Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:45, 3 May 2013

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

I would like to raise several concerns and invite consensus regarding the 'criticism' section in a nation's military page. The section, primarily created and forcibly maintained against current consensus by spa User:Antiochus the Great, seems, to me, to have two problems

Violation WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, attaching undue weight to opinion pieces in the BBC (which has been criticized for anti-Indian bias), and right-wing American publications such as the Washington Post, without presenting contrasting views for balance.
Another issue is the inclusion of reports from Human Rights Watch. This is particularly problematic, as HRW is known for criticizing the military forces of several nations in such a manner (United States Armed Forces [1] and [2], Israel Defence Force [3][4]), and attention given to their India reports on this article seems disproportionate. Furthermore, the bulk of the criticisms are levelled at Paramilitary forces of India involved in anti-terrorist operations in Kashmir and the Northeast,rather than the Indian Armed Forces, making it inappropriate for this article. Most of HRW's criticisms are well-sourced in articles devoted to these issues, such as Human rights abuses in Kashmir,Human rights issues in Northeast India, and putting them here seems to be an attempt at Google bombing a high-traffic article in order to promote a POV.

Meaningful content from this section can be merged with the rest of the article (as I tried to do in this edit but was rudely reverted by the spa user previously mentioned). Before concluding, I would like to point out that "criticism" sections do not generally conform to WP:NPOV per Wikipedia:Criticism. I draw attention to this line in the policy : "If reliable sources - other than the critics themselves..." i.e. not Human Rights Watch or other NGOs.Handyunits (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Salmaan Taseer

A section on social media reactions to the assassination of this politician should not be included in their biography, since these are not relevant to the subject of the article. This section should be removed.

The section has several other (unrelated) problems, which I have outlined in detail on the talk page. Briefly: the section is incoherent and poorly punctuated, quotes unverifiable sources, and includes links that are very likely being used solely for self promotion. In addition, the section uses language such as "wholeheartedly" or "sheepishly" to describe the reactions of the parties it discusses, which betrays an underlying POV.

Survey

Support removal of the social media section. It is not relevant and is poorly written. 113.203.201.26 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Taliban

Should Pakistan be listed as an ally of the Taliban in the infobox?

