Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law

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

Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

In the absence of consensus to include Daniel Penny's name in the article, how should we refer to him? Suggestions have included "the accused", "the assailant", "the defendant", "ex-Marine" and "veteran". WWGB (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The first sentence of this article contains the terms in which the article subject has "promoted xyz propaganda and abc conspiracy theories." Do we keep these terms or remove in this WP:BLP? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

Should the article subject be labelled as having "disgraced his country"?

1. Yes, both in the lead and the Judgement section, attributed to Justice Besanko in both places.
2. Yes in Judgement section only, attributed to Justice Besanko
3. No

AlanS^talk 13:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Aleksandar Vu?i?

Which image should be used in the infobox for Vučić? The A one is of Vučić in 2019, while the others of him are from 2022. I am personally for the images from 2022, specifically image B. My reasoning is as the election was held in 2022, an image of Vučić from 2022 would be suitable, much like many other world leaders have images of them from the same year that the election happened, such as Emmanuel Macron from both the 2017 and 2022 French presidential elections, or Angela Merkel from all the German elections she participated in as chancellor. --Bakir123 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt

How should the introduction of the article be presented?

• Option 1: Introduce proposal 1
• Option 2: Introduce proposal 2
• Option 3: Other suggestions

WMrapids (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

What should be the introductory sentence of the capital cities of Kashmir region related first-level administrative subdivisions? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations

Should we remove or keep country comparison charts/tables on bilateral relations articles?

An example being Russia–United States relations, which is the first section of the article after the lead. I am rather neutral on this issue, but I can see arguments for keeping and removing. While there is information that compares and contrasts information between both nations, it seems like it belongs more in like a world fact book and much of the information on there doesn't really seem to fit the overall topic of bilateral relations. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Lega (political party)

Which ideologies should be included in the infobox of the League (and in what order)?

Right-wing populism, Populism, Federalism, Regionalism, Conservatism, Nationalism, Sovereigntism, Euroscepticism, Autonomism.

Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:John Anthony Castro

Should the three past elections contested by this current U.S. presidential candidate be presented in the form of Election Results tables using Template:Election box (e.g. [1]), or, should they be removed and replaced with this sentence: "Castro contested several elections, but didn't succeed." Chetsford (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Komeito

Does the reference in the infobox for social liberalism comply with Wikipedia guidelines and specifically WP:SYNTH? Helper201 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:La Patilla

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

WMrapids (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

In reference to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, the Donald Trump article currently says, According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

1. Should the causes of death be listed?
2. Should the article explicitly mention the Capitol Police officer?

Thanks in advance, Cessaune [talk] 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

Should we say the battle is over, and that Russia has won? Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Durham special counsel investigation

Should the current lead sentence...

The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities.

be amended to include this bold content...

The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a disproved conspiracy theory promoted by Trump supporters.

This question is rooted in what Charlie Savage exclusively reported in The New York Times:

Mr. Durham went beyond criticizing the wiretap applications, writing: "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."

But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.[2]

The NYT does not use the word "disproved" but that can be readily sourced if this edit is ultimately adopted.

This matter has been previously discussed in this Talk thread. soibangla (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Ron DeSantis

Regarding the issue surrounding the reports, which previously did not achieve a consensus, three options are proposed:

• Option 1: Include the proposed version regarding force feeding reports
• Option 2: Include a modified version of proposed wording
• Option 3: Maintain the current version

Thank you, Simón, el Silbón (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:PragerU

At the time of this RfC, the article includes a sentence covering how PragerU profited off a video of theirs that contained anti-LGBT content.

There exists three sources for this content that have been discussed thus far, Media Matters, Washington Blade, Columbia Journalism Review.

After intense debate above, it was work-shopped into three proposals:

Option A:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBT group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video featured anti-trans rhetoric and misgendered trans competitors while arguing against the participation of trans athletes in female sports.

Option B:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video, featuring a female high school athlete arguing against against trans-athletes participating in female sports, misgendered trans competitors by saying “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.”

Option C: Leave it out entirely.

17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

How should party colours (as stored in (e.g.) Module:Political party/A and used in infoboxes, results tables etc) be determined? By the dominant colour of the logo or via colours used for the party in the media. Number 57 10:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Suriname

Should the maps of Suriname include the disputed areas?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange

Should the first sentence of the article say that Assange is a "prisoner fighting extradition to the US" or something like this? Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Firehose of falsehood

Which of the two article versions do you conider more NPOV from a global (non-US-centric) perspective? Special:Diff/1155967719 or Special:Diff/1132451253?

[Edit: these are additional questions not compulsory to the RFC]

Could the two be combined into something that is more NPOV than either?

Where do you see the NPOV issues in the two versions? ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)