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 <eir...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
