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

• Politics of Khuzestan: there are long-standing disputes on this article that need to be resolved. These are on whether human rights reports are reliable sources of information, whether Arab political parties should be mentioned, whether grievances of the Arab population should be mentioned and other matters. In the talk page, those editors who have referred to the persecution of Ahwazi Arabs in Khuzestan are termed Nazi, insane, promoters of genocide, separatist, racist, Baathist, Saddam supporter, propagandist: [1],[2],[3] The dicussions on this article have therefore produced little progress and need outside involvement.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Free trade: is it consistent with NPOV to make claims like "almost all economists support free trade," or "the broad consensus of the economics profession is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society"? 00:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Party for Freedom A dispute about two points. #1. A parliamentarian for this party was described in the media as having mistreated his wife; a count was filed against him, but thrown out by the prosecutor's office. The parliamentarian was never arrested or convicted. Is this information relevant to the article of his party, or only to the article of this parliamentarian. #2. A previous employee of this party described (as a sidenote in an article) the party as having "a kind of panic conservatism which takes on a mid-position between prudent conservatism and fascism, with a natural tendency toward the latter," with the employee providing some more background about his "fascism" qualification in another article. The articles of this employee are in Dutch. How does one do justice to the words of this former employee? 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• If Americans KnewThere is an edit war about this organization, which provides information and media analysis about Israel-Palestine. Unverified material is frequently being added as well as external links with unverified statements. As a result, a revert war is in progress. Please take a look at the history of the page, read the versions by MidEastSpecialist and others, and read the comments on the corresponding talk page.18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Umberto Guidoni, constant removal of Guidoni's political identity. --Soman 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:The Road to Serfdom#RFC This is a dispute about a recent removal of an item from the criticism section. The critic refers to the book: "Austrian-born free-market economist Friedrich August von Hayek suggested that high taxation would be a 'road to serfdom.'" The criticism was removed on the grounds that the actual criticism is not relevant to the actual argument presented in the book, i.e. it is not criticism of the book. 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Saddam Hussein#Request_for_Comment This is a dispute about whether it is acceptable to characterize Saddam Hussein as a dictator and his rule over Iraq as a dictatorship. This is based on the dictionary definition of dictator, which is here [4] and the key passage is a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government and the Wikipedia dictator page here 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Marriage--Consensus was reached for the following sentence on 31-December-2006 for the following opening sentence: "Marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union between two or more people, for the purposes of the formation of a family unit; legitimizing sexual relations for procreation; social stability; education and development of offspring; economic stability; security; and companionship, or any of such combinations."[5] This sentence is contentious because some editors believe unless the words “Man and Women” is used instead of "between two or more people" in the opening sentence the article cannot be considered neutral. Your comments would be appreciated.--00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid#Request for comment This is a dispute over the length and readability of this article. 13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:British National Party: A number of arguments about neutrality in the introduction, mostly centered on whether or not we can objectively refer to the BNP's advocacy of racial segregation as "racist". -- 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Kriss Donald#The causes of the dispute.3B fresh call for third opinions; dispute over interpretation of NPOV, whether to include certain perspectives, and undue weight. 09:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government There is debate as to whether we can call "Zionist Occupied Government" a "canard", which means a "false and baseless, deliberately misleading story." One side of the argument claims that it's POV, because "false and baseless" is taking a stand on the issue. The other claims that proof of ZOG is needed before not calling it a canard. 21:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Anti-Brahmanism The article is in basically uneditable. All my attempts to get a more neutral language into this article are failing buy blunt reverting without civil debate (Instead I am being personally attacked, but that is a different matter). The article is in dire need for cleanup but nothing happens, only more POV pushing. Please advise. 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005#RfC. The question is whether a link to an art piece (the "Piss Christ") is appropriate in an article about the tormenting of Muslim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Iran#Inclusion_of_references_to_Terrorism_and_WMD_programs Continuation of an old dispute about whether terrorism and/or the article Iran and weapons of mass destruction should be mentioned in the article text. 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Issue resolved by making new article and placing link at top of Iran. Credit User:Alain10Simesa 18:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Template talk:Communism#Request_for_Comment:_Prominent_Communists Recently, there has been a constant revert war over which people should qualify as 'prominent communists'. One side of the argument sees Communist Party leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Ho Chi Minh as important and widely-known historical figures in twentieth-century communist movements, and hence, worthy of addition. The other side argue that these figures cannot be considered 'communists', but rather, are 'socialists', and hence, not relevant to the template. Neither side appears willing to compromise in order to establish NPOV. 13:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• user talk:Expatkiwi, user talk:Szhaider and user talk:Yousaf465. I have recently noticed a growing trend amongst quite a few users to insert threats to World Peace templates on their user pages. This template is choice of flags of countries whom in the user's opinion are threats to world peace. Whilst these template are simple coding as apposed to template pages, I think this is distasteful and violates the guidelines set out in WP:UP. User pages that I have seen it on recently are user:Expatkiwi, user:Szhaider and user:Yousaf465, I have asked them to take it down and also seek for some sysop involvement. Thanks frummer 12:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Racism and Talk:Racism by country there is an editing gang operating on these page preventing any plural discussion of Israel and racism, there are two criterion in place where poorly constructed arguments are allowed in, but detailed arguments for inclusion of Israel are vetoed for all kinds of reasons. I believe Wikipedia has a duty to prevent this kind of behavior which is not only undemocratic it is dangerous. See the chain of convo on the talk page to see the impossible retort to every voice which is about Israel and racism, at least 4-5 editors in this gang pushing the same POV--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Yaron Brook Yaron Brook has criticized the Bush administration for being too soft in its conduct of the Iraq war, particularly for not being willing to kill enough women and children. Is it therefore appropriate to include him in Category:American anti Iraq War activists? 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)