As the initiator I would say yes, given just about every source which discusses the Taliban in-depth states that Pakistan was, and still is an ally. For a few examples see any of the sources in this section of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 '''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:'''
 </noinclude>
-'''[[Talk:BP#rfc_0730BD9|Talk:BP]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should the article include the {{txl|Deepwater Horizon oil spill series}} navigation template (see below right), as in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP&oldid=552739062 this version]? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)}}
 '''[[Talk:Indian Armed Forces#rfc_10EAC48|Talk:Indian Armed Forces]]'''
 {{rfcquote|text=
@@ Line 13: / Line 10: @@
 Meaningful content from this section can be merged with the rest of the article (as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=552688071 tried to do in this edit] but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Armed_Forces&diff=552693299&oldid=552688071 was rudely reverted] by the spa user previously mentioned).
 Before concluding, I would like to point out that "criticism" sections do not generally conform to [[WP:NPOV]] per [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]. I draw attention to [[Wikipedia:Criticism#Organizations_and_corporations|this line in the policy ]]: "If reliable sources - '''other than the critics themselves'''..." i.e. not Human Rights Watch or other NGOs.[[User:Handyunits|Handyunits]] ([[User talk:Handyunits|talk]]) 09:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:List of vegetarians#rfc_3115CCB|Talk:List of vegetarians]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should this article contain images of women porn stars?
-The article has 42 images of notable vegetarians running down the side. Thirteen of these are of women. Until recently, six of the 13 were of porn actresses or Playmates of the Year, several in bikinis, all added I believe by [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]]. The article led with an image of [[Jayde Nicole]], a Playboy Playmate of the Year. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=551807212] Previously, it led with [[Pamela Anderson]] in a bikini, followed by Jayde Nicole. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=505392733]
-The image of Pamela Anderson was earlier moved to [[List of vegans]]. Of the remaining five, I today began the process of swapping them for images of women in the professions and academia if I can find them, or mainstream singers and actresses. The article now leads with [[Christine Lagarde]], director general of the International Monetary Fund.
-However, Betty Logan believes some of the images of porn stars should remain, and is reverting when I remove them. I'm therefore asking for consensus to remove them. [[User:SlimVirgin II|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#rfc_47EF367|Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-*Has [[WP:CCC|consensus]] changed that certain diplomats are considered automatically notable based on the position that they have held, similar to positions that fall under [[WP:POLITICIANS]]?
-*If it has changed, how?
-**'''1)''' The '''individual appointed to the position''' as the [[Ambassador]]/[[Head of Mission|Head of]] [[diplomatic mission|Mission]]/[[High Commissioner]]/[[Nuncio]] (excluding [[Chargé d'affaires]] and [[Deputy Chief of Mission]]) from one [[Sovereign state]] to another, or to an [[Intergovernmental organization|international body]] (such as [[Permanent Representative]] to the [[United Nations]]), or their historic equivalents, are presumed to be notable.
-**'''2)''' The '''position''' of [[Ambassador]]/[[Head of Mission|Head of]] [[diplomatic mission|Mission]]/[[High Commissioner]]/[[Nuncio]] from one [[Sovereign state]] to another, or to an [[Intergovernmental organization|international body]] (such as [[Permanent Representative]] to the [[United Nations]]), or their historic equivalents, are presumed to be notable. Individuals holding the position are not-automatically notable, and must meet [[WP:NN|notability]] as defined by [[WP:GNG]], [[WP:ANYBIO]] or other applicable notability guidelines or essays.
---[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)}}
 '''[[Talk:Salmaan Taseer#rfc_2FBF01D|Talk:Salmaan Taseer]]'''
 {{rfcquote|text=
@@ Line 39: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Support''' removal of the social media section. It is not relevant and is poorly written. [[Special:Contributions/113.203.201.26|113.203.201.26]] ([[User talk:113.203.201.26|talk]]) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Al-Ahbash#rfc_6E96B54|Talk:Al-Ahbash]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-With reference to the above [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahbash discussions], it becomes abundantly clear that the subject of [[Al-Ahbash]] is '''extremely controversial''', thus, this page desperately need the involvement of some
-previously '''<u>non-involved</u>''', <u>impartial</u>, <u>neutral</u>, <u>just</u>, <u>fair</u> and <u>knowledgeable</u> editors who can kindly help with a version of [[Al-Ahbash]] (and other [[Al-Ahbash]] related pages) which '''presents''' the information written by the [[Al-Ahbash]] as well as its '''opponents''' (including "Wahabis", "Salafis", "Infidels" or "Kaafir" .etc) '''objectively''' under the light of pertinent sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Your kind and precious help would be '''greatly''' appreciated. Thank you. [[User:McKhan|McKhan]] ([[User talk:McKhan|talk]]) 13:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland#rfc_923220F|Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should the article show the Irish flag in the section [[Flag of Northern Ireland#Displaying_flags]]? This issue was discussed above in [[#Inclusion of Irish flag]] but there was no consensus. Options I can see are
-#Leave the section with the flag as is because many people use it to show their identity.
-#Show a photo of a flag with the Irish flag in it illustrating the displaying flags and the flags issue (some possibilities listed above).
-#Remove the flag as not a flag of Northern Ireland and so not relevant to the article topic.
-#Merge the article into the [[Northern Ireland flags issue]] as there is no official flag specifically for Northern Ireland.
-Which options would you agree or disagree with and why thanks. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 22:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Gun control#rfc_CB1F332|Talk:Gun control]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Is the section "Associations with authoritarianism" in [[Gun control]] neutral? An editor has suggested that:
-* the section is too long
-* the section is poorly sourced (e.g. one source is the website of [[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Protection]], another source is ''Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide'', published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership)
