Talk:political party

political party
I hate to rfd something with so many incoming links, translations and interwikis, but I really can't tell how this isn't just a political party. --Itkilledthecat (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, although possibly reword. Not all parties that have political goals are political parties. Representation (or least seeking it, for small parties and parties in one-party dictatorships) is a key part of the definition. It's what separates Greenpeace from the Green Party, or the EDL from the BNP. I'd change the definition to something like "A political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power through representation in government." Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, representation needs work - it should probably mention both the political and legal senses of the word. Edit I've had a quick go at putting them in.). Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smurrayinchester. Also, to distinguish from a party (as in a festive event, gala, ball, etc.) thrown for political reasons, or exclusive to those holding a particular political philosophy. bd2412 T 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice thinking, Smurray. Keep. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Evidence please. No OneLook Dictionary has this. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the website of the Iowa Secretary of State showing that, at least in Iowa, "political party" has a legal definition specifically based on its representation, and here's a similar definition from US federal law, and here's the official English version of the German electoral office's website, which again defines political parties specifically in terms of attempts to seek representation (since that's apparently a translation of German text, feel free to give that one less weight). Finally, here's an article in the Guardian which says that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not legally a political party since it cannot elect representatives, but is a de facto political party by fielding independents. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would put us on the track of including each different attestable legal term separately with a (different) legal context, ie, . We could be a little more artful about it, I suppose, and reference the fact of specific legal definitions in a usage note, but I would not expect that we would find it easy or worthwhile to attest any one specific English translation of an Egyptian Arabic legal definition. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lemming test: Chambers has political animal, asylum, commissar, correctness, economy, geography, prisoner, science, status, and verse. Quite an eclectic bunch. It does not have political party. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemming test: Chambers has political animal, asylum, commissar, correctness, economy, geography, prisoner, science, status, and verse. Quite an eclectic bunch. It does not have political party. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemming test: Chambers has political animal, asylum, commissar, correctness, economy, geography, prisoner, science, status, and verse. Quite an eclectic bunch. It does not have political party. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lemming test: Chambers has political animal, asylum, commissar, correctness, economy, geography, prisoner, science, status, and verse. Quite an eclectic bunch. It does not have political party. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, per Smurrayinchester. Astral (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not just one legal context, it seems to be a general pattern of usage. Even if you can find some cites with "political party" (and I don't really think political dinner party counts) where party is used in another sense, it still doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of the time, that's not what political party means, and I suspect usage like that is intentionally at least a bit punny.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody asserts that this is not a concept. In fact WordNet thinks it is a concept worth including in its semantic net. The issue is whether it is SoP. That no OneLook dictionary has the very common English wording for this very common concept suggests that they do not deem it to be a worthwhile lexicographic entry, apparently because in their opinion it is readily decoded. If encoding is the issue that would seem to be a matter for WT:BP and, ultimately perhaps, WT:VOTE. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now stricken my "keep" note above, not because I disagree with Smurray's point that Greenpeace is not a political party whereas the Green Party is: that's true. Rather, I stuck it because Greenpeace is also not a party whereas the Green Party is. In other words, undefined: is SOP, and the undefined: P (part) includes in it the distinction that Smurray notes exists between Greenpeace and the Green Party. Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? DCDuring TALK 10:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although probably SOP it's an important concept, as evidenced by wikipedia articles in many languages. Therefore we should at least keep it as translation target. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In East Asian languages it has to be something like 政党, which literally means a "political party". Without the first word, the second part is only used as a suffix in collocations like Democratic party, Communist party, etc. --Anatoli (обсудить) 01:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)