Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Talk:Central university (India)
Should this article include an image of Aligarh Muslim University with the caption second central university? -- User4edits (T) 11:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
| Has the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict ended and if so what date should be listed as the end in the infobox? Pithon314 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:List of common misconceptions
| We have already established a consensus to split this very long list. The next question is how to split it. Should this become two, three, or four separate lists of common misconceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The Lede currently describes socdem as an ideology within socialism. 5 sources are cited for this sentence clause. Three book sources from 1999, 2005, and 2007 respectively, and two online sources from 2018 and 2019 respectively. Only 2 of them are accessible, the two online sources. Neither of the two online sources (this and this) make the claim that Social democracy is a movement within Socialism.
The question for the RFC is: should the lede describe the ideology as Socialist? There will be 6 options; please write the option you support along with your reasoning in the survey section, and then discuss in the discussion section. Also please write the extent to which you support the other proposals. Please don't reply to others in the survey section. Please don't just write an option without any reasoning for it. Option 1: It should should describe it as 'a Liberal poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'. Option 2: It should should omit the 'is a movement within' part in favour of the lede sentence, instead describing it as 'a political ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc'. Option 3: It should describe it as a socialist political ideology, as it does now [status quo]. Option 4: It should should describe it as 'a democratic poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc' Option 5: It should should describe it as 'a capitalist poltical ideology that supports things such as a welfare state, mixed economy, etc' Option 6: Other, it should [insert thing]. Option 7: Comment. |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
Encounters version A Encounters version B Expulsions version A Expulsions version B EA version A EA version B Please provide your preference for Versions A or Versions B for immigration-related Wikipedia articles, and beyond. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
| The maps of time zones in Wikipedia (SVG, PNG) show the time actually observed in each area, de facto, regardless of legality. For example, the maps show certain parts of Australia, Canada and the United States in the time that they actually observe even though it's different from what the law specifies there. Similarly, the maps show the occupied regions of Ukraine and the separatist regions of Georgia in UTC+3, which is the time enforced by the Russian or separatist authorities there. Previous discussions about this topic resulted in keeping the map de facto, including the occupied or separatist regions in UTC+3, but many users continue to complain about it, so I'm restarting the discussion here. How should the maps show the time zones of the occupied regions of Ukraine and separatist regions of Georgia? You may answer differently for each region.
Please note that the maps still show these regions as part of Ukraine and Georgia, with the international borders as generally recognized. The question here is only regarding the time zones. For reference, the IANA time zone database includes Crimea in UTC+3, but it doesn't mention the other occupied regions of Ukraine or the separatist regions of Georgia. Heitordp (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:The Keys to the White House
| Should the article be substantially in the form of Version 1 or Version 2? The most salient difference is how the article should present disputes about the prediction for the 2016 presidential election, but there are several other issues as well. Here is a diff showing the edit by which Version 1 was replaced by Version 2, a change that has since been reverted. JamesMLane t c 20:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Is Jordan a constitutional monarchy or semi-constitutional monarchy? See discussions above and in other sections. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States
| Should articles in American English refer to the alternative vote as "instant-runoff" or "ranked-choice voting" in their titles? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia
| Should the following description of the Conservative Party of British Columbia as Right-wing to Far-right, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the lead of the article, the infobox of the article, or both? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC) |
In the first sentence of the article about David Lammy, how should he be described?
|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this article have "left-wing" changed to "left wing to far-left" in the first sentence of the lead, as in this edit? --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) |
| In my personal opinion, the lede doesn't really need to include the genocides. For example, Japan's featured article doesn't mention the events in WW2. At least we should only say "Christian" instead of listing all the ethnic groups for the ones commited by the Ottomans. Perhaps even the ones committed to the Muslims are unnecessary. So, here are the options:
Option 1: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects." (it will stay as it is) Option 2: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Christian subjects." (shortening) Option 3: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed massacres against its Christian subjects." (more shortening) Option 4: "Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914." (all the migration, massacre and genocides are removed from the article.) Other: something else I missed. Youprayteas talk/contribs 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Universal basic income by country
| Is this - "A universal basic income (or a citizen's dividend) is also supported by the Sustainable Australia Party.[1]" - acceptable to add to the article? Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the party be described in the lead as centrist or conservative? JSwift49 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the subject in the article (the Islamic Action Front) be classified as Right-wing or Far-right? ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture |
- ^ "Policies - Sustainable Australia Party". sustainableaustralia.org.au. Sustainable Australia Party. Retrieved 23 March 2024.