-* the section exists in order to imply [[guilt by association]] about gun control
-* the section includes extraneous, selective factoids, such as
-** an anti-gun control statement made by a non-notable Holocaust survivor, which is in the article in order to "balance" a pro-gun control statement by a notable Holocaust survivor
-** various selected studies done by anti-gun control groups which "prove" the association of gun control with authoritarianism (here primarily meaning Nazism). &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:BP#rfc_06F8832|Talk:BP]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should the "Clean Water Act trial" section of [[BP]] be a section or subsection, and should it contain the following paragraph (subject to alteration of the amount of potential fines to $17 billion, as suggested by the BP corporate editor) :
-The Justice Department is seeking the stiffest fines possible.<ref name=AFP021913>{{cite news|last=Oberman|first=Mira|title=BP vows to 'vigorously defend' itself at US oil spill trial|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gzSPg3Sc0RXfZ0Gp5wJ26nas6cKA?docId=CNG.3bfe1fc98e6567ff620ad4ec758bf966.7f1|accessdate=13 April 2013|newspaper=Agence France-Press|date=19 February 2013}}</ref> A finding of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in the fines BP would have to pay for violating the federal Clean Water Act, which could amount to $20 billion, and would leave the company liable for punitive damages for private claims that weren’t part of a $8.5 billion settlement the company reached with most private party plaintiffs in 2012. <ref name=Thompson>{{cite news|last=Thompson|first=Richard|title=BP to begin presenting its defense Monday in Gulf oil spill trial|url=http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2013/04/bp_to_begin_presenting_its_def.html|accessdate=13 April 2013|newspaper=The Times-Picayune|date=5 April 2013}}</ref><ref name=Fortune040813>{{cite news|last=DuBois|first=Shelley|title=BP: Negligent, but not grossly?|url=http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/08/bp-trial-defense/|accessdate=13 April 2013|newspaper=Fortune|date=8 April 2013}}</ref> <ref name=Bloomberg031813>{{cite news|last=Johnson Jr.|first=Allen|title=BP Loses Bid to Dismiss Gross Negligence in Spill Trial|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/bp-loses-bid-to-dismiss-gross-negligence-in-spill-trial.html|accessdate=13 April 2013|newspaper=Bloomberg LLC|date=18 March 2013}}</ref>
-'''References for paragraph'''
-{{reflist}}
-[[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Template talk:Infobox political post#rfc_B89A092|Template talk:Infobox political post]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-I am having a dispute over the use of this infobox in [[Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead|these]] [[Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham|two]] articles. They are posts in the British system that, while notionally a 'paid office of the Crown', don't exist except on paper. They're only used as a procedural device to allow MPs to resign, so while there is an 'appointer' (the Chancellor), as they have no roles or duties I cannot see how any of the other fields make any sense, and there is little to no point in what is then left. I've tried to note this in 'departemnet', but even that looks stupid. As this is probably the same for all such posts, I think it best to settle this at this level. I've notified the two people who disagree, The C of E and Keith D. [[User:Gruesome Foursome|Gruesome Foursome]] ([[User talk:Gruesome Foursome|talk]]) 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)}}
 '''[[Talk:Taliban#rfc_91FBE9A|Talk:Taliban]]'''
 {{rfcquote|text=
@@ Line 78: / Line 24: @@
 *As the initiator I would say yes, given just about every source which discusses the Taliban in-depth states that Pakistan was, and still is an ally. For a few examples see any of the sources in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Role_of_the_Pakistani_military this] section of the article. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 05:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Mid Ulster by-election, 2013#rfc_CC5DCA3|Talk:Mid Ulster by-election, 2013]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Similar to the above section (many of the themes are the same, so the text will be too), despite the lies being told about how I'm "ignoring consensus", in the discussion above about the resignation section, there was clearly NEVER any agreement that supported [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547261471 this] edit which transformed this sentence fragment, "[[Resignation from the British House of Commons|formal process of being appointed Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead]]" from a single link to [[Resignation from the British House of Commons]] to a double link to that and the [[Manor of Northstead]] article (not least because it was never even proposed here first). The only reason this change has persisted is due to the edit warring conducted by Bondegezou and The C of E to keep it in - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547327009][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547327545][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549146172][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549151559][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549164650][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549169811] - and the only discussion about it on this talk page has been me explaining above why it doesn't belong. They are deliberately ignoring this, instead apparently working on the assumption that if two people have given no argument but still edit war against the one person who has, then this is consensus. Obviously, that's a 100% distortion of how Wikipedia is is supposed to operate, so I'm going to repeat here in a dedicated section why this use of two links to do the job of one is ridiculous and does not belong, and if they persist in their disreputable tactics, I will seek further redress. I am not going to be bullied off of this article by shamelessly hypocritical charges of 'ownership'.
