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

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

Talk:Next United Kingdom general election

Should this article, before the election has happened, have either no infobox, an infobox using Template:Infobox legislative election ("TILE"), or an infobox using Template:Infobox election ("TIE")? Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Back in 2017 a consensus developed on the article talk page that even though there was a great deal being said about his mental health in sources, we should not say anything on the subject in the article. In 2018 an article Health of Donald Trump was written which was primarily about his mental health. In June 2019 that article was AfD’ed, with the result to merge it to the Donald Trump article. Since the article being merged was primarily about mental health, a paragraph on the subject was developed at the Trump talk page and added to the article; it is now the final paragraph in the “Health and lifestyle” section. Some people have deleted it or objected to it, so we are seeking a definitive answer to the question: should we have a paragraph about his mental health? The question here is whether we should have something or nothing. Exact wording can be debated later, if the conclusion here is that, yes, we should say something on the subject. In the meantime the paragraph at issue should remain in the article.-- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair

The last RfC concluded with consensus for "controversy" and consensus for "scandal" in the article's lead. There was no consensus around how to phrase the first sentence of the article.

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence?

1. Omit "scandal" and "controversy"

   The SNC-Lavalin affair in Canada involves allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

2. Call it a "scandal"

   The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

3. Call it a "controversy"

   The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

4. Call it a "controversy or scandal"

   The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy or scandal in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

5. Call it a "dispute"

   The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political dispute in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

You may rank your choices if you would like. – Anne drew 17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Free Palestine Movement

Free Palestine Movement NPOV dispute. Disagreement over whether current article complies with NPOV Policy and whether article proposed at this link: Special:Diff/906040376 should be permitted to stand alongside existing article and a disambiguation page. Jgraham1956 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tel Aviv

Three options. Should the lead and the infobox read:

1. Tel Aviv
2. Tel Aviv-Yafo
3. Tel Aviv-Jaffa

El_C 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Political spectrum

Should this article, and the articles Left-right political spectrum, Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics include this image:

or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's Magazine?

1. Generally reliable for factual reporting
2. Unclear or additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable for factual reporting
4. Publishes false or fabricated information

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Max Blumenthal

Should any of the two highlighted texts be added to the Venezuela section? --Jamez42 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack

This edit removed all contents in the article about Ebba Åkerlund's grave (she was a victim in the attack and her grave was vandalised multiple times). Edit: Should the material be restored? The edit directly references Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon which is neither a WP guideline nor policy, but a WP article. The subsequent discussion with arguments back and forth can be found in talk page section #Grave. The edit also references WP:VNOTSUFF, which is a policy. AadaamS (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:People's Party (Spain)

I think that liberal-conservavism label should be removed from the opening parapgraph and the infobox. It is cited in the Leadership of Casado and 2019 election section that the party shifted further to the right in 2018. Both sources that cite the party as liberal-conservative are years before this (one is from 2014 and one is from 2005). This is when the party was under different leadership and not as far to the right as it is today. I have seen no sources since Pablo Casado became the leader of the party that describe it as liberal-consevative, so I would say this is out of date and should be removed. However, this is cited information, so I'm looking to form a consenus here before removing it. Please leave any and all thoughts below. Helper201 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gatestone Institute

Should the first line of the lede describe the Gatestone Institute as a "conservative, anti-Muslim think tank"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pamela Geller

Should the lede cover Geller's views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

I would like to pursue the point about whether the amount of material on Corbyn pre his leadership is WP:UNDUE in this article. I think there is some relevance but that the length is excessive, particularly as it is covered on his profile where it is available for reference. Moreover, reducing this section will contribute to reducing the overall length of the article, which I anticipate continuing to grow. Can I suggest we have a vote on this to clear it up by everyone putting these three options in order of preference with regard to section 6.1. in this article i.e. Events involving Jeremy Corbyn from previous years?

A Replace the section in this article with a sentence and link to the relevant section in his profile

B Replace the section in this article with the relevant section in his profile, resulting in the two articles having the same text regarding the period before he became leader. The section in his profile is shorter and was arrived at after some discussion and amendment amongst the editors involved.

