→Peoples Party major enough for own category?: new section Tag: New topic |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
Maybe I am just a socially illiterate nerd but I had never even heard of the People's Party before, and now they have a single candidate running and that some how gets its own category list over the Libertarian Party, the third largest party in the country? [[User:Los Pobre|Los Pobre]] ([[User talk:Los Pobre|talk]]) 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
Maybe I am just a socially illiterate nerd but I had never even heard of the People's Party before, and now they have a single candidate running and that some how gets its own category list over the Libertarian Party, the third largest party in the country? [[User:Los Pobre|Los Pobre]] ([[User talk:Los Pobre|talk]]) 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
:I removed it. I don't think the party is notable yet. [[User:Esolo5002|Esolo5002]] ([[User talk:Esolo5002|talk]]) 04:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:10, 6 June 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners |
Trans Rights.
This is a requested change, not a forum
In the lead paragraph the following should be changed LGBT rights, ..... are expected to be leading campaign issues. to Trans Rights ..... are expected to be leading campaign issues. for the following reasons:
I suspect Trans Rights will be a bigger issue than just LGBT rights.I don't suspect Lesbian or Gay rights will be center-stage (like in say, 2012) compared to just Trans rights. I would recommend changing LGBT rights to Trans Rights. I know LGBT covers Trans Rights but Trans Rights are a particular hot topic among both conservatives and liberals, and their wouldn't be a better way to differentiate the times, (Say, the 2020's), (To say the early 2010s) than to differentiate the social justice and civil rights issue of the current political day or era.
This is for many reasons, from Ron DeSantis' culture war/war on books, to the potential release of Hale's manifesto to Gender Affirming healthcare being denied in Tennessee, to J.K Rowling's transphobic statements, it seems like Trans Rights are going much more of a political issue than LGBT rights in general.
It's also interesting to note that Biden was the first president to mention Trans as part of a boarder political coalition. Unlike the 2010s, Biden also incorporates the Trans flag into his political apparel. I think Trans Rights will define a much broader debate for the rest of the decade (2020s) in a way that the just the LGBT movement won't, which is why Biden made a point to mention them seperately. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- What about
LGBT rights, especially trans rights
? Because you're right that trans rights are a particular issue of contention, but also stuff like the sudden increase in prominence of the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory says to me it's not just trans rights. Loki (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)- I'd agree that the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory has become an issue, but I think it's become more of an issue under the auspices of gender identity as oppose too same-sex attraction. I don't think a majority of conservative opposition is that they are turning kids gay but it's that they are against children receiving gender-affirming care or identifying as non-binary. Or they are against public educators discussing certain issues to students. Most of the political topics in the last 4 years have been directly related to Transgender issues specifically, including but not limited to
- Trans individuals right to use locker rooms/restrooms.
- Trans individuals right to compete in sports.
- Trans individuals right to surgery.
- Trans soldiers right to surgery.
- Non-Binary pronoun usage in government documents.
- Educators right to teach about certain subjects.
- The only issue that tangential touches Lesbian and Gay rights is perhaps education, but the objection from conservative media hasn't been Gay books are in schools, it's supposedly explicit books are in schools which are being taught too children or are mandatory. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- The word "rights" I believe isn't neutral. Just as saying "right to life" suggests opposition to abortion and "abortion rights" suggests support, saying "transgender rights" suggests a point of view that transgenderism is valid and not subject to political and social debate. I would instead say "transgender issues," which puts less of a thumb on the scale. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- “Transgender issues” sounds negative, and also may be WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's equivalent to saying Civil Rights suggest a point of view that people of color are valid members of greater American society. I think Trans rights are on par with Women's rights (1920s) or Civil Rights (1950s-1960s) or Gay Rights (1980s-2010s, but still ongoing). Especially with the epidemic of Trans suicide and overall acceptance, "Transgender issues" sounds very insular, and slightly negative. As if it's something they are dealing with internally and has no points of contact with the outside world. Even though there has been Trans individuals sense time immemorial. Trans rights are eventually going to come into contact with the society as a whole and therefor are not bifurcated from it, in the same way Civil Rights or Women's Rights were. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh no. Conservatives genuinely think that they are turning kids gay. 
- We need this site to say it how it is; no more leaving out details such as right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are there reliable sources for the contention of "right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people"? In any case, the "T" in LGBT is "transgender", so the term is already covered. BD2412 T 00:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- They've instated a policy in Florida that takes trans kids away from their parents (violation of section E of UN Genocide Convention), causing physical and mental harm, dehumanization, you can see the proof all over. Don't be askin' for proof of things you can see on the internet. Western Progressivist (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- When you are proposing changes to an article, it is incumbent upon the person asking for change to provide reliable sources to justify the changes. Regardless of how obvious they may seem to you. --Pokelova (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, according to the article on Trans rights, allegations of genocide are being proven day by day.
