User talk:Doktorbuk/pp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure whether being officially registered isn't enough claim to notability in SOME countries. While it's apparently very easy to register as a party in the UK, it's a lot harder in other countries, and having successfully registered may alone be a certain claim to notability -- on the other hand, those parties which do manage to do that would usually achieve notability through some other clause, as well, I expect.

Another point is how successful a party has to be at contesting elections -- a party which achieves even half a percent may be notable in some countries (like Austria) which have a very rigid party system, i.e. where even 0.5% of the vote can be a substantial vote of confidence for completely new parties.

Just my first €0.02. —Nightstallion 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...laying down hurdles is problematic (what's the threshold: 1%? 5%? 10%? Is that in one election, several, or several combined?). It may be better to sidestep a threshold and deal with unsuccessful parties under a "otherwise notable" clause (see below). regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply! Yeah, this is very "broad brush" because I just cannot find a standard policy, so if we have the bones now, the flesh can be added. On the topic of registration, I guess I am looking from a UK perspective, so it would be interesting to hear how it is done elsewhere, and whether the ease in the UK has any baring on the notability policy. At the mo, "registration ≠ notabilty" where I stand, but this could change. On the subject of electoral success, again it's from the UK perspctive I view this. The "Alliance For Change" may not be the best off-the-top-of-my-head example, but they did pretty ropy in elections, but does constant apperance on the ballot paper in any case give them some kind of notability? Remember, we have the Election Box Metada things which require, to some extent, articles to exist whether it's Liberal Democrats or Beauties For Britain....doktorb _words^deeds 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good start to me. Criterion 3 (history) is pretty vague, but I suppose that's the point - it's impossible to give a strict definition of 'an indisputable, clear, and certain importance in a nation's cultural/social history', but it should most of the time be clear whether or not it applies. The rest are all fairly reasonable, but here are a few points worth considering in more detail:

• Point 4, the Person Clause: is an otherwise non-notable political party notable solely because it is associated with/founded by a notable person? For example, the Peace and Progress Party is notable only because it was founded by Vanessa Redgrave - is this sufficient for notability?
• Similarly, point 2, the Lineage Clause: is a party notable solely because it claims to be the successor of an older notable party? For example, are the New Nationalist Party (United Kingdom) and UK Freedom Party notable because they are splinter parties of the BNP?
• Lastly, point 1: we should consider whether this extends to local councils (or their equivalent in other countries). At the moment, I'm assuming it wouldn't apply - so presumably, a party isn't necessarily notable just because it's won seats on a local council (e.g.: the Derwentside Independents, the For Darwen Party)?

Overall though, I think this looks good, and would support making it a draft policy. (The examples I gave all come from Category:Political parties in the United Kingdom, which once this policy has been worked out, would be a good place to start applying it.) Terraxos (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the reply. I am just about to go off-line, alas, but you make a good point about the local council parties such as For Darwen, which are an offshoot of England First. I will have a think and get back to you doktorb _words^deeds 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 4; I'd argue that the Peace and Progress Party is notable solely because it was founded by Vanessa Redgrave, although it is not necessarily notable enough to stop the article being merged with Vanessa (if that makes sense).

Point 2: I'd argue that the New Nationalist Party (United Kingdom) and UK Freedom Party are notable if they are the de jure/de facto successors of the BNP, thus moving the burden of proof to the demonstration of de jure/de facto succession. Although it would be easier to scrap this clause entirely.

Point 1: I agree it should be extended to tertiary assemblies.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to admit here is that political parties have a very differnt dynamic than other social and economic organizations. A very small party should not be compared with a very small company. A local pizzeria with 4-5 employees is not notable, but a very numerically small political organization can still have some degree of notability. We need to separate between between hoaxes/spoofs/jokes on one hand and serious organizations on the other. --Soman (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree -- regional and local parties can be notable, of course, for instance through continuous success in elections or through the influence of the locale where they are successfully active. —Nightstallion 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts on the suggestions

Hi, doktorb: thanks for the message. Hmmm...I agree with your suggestions, but they'll need rewording, especially the history clause. You'll also need an eternity clause.

1. The Electoral Clause – Political parties who currently sit, or have sat, in the national or regional parliament should be regarded as notable.

- Yep, slam-dunk. Easy call. But do you want to limit it to national/regional parliaments. And what's the definition of "sits"? And what's the definition of "parliament"?

1. The Lineage Clause – A party which is the precursor or successor to existing political parties are notable, although any article should contain enough material to avoid being merged into its "parent"/"child".

- Hmmmm....On the whole I'm OK with this clause, but please note it's open to abuse - what's the definition of "predecessor" or "successor" in this context? Also, it should be "notable political parties".

1. The History Clause – Whilst some parties have had electoral representation for hundreds of years, some may (and here I mention Monster Raving Loony Party for a notable UK example) have had an indesputiable, clear, and certain importance in a nation's cultural/social history, and should be regarded as notable. This will also include notable pressure groups, for example, who may not be electorally active.