C Leave section 6.1 unchanged. Jontel (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ivanka Trump

Should the lead section say that Donald and Ivana Trump (parents of Ivanka Trump) were married? -- GreenC 00:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Mick Mulvaney

Should this article cover White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's false claims about the White House's health care proposals? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Shapiro

Should the article include criticisms by Juan Cole (a professor of Middle-Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan) and Noah Smith (a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan and a former professor at Stony Brook University before he joined Bloomberg as a full-time columnist) about Shapiro's assertions about the uniqueness of Western science?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo

Should the lede say he's a "conservative"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Should the lead use the word "himself" in the context of Juan Guaidó's swearing-in and declaration of acting presidency?

Here are two example wordings for each choice, though they need not be the verbatim final text:

• himself: Guaidó declared himself acting president and swore himself in.

• no himself: Guaidó declared that he was acting president and took the presidential oath.

Please respond with either himself or no himself with an explanation for your stance. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antifa (United States)

Which of the following is preferable treatment of this Politico source with respect to terrorism?

• Option A (status quo): By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism.
• Option B: DHS and FBI intelligence assessments indicated monitoring of antifa protesters before the 2016 elections. By 2017, DHS had formally classified antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence".
• Option C: Exclude both of the above.
• Option D: Per Politico, by 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism, and that DHS had formally classified Antifa's activities as "domestic terrorist violence." It is unclear what legal or security implications such a classification might have.
• Option E: ???

R2 (bleep) 17:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Should the content discussing the camps at the U.S.-Mexico border be deleted from this article discussing examples of concentration camps? --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change

I propose to add text to the article concerning Venezuela (1998-present). GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

Should this article be restored to its unsplit version, listing clerks to all Justices?

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fabiana Rosales

Which sentence more accurately reflects what is found in the reliable source(s) and follows our policy of neutral point view: RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

There is very little comment on this publication. It is self-evidently somewhat to the right, but that is not an impediment to being accepted as a reliable source (given that all non-scientific publications will always carry some degree of bias). It has variously been described herein as a "major site", "reliable source", and "reputable yet biased". It includes much comment from academics and current and former (mostly the latter) intergovernmental agency and government staff members. Seeking comment as it is a significant site. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Guardian

Should the "Political alignment" parameter display as (1) Centre-left, (2) Left-wing, or should we instead (3) remove the parameter entirely? 12:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvette

An WP:RFC has been filed to bring editors to a consensus on various issues regarding the Tuo Chiang-class corvette. There are two conflicts here, the first is conflict is around the class's Hsiung Feng III missiles and the second is around the capabilities of the Corvette itself.

First, is the HF-3 hypersonic and nuclear armed? See Talk:Hsiung Feng III#RfC On Sources, Nukes, and Speed

Second, is the language currently used to describe the class’s superlatives moving into puffery territory or is it still supported by the sources?

Please comment below. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

Should the coverage of Sharyl Attkisson's vaccine reporting include the following 2 changes, mainly per WP:NPOV? petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic violence

In the second paragraph, it states that women are the overwhelming victims of domestic violence. Fiebert's 2014 updated annotation of bibliographies describes 343 scholarily investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically agressive as men. The aggregate sample size exceeds 440,850 people. [ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dcac/54bf80668b0266694e7514c8145c669c3a2e.pdf?_ga=2.265962119.986327977.1555679684-652266393.1555679684] [1] Given such a huge study, should the term overwhelming be used? Musicwaves (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Shorten

Should this section on a rape allegation be included in the article? – Teratix ₵ 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Waskom, Texas

There was a vote from the Waskom, Texas city council to ban abortion, even though abortion is allowed nationwide as per a Supreme Court ruling; this was covered in national newspapers. As of writing it is too early to tell how often/whether coverage of the same event will continue at national, statewide, and local levels.

The question is whether this vote is a significant enough detail to include in the history of the town. One editor argues that as per WP:NOTNEWS it is not significant enough, while myself and another editor disagree. Please see the above discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol

1: Should the article mention his involvement in a scandal over the purchase of overpriced computers, and that he was later cleared by a court?

2a: Should the article mention his position on a ban of homosexual and transgender students from teacher training institutes?

2b: Should the article, in the context of 2a, contain the quote: "homosexuals are no different to drug addicts who need treatment. ... I do not want these people to be role models for children"? --RJFF (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)