- Transgender rights in the United States - Wikipedia
- Furthermore, the US is witnessing attacks on civil, constitutional, and human rights of marginalized groups.
- There is plenty of online proof of this. Not adding this only increases the danger of transcide as people are ignorant to the right-wing attacks. Western Progressivist (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Western Progressivist, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Stick to the facts and not your fears. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- But there are facts of transgender genocide. Conservative pundits have become transphobic, while the GOP has been behind anti-trans bills. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that these are “facts”, we give due weight to the most prominent sources. Most (all?) of which do not describe these laws as “genocide”. Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- First of all, the laws fall under the UN convention of genocide, as they (1) cause major mental and bodily harm, (2) attempt to erase a group via restricting access to needed things, and (3) if we look at certain pundits like Larry Elder and Candice Owens, we can observe their aversion to queer rights, which leads to dehumanization which is a precursor to genocide.
- For direction, the following sections are being violated:
- "(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group": Florida has enacted a law to transfer trans kids to guardians should their family allow them to have gender affirming care.
- "(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group": transgender folx have reported conservative anti-trans sentiment to be damaging to their mental wellbeing.
- "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part": this can be confirmed by the banning of HRT and transitioning surgery in red states; this would not be done without knowing that the banning of such care would lead to increased suicide rates in trans individuals (particularly youths).
- Yes, you can deny and assume I'm a "paranoid" fool, but incidents like at CPAC and such are indicators of an upcoming transgender genocide. Western Progressivist (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
GOP has been behind anti-trans bills
- this is verifiableConservative pundits have become transphobic
- this could be true, but it is not verifiable- What really matters for this page is what it has to do with the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro anyone?
- These are major anti-trans pundits. Other commentators such as Tucker Carlson have spread anti-trans conspiracies and rhetoric. If you look on their respective media, you can see pretty transphobic stuff.
- I'm getting disappointed by this website's ignorance. Call me a dullard, but ask anyone in the trans community and they can verify that, yes, a transgender genocide is unfolding as we speak.
- If that's not enough proof, have this:
- Statement on the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement’s Ideology and Practice (lemkininstitute.com)
- "trans people are on stage 7 of genocide " : r/lgbt (reddit.com) Western Progressivist (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson are not candidates for president in the 2024 elections. If this were an article on trans rights in the United States, their views might be relevant. For an article on the 2024 United States presidential election, we would need, very specifically, reliable sources actually discussing how trans rights (or LGBT rights, more generally) are, in fact, an issue in the election. BD2412 T 02:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- You are new here, and you are being cut a significant amount of slack, but you need to learn more about how Wikipedia works, especially if you want to make contributions around two of our most contentious topics: American politics and gender identity. Specifically, you should read WP:NPOV to learn about how we reflect things neutrally, and WP:RS, which discusses reliable sources. Reddit comments are not reliable sources. Also, please assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we shouldn't be ignoring the severity of things.
- If there were an extreme case of, let's say, a virus from space, we'd want to ensure that people know that this is dangerous, and that neutrality would not create the message of urgency. Western Progressivist (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- This article is neither about space viruses, nor transgender genocide. Anyways, the consensus here is clear, so I see little point in further discussion on this matter. Prcc27 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- If there were a virus from space, we would only mention it on this page if we could verify that it was relevant to its subject, the 2024 U.S. presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that these are “facts”, we give due weight to the most prominent sources. Most (all?) of which do not describe these laws as “genocide”. Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- But there are facts of transgender genocide. Conservative pundits have become transphobic, while the GOP has been behind anti-trans bills. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Western Progressivist, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Stick to the facts and not your fears. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- When you are proposing changes to an article, it is incumbent upon the person asking for change to provide reliable sources to justify the changes. Regardless of how obvious they may seem to you. --Pokelova (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- They've instated a policy in Florida that takes trans kids away from their parents (violation of section E of UN Genocide Convention), causing physical and mental harm, dehumanization, you can see the proof all over. Don't be askin' for proof of things you can see on the internet. Western Progressivist (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Are there reliable sources for the contention of "right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people"? In any case, the "T" in LGBT is "transgender", so the term is already covered. BD2412 T 00:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- The word "rights" I believe isn't neutral. Just as saying "right to life" suggests opposition to abortion and "abortion rights" suggests support, saying "transgender rights" suggests a point of view that transgenderism is valid and not subject to political and social debate. I would instead say "transgender issues," which puts less of a thumb on the scale. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Immigration issue
In "Potential campaign issues" section, we should add "Immigration (or Border Security)" too, because without any doubt it will be an important issue. Here are sources - [1],[2],[3]. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not opposed, as long as the section is WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- By default, everything written in Wikipedia should be consistent with WP:DUE. Don't you think so ? M.Karelin (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but some of the potential campaign issues sections specifically have had due weight problems. Not saying this will necessarily be an issue for this proposed section, just a general concern I have. Prcc27 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- By default, everything written in Wikipedia should be consistent with WP:DUE. Don't you think so ? M.Karelin (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not opposed, as long as the section is WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Other Declared Candidates
Eric Jon Boerner is not listed in the other declared candidates for the Republicans.
Declared on 11 November 2022
Here are the sources to reference from:
https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/111/202211119546754111/202211119546754111.pdf
https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/another-presidential-candidate-rolls-through-cedar-rapids
https://www.wvik.org/2023-03-21/presidential-candidate-visits-iowa-for-the-first-time
https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/2024-presidential-candidate-eric-jon-boerner-in-eastern-iowa
https://twitter.com/EricJonBoerner1
https://facebook.com/BoernerTheUSA 168.103.154.41 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- I believe only candidates with Wikipedia articles are listed. Ryan Binkley was briefly added but removed for that reason. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Question on 'Other Declared Candidates'
Afroman has an FEC filing, Kanye and Marshall do not, should we separate Afroman from them or keep him in 'Declared intent to run' HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Electoral map SYNTH
Is “Meanwhile, states like Colorado, Michigan, and Virginia have moved noticeably towards Democrats” WP:SYNTH if we are using one source for Colorado and Michigan, and another source for Virginia? If so, how should we fix this? Prcc27 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Information Missing
Please add that attacks on voting, trans, and civil rights are coming from Republicans and conservatives.
They are the main reason this so-called "culture war" is occurring, and not adding this detail creates a false narrative that liberals also hate minorities. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Trump "thumbtack fact" about a recent statement and/or perspective on Abortion
Hello,
In the section of "Abortion Access"[4] , the Wikipedia entry in the said section simply mentions regarding Trump: "[. . .] Donald Trump has mostly avoided the topic since Roe v. Wade was overturned."
However, by sources about a month ago; on May 17th 2023, as well as by my recollection, Trump on the website TruthSocial had stated that he was able to "kill Roe v. Wade" (pictured here on Twitter [5] ).
On the conservative news netwark "Newsmax" presumably around or at May 17th, Trump had also apparently mentioned in a phone interview with them that he "was the one that got rid of Roe v. Wade". (Clip authenticity is seemingly true. This clip was found only on a Twitter post, referenced by a main source: source number six: [6] )
Other mentions of this event happening can be found looking it up. Sources such as The Hill [7] , BusinessInsider [8] , and Newsweek [9] .
Other various sources from the same time seem to report, or imply this "Roe v. Wade" statement made from Fmr Pres. Trump.
Another fact to mention, and despite it being implied now, is it should also be noted and typed into the section that Trump, in line with his Republican Party's common 'principle' of being Pro-Life, has mentioned before in a 2016 debate during the election that he is indeed, pro-life. [10]
These are quite a rather small note of addition to the Wikipedia Article here, and if added can very well possibly give some more accuracy to readers regarding possible 2024 Republican Candidates-for-President stances on Abortion, more specifically: Accuracy on Donald Trump's stance on Abortion, as well as Roe v. Wade.
Thanks for reading this, and thank you in advance for making the additions mentioned in my suggestion here. Wang Dynasty (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Independents UNDUE
Isn’t it WP:UNDUE to include the “potential candidates” and “declined to be candidates” sections in the article for the independent/third party section, but not for the Democratic and Republican sections? I assume the only reason it is in our article, is because there is no article for independent candidates for this information to be listed, whereas the potential and declined to be candidates information is accessible at the Democratic and Republican primaries subarticles. Nevertheless, we should at least collapse the sections, so we are not giving undue weight to independent/third party potential/declined candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Good point. I'm okay with either removing or collapsing the "potential" and "declined" sections per WP:UNDUE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Peoples Party major enough for own category?
Maybe I am just a socially illiterate nerd but I had never even heard of the People's Party before, and now they have a single candidate running and that some how gets its own category list over the Libertarian Party, the third largest party in the country? Los Pobre (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I removed it. I don't think the party is notable yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)