- Oh mama, this could go badly wrong. You need to scrap this entirely and replace with a "Otherwise Notable clause"

1. The Person Clause – A notable person, that is a person who has an article on Wikipedia, who has launched or helped create, a party may assist the argument that that party can have a stand-alone article.

- ...or it may not <grin>. You may want to reword this...or more accurately, you need to reword this to remove the "may".

1. The Not-Notable Clause – An entry in a nation's Register Of Political Parties is NOT evidence enough that they are notable, nor is the evidence of less than an agreed amount of failed candidates across a number of elections.

- Agreed - tho' I'd split into two clauses and reword the latter.

So the reworded version looks like this:

1. The Electoral Clause – A party which has been elected to an assembly of members divided by parties is notable.
2. The Lineage Clause – A party which is the de jure/de facto precursor of, or de jure/de facto successor to, a notable party is notable.
3. The Person Clause - A party formed by a notable entity is notable.
4. The Registration Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has registered as a party is not enough for that party to be deemed as notable.
5. The Failure Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has fielded unsuccessful candidates is not enough for that party to be deemed as notable.
6. The Otherwise Notable Clause - A party which fails notability due to the above criteria, but passes other notability criteria (e.g. cultural/social importance, etc.), is notable.
7. The Standalone Clause - The fact that article "A" is about a party deemed to be notable is not enough to prevent article "A" being merged into another article if article "A" fails other criteria (e.g. not enough info, or lack of reliable sources, etc.) for having its own article.
8. The Eternity Clause - A party which was notable due to the above criteria remains notable.

Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, you have noticed that this was a very "broad brush" attempt, so I am grateful for your considered responses.

I think the "electoral clause" is fairly clear and obvious. For "sits", yeah, "elected or appointed to an assembly" is what I mean, so your clause would be fine. The problem we have is with the extent of "assembly" - national, no argument, but regional? What is a notable regional party in, say, Germany, may not be comparative with a "regional" level group from, pfff, South Africa. That said, I think we can probably agree on the intent and basic content of clause 1 already.

The "person clause" is the one giving me a bit of concern. As has been mentioned above, the article on Vanessa Redgrave could just have her party article merged into it, if it cannot be proven that the party has had a social/cultural/political "impact" or notable electoral success. Let's think about Reg Keys' Spectre (political party) for one other example here.

I am happy with your "Otherwise notable clause". This will help with, amongst others, For Darwen and Idle Toad. The "standalong clause" should be the "without prejudice to WP:N clause", given what has been mentioned above regarding the special nature of political party.

Just getting ready for work now, so when I get back tonight I will take a look at the other feedback here, and edit the policy for the first time with the collected opinions and whatever other thoughts. I think we could have a draft policy within a couple of weeks doktorb _words^deeds 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to amend article 4 and 5.

4. The Registration Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has registered as a party is by itself not enough for that party to be deemed as notable, unless registration is usually difficult to attain in the country or region in question.

5. The Failure Insufficiency Clause - The fact that a party has fielded unsuccessful candidates is by itself not enough for that party to be deemed as notable, but having fielded a very large number of candidates (in constituency systems) or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (while failing to get any members elected) is sufficient.

Okay? —Nightstallion 13:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but you can solidify the wording as follows

• "unless registration is usually difficult to attain in the country or region in question" can be replaced by "unless that registration was difficult to obtain" (you're not going to register in the country not in question, and you wouldn't disqualify notability on the grounds that it was unusually difficult to obtain) and
• "but having fielded a very large number of candidates (in constituency systems) or having attained a substantial portion of the vote (while failing to get any members elected) is sufficient." can be replaced by "but having fielded a substantial proportion of the candidates, or having attained a substantial proportion of the vote, is sufficient" (how big is a "very large number", and what is the definition of a "portion" in this context?).

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need specifc criteria about parties, but if we decide differently I will support Soktorburk's suggestions. Anyway a few parties will not fit one of the five clauses proposed by Doktorbuk and few articles will be deleted on the new rules. Regarding Italy, the country where I live, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of articles about parties such as the National Democratic Party (Italy), Italy Again, Moderate Italy, United Pensioners and many other small parties whose articles are available at or in Template:Italian political parties in 2007. Would you agree? --Checco (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Checco's problem is partially easily solved:

9. Alliance Clause A party which is a formal ally of a party that meets the electoral clause is notable, although any article should contain enough material to avoid being merged into its founder/co-founder. This includes all parties that are formal and full members of international party federations or parties at the European level.

C mon (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In Italy there are many unrelevant parties which would fit your categorization... I don't know, a rule like this could be like having no rules at all, and maybe this is the best solution... --Checco (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about the phrasing of the Alliance Clause, as Checco says, it would be like having no rule at all. The Italian situation is, it seems, characteristically confused (and I mean that with all due respect). This shows the problems, I suppose with having such fluidity in the arena of political parties. I will have a think about that clause and get back to you. I think we can agree on the electoral clause, with a minor rewrite to take into account what has been written above....doktorb _words^deeds 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to be careful here...if you have a lineage clause (a party is notable if it is the pre/successor of a notable party) and an alliance clause (a party is notable if it is allied in some fashion with a notable party), then you're allowing notability to descend forward, back and sideways. Under those rules it'll be possible for virtually any party to achieve notability on a six-degrees-of-separation basis. You may be best advised to lose the lineage and alliance clauses totally. I think I'm correct in saying that under Wikipedia rules, being the parent/child/sibling of a notable person does not make that person notable - the rationale being that notability unchecked will eventually render everybody notable. Similarly, allowing political party notability to descend thru the parent/child (lineage) or sibling (alliance) lines may eventually render nearly every political party notable. I would not object to such an outcome (bless my inclusionist soul) per se but the effects would render your clauses moot. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You see, the overlap here is dangerously close to some rather insestuous consequences heh. A party is notable if they have been elected, but not necessarily notable if they just in alliance...Oh my, this could get very messy doktorb _words^deeds 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm thinking too much about Italy, and don't worry about calling Italian politics chaotic: it IS chaotic! --Checco (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For New Zealand we seem to have a policy that if a party was registered, applied for broadcasting funding or ran candidates (even unsuccessfully) it is notable enough for inclusion. But we have less than two dozen parties active at any one time (with five or six appearing and disappearing at each election), so its relatively easy to keep track of. IdiotSavant (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that fits my amendment of 4., since registration is not that trivially easy in NZ. —Nightstallion 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, cheers to both. So I think we can agree without any probs on the first main clause - a party has to be sitting in a parliament. I think the New Zealand sto..example is interesting, because any registration clause can have a suitable caveat. I am unsure about the coalition example from Italy, as has been said, it may over-ride all other rules. doktorb _words^deeds 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Nightstallion: Do you agree on the fact that, under the new rules, some of the articles about Italian political parties you created should be deleted? --Checco (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, yes. —Nightstallion 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State of Play

As I see it now...

1. We have a "clause 1" agreed. Political parties are notable if they are represented in an elected or appointed national or regional assembly.
2. We have, essentially, a "non notable notability" clause - a party are notable if, after 2* years of active campaigning and candidature without success, it can be proven that they have a constant, credible, and long-term aims for political campaigning.
3. There is a question over how many candidates such a party should nominate for them to satisfy this "non notable notability" clause (Money Reform Party, now merged, had just the one. Monster Raving Loonies have had hundreds, for context).
4. We think that parties formed by notable people could be notable (although, say, Reg Keys' Spectre is one example where this doesn't agree, but Spectre doesnt satisfy our "non notable notability" clause). Look at Robert Kilroy-Silk's Veritas - they're still putting candidates forward.
5. There is a question mark over a "coalition clause", which may help in places like Italy, but may also act as a "rule to over-ride all rules".

* This is my suggestion - if it can be proven that a party has been going for 2 years, with campaigning and/or electoral activity, without success, then I think that is enough proven work for our purposes.

doktorb _words^deeds 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Nightstallion 09:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally thinhk your criteria are over-stringent. I would also be interested in your opinion on parties with representation in multiple third tier bodies; the IWCA is a possible example. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. The IWCA have not been mentioned before, but Idle Toad and others have in passing. Yes, the current proposals are "tight", but Wiki has to have some control over its content, notability cannot be claimed by everyone, as I am sure you appriciate. Actually I think IWCA are fine, as they satisfy the "non notability notability" clause (I have GOT to come up with a new name for that ;)) in that they have been consistantly and constantly campaigning for at least 2 years as well as their electoral activities. doktorb _words^deeds 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying the need for some control, just suggesting that your current proposals are too tight. Idle Toad seems to me a good example of the sort of thing which wikipedia should cover (Wiki is not paper), though I guess they also meet your "non notability notability" clause? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What is sure is that these rules are not tight and, maybe, that's good! However IWCA should be definitely included, even if this means that almost no article about an Italian party is up to deletion. In the end, I continue to think that we don't need any rules, especially if they are so loose. --Checco (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm rather late to the discussion here, but I really like doktorb's proposed clause 1 ("democratic representation") and 2 ("enduring activity"). How can we define active? We need evidence that they have undertaken genuine activity. I suggest that evidence a party has issued publications, stood in elections or retained elected representatives in any democratic body over a period of a minimum of two years would qualify. Maintaining a website or remaining a registered party in a state where there are no requirements for a minimum level of support or activity would not suffice. A minimum number of candidates may not be the answer - some parties, mostly on the far left, do not prioritise electoral activity, and may instead churn out large amounts of propaganda and primarily be active in trade unions or assorted campaigns.

Meanwhile, I don't believe that merely being formed by a notable individual is enough. If a party does not meet clause 1 or 2, then I'd rather see the information merged into the article on the individual. Warofdreams talk 17:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)