Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should the sentence "His political activities and views have made him a polarizing figure." be added to the end of the opening paragraph to further establish context for notability, and to include links to child articles earlier in lead? RFCBEFORE: here and here. Edit: corrected the wikilinks as shown in diff.
Yes/No. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, the above is based on current lead wording.[2] CNC (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC) |
Should the United States be added as a participant under Israel in the infobox?
Rationale for this RfC: Previous RfC (no consensus) had several issues: the question changed half-way through the RfC, it used "US/UK" implying that the foreign policy of the two countries is the same when that is clearly not the case. This RfC focuses on the question of including the United States only. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC) |
| Should this page use Infobox officeholder with his position as head of DOGE at the top, or Infobox person with DOGE listed under occupations? Yeshivish613 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Kevin Roberts (political strategist)
| Should the lead of the Kevin Roberts article include a basic sentence on why Project 2025 is controversial, using a sentence such as "which critics accuse of being unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian"? Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC) |
| What should the political position/positions in the infobox be? I'm bringing this up again as the subject has arisen again by another editor without a clear resolution. Please see Talk:Indian National Congress/Archive 5#Centre to centre-left, Talk:Indian National Congress/Archive 5#RFC Political position and Talk:Indian National Congress#Political position sources for prior discussions. Helper201 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip
| Given the importance of the bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and London to the lede of this article, it has been proposed that the combined death toll (102,000) of those bombings be added as well.
See previous discussion here. |
Should Elon Musk's name and title or non-title be listed in some form (the details of which should be determined through a separate discussion) in the list of principal officials in the Government section of the infobox?
|
Should the current lead image (as seen to the right) remain? _crop.jpg) |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
| Should we delete order numberings from infoboxes of office holders? See previous related discussions: |
Considering the prevailing guidance at MOS:INFOBOX, WP:RESULT and the documentation at Template: Infobox military conflict should the result in the infobox be:
Where Outcome and negotiation is the section in the article (equivalent to an Aftermath section) where the result of the war is discussed. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2028 United States presidential election
| Should the potential candidates sections be removed in the article? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC) |
| Should Kash Patel be called a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the first sentence of the third lead paragraph read:
Fox News has been characterized by many as a propaganda organization. Here is a previous discussion. Also see: Fox News#Political alignment in the body. soibangla (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC) |
| Since the previous discussions above didn't come to a clear consensus. Should the infobox say "centre to centre-left" or just "centre-left"? -- FMSky (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| Should center-right be removed from the infobox in the political position section? EarthDude (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin
| Should this article, Killing of Trayvon Martin, be included in the category, Anti-black racism in Florida? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 13:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Are Erin Reed’s reposted blog pieces reliable and non-SPS if republished by a reputable source such as The Advocate or LA/Wa Blade? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC) |
| this article contains the following quote “ Over the years that followed he added COVID conspiracies, MAGA support, open discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, lizard and paedophile conspiracies, alt-right propaganda, getting in bed with white supremacists and who knows what else by the time you read this introduction.” I believe that this is good enough to include in the overview section about what sinfest is about. We’ve been having a great deal of difficulty sourcing actual quotes about what it’s about, so this was hard to get. Another user believes since it’s a quote from a quote of an unreliable source, that it’s unusable, but I believe that since a reliable source quoted the unreliable source as fully accurate and true, at least in this case, it’s a good quote. Is the quote usable? Le Blue Dude (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine
| The 2023 RFC on this topic can be found here.
Belarus is presently listed in the infobox under Russia and North Korea in a section headed |
Generally speaking, when can views (by experts and "expert activists", such as human rights orgs) be included in the article, and not just in the list? Please vote for the minimal standard you consider due.
I believe to have mentioned all significant views, but !voters can and should elaborate on destinctions I may have missed. FortunateSons (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
| Do the lead and § Hindu victims section of this article: |
| This article's first paragraph currently says "Jackson's legacy is controversial. He has been praised as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and criticized for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans." Should it say this? Should public opinion be on the first paragraph? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the first sentence of the lead be rewritten to read as follows:
James Earl Carter Jr. (October 1, 1924 – December 29, 2024) was |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) |
| Should we include Elon Musk's gesture?
Yes or no? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:2028 United States presidential election
Which is correct?
|
Talk:Department of Government Efficiency
| This request for comments concerns the following question: In the first sentence of the article, does the term "Department of Government Efficiency" require a definite article before it, i.e. "the Department of Government Efficiency"?
The sentence in question: Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), officially the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, is a temporary organization under the United States DOGE Service. Proposed change: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), officially the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, is a temporary organization under the United States DOGE Service. |
- ^ Dresden (2025-02-07). "Dresden historical commission publishes final report". www.dresden.de. Retrieved 2025-02-08.
- ^ Blakemore, Erin (22 July 2021). "The bombing of Hamburg foreshadowed the horrors of Hiroshima". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 22 July 2021.
- ^ Richards, Denis. *Royal Air Force 1939–1945: The Fight at Odds*, vol. I, London: HMSO, 1974 (orig. 1953), p. 217. [1]