-Now, to the argument. The change simply makes no sense at all, it is simply very poor practice. The [[Manor of Northstead]] article is effectively a sub-article of the [[Resignation from the British House of Commons]] one. Since it has previously been claimed that the link to the resignation article is being provided in this article for the benefit of the reader who knows absolutely nothing about this particular quirk of British politics, there is absolutely no conceivable way that a reader who has not yet read the main resignation article, would have any way of knowing the significance of the 'Manor of Northstead', so why on Earth would they need to click on it at the same time as the resignation link? The change is not only pointless, it goes beyond that, into territory which I would hope nobody wants - deliberate confusion. [[User:Gruesome Foursome|Gruesome Foursome]] ([[User talk:Gruesome Foursome|talk]]) 13:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Mid Ulster by-election, 2013#rfc_378179A|Talk:Mid Ulster by-election, 2013]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Despite the lies being told about how I'm "ignoring consensus", in the discussion above about the resignation section, there was clearly NEVER any agreement that supported [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=546550163 this] edit which tacked onto the end of a sentence the phrase "a procedural device that Sinn Féin oppose", referring to the link to [[Resignation from the British House of Commons]] (not least because it was never even proposed here first). The only reason this addition has persisted is due to the edit warring conducted by Bondegezou and The C of E to keep it in - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547140287][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547256295][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547326784][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547327009][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=547327545][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549146172][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549151559][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549164650][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid_Ulster_by-election,_2013&diff=next&oldid=549169811] - and the only discussion about it on this talk page has been me explaining above why it doesn't belong. They are deliberately ignoring this, instead apparently working on the assumption that if two people have given no argument but still edit war against the one person who has, then this is consensus. Obviously, that's a 100% distortion of how Wikipedia is is supposed to operate, so I'm going to repeat here in a dedicated section why this information does not belong, and if they persist in their disreputable tactics, I will seek further redress. I am not going to be bullied off of this article by shamelessly hypocritical charges of 'ownership'.
-Now, to the argument. The addition does not belong because it has no material relevance on the topic of this article, which as the title makes clear, is not about the resignation process, or the Belfast West by-election, or Sinn Fein's general views of the British political system. It doesn't even really make sense, how does one "oppose" a procedural device exactly? Surely the only opposition possible is to not allow it to happen, yet clearly it did happen. At its least, it rather deceitfully implies that this opposition somehow manifested itself during this election, which when the reader eventually finds out by clicking related articles, is false. Is it the intention of Bondegezou to add this factoid to every future by-election triggered by an SF resignation? If so, why? In the absence of these sort of justifications, the only thing this addition seems to do, is confuse readers, because once they encounter it, it makes them waste time on a fools errand - trying to figure out why somebody thought that this nugget was important enough to tell them in the context of this article. Their time will be wasted because, as can be seen, SF's opposition in the context of this election was neither here nor there. It serves as much use as encyclopedic information as it would if SF's views on free school milk were also included, or anything else that never was an issue for this actual by-election. [[User:Gruesome Foursome|Gruesome Foursome]] ([[User talk:Gruesome Foursome|talk]]) 13:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Rujm el-Hiri#rfc_FA52542|Talk:Rujm el-Hiri]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should [[Archaeology of Israel]] and [[Syro-Palestinian archaeology]] continue to be linked to from this article (currently See also but within the text may be possible).[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:List of Israeli cities#rfc_BBD5DB3|Talk:List of Israeli cities]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Is this articles inclusion of Israeli settlements (with city status) as "Israeli cities" in this context original research, or otherwise problematic?
-For some background: This was [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Israeli cities|make a featured list]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Israeli_cities&oldid=208826830 this] was how the article looked afterwards. During the deduction the article was renamed from the standered "List of cities in X" ("List of cities in Israel" in this case) to it's current title "List of Israeli cities" to reflect the scope which included "Israeli cites" which weren't in Israel-proper. My understanding is that consensus was that including these Israeli settlements "Israeli cities" in this context is fine.
-Dlv999 and DePiep are concerned that calling these settlements "Israeli cities" is original research. Certainly the community should not have made this a featured list if it contained such a glaring peace of OR, so was the featured list discussion mistaken, is this OR. To clarify, Dlv999 and DePiep (unless I'm mistaken) do not dispute the settlements inclusion on this list per se, just the implication that they are "Israeli cities".
-I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the dispute comes down to the following question: Can the praise "Israeli cities" be used to include Israeli settlements, or does "Israeli cities" have the exact same meaning as "cities in Israel".
-I should point out that the only reason the article was moved was because of the difference in meaning between the two, that "Israeli cities" can be used to include Israeli settlements. If "Israeli cities" have the exact same meaning as "cities in Israel" then there is no reason not to move the page back to "List of cities in "Israel" to match every other List of cities article such as [[List of cities in the United States]] and [[List of cities in Mexico]].
-I'll invite the people from the featured list discussion and related discussions on this page to this RFC. [[User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman|Emmette Hernandez Coleman]] ([[User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman|talk]]) 20:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)}}
-'''[[Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)#rfc_F957E86|Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)]]'''
-{{rfcquote|text=
-Should the article contain link to the Silk Road website?  Please see the above discussion for some context.  ⇌ [[User_talk:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] 22:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)}}
 {{RFC list footer|pol|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: Add the tag `{{rfc\|xxx}}` at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, `{{rfc\|xxx\|yyy}}`, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.