148b10d57987f (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are almost no countries where elections do not occur and yet politics is organized according to groups that the balance of reliable sources would consider to be a modern political party. It's a fair point that there are many one-party systems in which the main purpose of the party that controls the state is not to organize candidates to contest elections, but on Wikipedia the relevant guideline here is MOS:LEAD and specifically MOS:FIRST/MOS:INTRO, and the goal is not to propose an original or completely flawless definition but rather to offer a simple summary of the contents of the page. "Parties coordinate candidates in elections" is a reasonable summary of what reliable sources say a political party is, and it is a fair attempt to summarize the core commonality of, say, the U.S. Marijuana Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Those two organizations don't have a lot in common, but one trait they share is that they coordinate candidates to compete in their country's elections. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion