Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties

RfC notification at Talk:Republican Party (United States)

There is a RfC at Talk:Republican Party (United States) that may be of interests to this project. "Should the article list “White Nationalism” as a section under Factions of the Republican Party." Springee (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Polling for United States presidential elections#Requested move 7 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Polling for United States presidential elections#Requested move 7 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Democratic Party of Germany#Requested move 5 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Democratic Party of Germany#Requested move 5 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Problem with political positions

Just wrote this. Could be useful to some. Excuse me if the essay has emotional language. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Restore Britain has an RfC

Restore Britain, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Ideologies in infoboxes

Should we keep the ideology section of political party infoboxes to only what are recognised as ideologies via being cited as such on their respective pages? For example, social democracy is a widely recognised and cited as an ideology, whereas animal welfare is not cited on its page as an ideology. Therefore, the former would be okay but not the latter. For clarity I'm not saying that a party that is for animal welfare, for example, could not be defined as a party that advocates this within the article of that respective political party. What I'm saying is that under this proposal only what are cited on their respective pages as ideologies could be listed in the ideology section of the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• (notified WikiProject Politics and Template:Infobox political party) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Currently there seems to be no real criteria for this. I'm seeing everything from animal welfare, animal rights, e-democracy, direct democracy, participatory democracy etc. These are a great many things but not political ideologies. The infobox is called "ideologies" for a reason. If we are going to allow things in this section that aren't ideologies then it loses its meaning and becomes factually false. Helper201 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

What is and what is not a political ideology is a very complex topic. As you've said, social democracy is accepted as a political ideology, while some labels are not. This parameter has a lot of flaws, mainly because some parties can lack ideologies, but can at the same time be populist. For example, PvdD is an animal rights party which has in the past 10 years adopted some left-leaning messages. If we'd accept this proposal, what would actually be left in the infobox? Well, its most important component would be left out. Another good example is whether Euroscepticism, Pro-Europeanism, and Russophilia should be included in the infobox as they are not political ideologies but merely positions towards European Union and Russia. Additionally, populism is a very disputed concept, some consider it an ideology, while some don't. My position on this issue is to rather remove this parameter alongside the political position one and explain everything important instead in the lede. I generally dislike infoboxes because most of the parameters can be explained better in the lede, especially regarding the party's political positions. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I completely agree with the principal of the proposal (I have had to repeatedly removed things like 'two-state solution' from the ideology section of Israel party infoboxes as this is a policy/position, not an ideology). However, as Vacant says, it is quite hard to draw a definitive line between what is an ideology or not. And I think a lot of the time, the ideology section is used for POV pushing depending on editors' like/dislike of a particular party.

My first choice would therefore be to get rid of the ideology parameter entirely, as it's deeply problematic due to (a) unclear limits about what should or should not be included, (b) being frequently used for POV pushing, (c) frequently having unsourced claims added – I have to revert unsourced ideologies being added to infoboxes far too often, and (d) being insufficient to explain reality because parties' ideologies are often heavily nuanced and not something that can be summarised easily in the infobox. Second choice is to have an active restriction to ideology with some explanation as to what that encompasses. Number 57 17:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• No. While I am sympathetic to the reasons why someone might vote for removing the ideology param from the Infobox entirely, as I have also experienced frustration at the difficulties with this param in multiple articles as it tends to attract POV editors and can be the source of edit-warring, removing it is not the right course of action, as the fault is not the param, but the editors who use the param incorrectly, intentionally or not. Neither is adding a constraint limiting the possible values of it, which should be left up to what the sources say.

An infobox is supposed to summarize key facts about the page's subject, and for me, party ideology is indeed a key fact about a political party, and one that should be included if possible. As far as restricting the values to some list of "approved ideologies", I am opposed to that. Generally speaking, I am not in favor of prohibitions or constraints from above when they are not needed which can seem like instruction creep. In addition, as everywhere else in Wikipedia, we should rely on the what the preponderance of reliable sources say, and if sources call some party ideology "animal welfare"-based, then so be it.

The ideology of the Rhinoceros Party is "political satire". That probably does not make anybody's list of "political ideology", but if that is what the sources say about them (and they do) then I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and furthermore, I don't want some stray instruction lying around saying we can't have that. As far as the editors who use the parameter incorrectly, it's like anything else: revert, discuss, gain consensus. I see no reason to have special rules about it. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• No What's wrong with Biocentrism? --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but it might be a good idea to also add a parameter for “positions”—this way, things previously mentioned such as “animal welfare” and “political satire” can be included while separating them from the ideology. RiverMan18 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)