I'm sorry, but I don't really see this as a gendergap issue - I see it as a
pretty pure content dispute. And as an administrator, I would be closing
this discussion in favour of removing the parameter. Indeed, the political
parties for which this parameter might possibly be useful (Labour and
Co-operative) do not use it at all. Your own description does not suggest
this political party has a non-partisan affiliation (which does appear to
be a contradiction in terms - if a group is non-partisan, it should not
logically have any affiliation with any political party), it suggests that
it will affiliate with any group or individual which shares its values.
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I have to wonder if perhaps you are
operating under a definition of "non-partisan" that is at variance with
most other definitions of non-partisan - including the definition and
description in the Wikipedia article to which the term is currently linked
in the "affiliation" parameter.
Risker/Anne
On 19 July 2017 at 19:34, Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Can someone look at this for me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women%27s_Equality_Party#
Proposal_to_remove_.27nonpartisan.27_from_the_info_box
The Women's Equality Party is non-partisan. It is willing to work with ANY
and ALL OTHER PARTIES. It is a key fact about them as a party. I think
removing it would breach WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "to summarize (and not supplant)
key facts that appear in the article". I've also offered multiple sources
to demonstrate its non-partisanship.
All the comments seem to be debating whether the party IS non-partisan, if
a party CAN BE non-partisan etc. and consensus building on that point.
The Women's Equality Party is not affiliated to any OTHER party, a key
fact which is made repeatedly clear in the article.
I think it needs an administrator to make a ruling on the Wikipedia POLICY
POINTS that I have made (no-one has taken me up on any of them in the
discussion), rather than a consensus based on the ding-dong over the
concept of non-partisanship generally.
For me this is an attempt at censorship.
"We cannot suggest that WEP are a bunch of
head-bangers if they are
willing to work with anyone, regardless of which side of
the political
divide they come from."
"Let's take 'non-partisan' out of
the infobox, it makes the party sound
too reasonable."
Marie
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap