|Should the infobox include or exclude Khatumo via this edit? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
|I've been noticing a lot of IP edits on PC articles changing "far-right" to "conservative" without explanation. As an editor who is unsure of why this is the case, I'd like feedback from other editors on the matter: should far-right politics be considered an extension of conservatism? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber
|Should Stefan Molyneux be described as alt-right in this article? Indicate Yes or No with reasons. 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
|Most of the details of my concerns are in the section immediately preceding this RfC, but I'll reiterate:
To my eye, the scanned document certainly appears genuine, and I wouldn't be at all surprised that Sugarmann would get an FFL in order to do 'research' as the document suggests. The problem is, 'appearing to be genuine' is not the threshold we need to meet. We don't know whose Google document account this is - nor is a Google docs page a verifiable source. The FOIA that unearthed the document is not provided and thus unverifiable. The document only shows that Sugarmann may have had an FFL in the early 2000's - it does not establish that he currently has one, as the edit suggests. Likewise, the edit claims that they are rare in Washington D.C. - also something that wouldn't generate any surprise from me, but we need a reliable source for that, not the author's feelings. And lastly, it doesn't belong in the lede unless and until the details I am questioning are fleshed out within the body of the article. I'd appreciate if others could weigh in. We had a mini-revert war going, but no discussion is taking place. I'm not willing to risk censure over this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
|Should the August 12 events in Charlottesville be mentioned on this page? pbp 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Standstill agreement (India)
|This is the paragraph at the centre of controversy.
Hyderabad violated all clauses of the agreement: in external affairs, by carrying out intrigues with Pakistan, to which it secretly loaned 15 million pounds; in defence, by building up a large semi-private army; in communications, by interfering with the traffic at the borders and the through traffic of Indian railways. India was also accused of violating the agreement by imposing an economic blockade. It turned out that the state of Bombay was interfering with supplies to Hyderabad without the knowledge of Delhi. The Government promised to take up the matter with the provincial governments, but scholar Lucien Benichou states that it was never done. India also delayed arms shipments to Hyderabad from India, which is considered a breach of the standstill agreement.
The issue here are:
1.Should this sentence (i.e. ‘Hyderabad violated all clauses of the agreement’) be written in Wikipedia voice?
I think keeping the later issues in mind, it shouldn’t. Actual facts described in RS are more nuanced than this. Hyderabad had its own side of the story too (see issue 2). We cannot write the perspective of my Indian countrymen as blanket facts.
2.Whether this clause should be added after the sentence in issue number 1.
Hyderabad protested that its loan to Pakistan was a non-political investment and the private army was for the defence of Muslims.
I think it should as it explains some of the Hyderabadi perspective about their ‘violations’ of the Standstill agreement. It is cited to a reliable source too.
3.Should ‘considered a breach of the standstill agreement’ in the contentious passage be changed to was a ‘definite breach by India of the Standstill agreement’?
My reason for saying it was a definite breach is that is how the cited RS describes it.  ‘Considered to be’ appears to be weasel wording, WP:EUPHEMISM.
4.Should India’s support for border raids on Hyderabad, cited to scholar Lucien D. Benichou, be included?
My stance is that it should. My opponent called Lucien D. Benichou a sloppy source. I disagreed and pointed out the favourable scholarly reviews of Benichou’s book in contrast to other sources used for this article such as Srinath Raghavan. My opponent then said ‘Benichou is not acceptable beecause he provides no evidene’.
My stance again is that he is a reliable scholar who has studied the Hyderabadi integration into India in detail and has received favourable scholarly reviews. Asking for evidence from scholars is not in the scope of Wikipedia editors. How reliable scholars get their information is not our business. 2405:204:33A9:962F:2133:E96C:B796:88E9 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
|Should this page contain the section on "Sources cited in the memo"? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
|Should Corbyn's views on the single market (as in the previous discussion) be included in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump
|Question: Should we include nominations of FSOs and career diplomats in this article? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
|Should the "Lead" section describe Rideau Hall as the Monarch's (Queen Elizabeth II) official residence? Dig deeper talk 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Template talk:Donald Trump series
|Which articles should be listed in the Trump sidebar's section about Russia controversies, and how should this section be displayed? — JFG talk 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
|Does section named "Goals and theories" have a right to exist in the article?
There is a number of theories and scenarios of how the Zapad 2017 may escalate into a real military conflict. I believe it is important to list references to these theories and scenarios, as 2 previous military exercises ended up as wars. 20000roads (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
|Should the article be limited to numbers provided by Russian Ministry of Defense and Russian media, or are independent sources allowed as well? Russia has proven history of faking numbers, thus I believe references from independent sources should be allowed. 20000roads (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting
|Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson, similar to the proposed text below?
On July 21, 2017, a subpoena was issued to Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley and ranking Democrat Feinstein after he refused to testify. He then agreed to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, and the subpoena was withdrawn. The committee wanted to question Simpson about the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which they can use "to press Justice Department officials on what they know about Veselnitskaya, Prevezon, Fusion GPS and their connections to the Trump campaign or the Russian government." Grassley and Feinstein tied the Fusion GPS's foreign registration issue and the Trump Jr. meeting together "by calling on Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort to testify at the hearing." Simpson said that the firm collaborated on a lawsuit with Veselnitskaya for two years, but denied any "untoward connection". Simpson will not testify at the public hearing, but instead will be interviewed privately, under terms of an agreement. Browder testified before the Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 2017, claiming that Veselnitskaya was representing the Kremlin's interests in the meeting, which was arranged for persuading the future lifting of the Magnistky Act.
- ^ Benichou, From Autocracy to Integration (2000), pp. 213
- ^ Benichou, From Autocracy to Integration (2000), pp. 214
- ^ Lucien D. Benichou (2000). From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State, 1938-1948. Orient Blackswan. pp. 213–. ISBN 978-81-250-1847-6.
- ^ Peter Lehr (2002) Review of From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State (1938-1948) by Lucien D. Benichou, Contemporary South Asia, 11:3, 357-383, doi: 10.1080/0958493032000057753
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
inteltestify was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- ^ Greenwood, Max (July 26, 2017). "Co-founder of firm tied to Trump dossier agrees to speak to Senate panel". TheHill. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
- ^ a b Logan, Bryan (July 21, 2017). "Senate Intel Committee Subpoenas The Research Firm Tied To The Bombshell Trump-Russia Dossier". Business Insider. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^ Rogin, Josh (July 25, 2017). "Judiciary Committee To Turn The Russia Investigation Back On Fusion GPS". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 29, 2017.
- ^ "The Latest: Senate Panel Subpoenas Manafort to Testify". U.S. News and World Report. July 25, 2017. Retrieved 25 July 2017.
- ^ Tillett, Emily (July 27, 2017). "Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russian lawyer was about sanctions, financier tells Senate panel". CBS News. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
- MrX 15:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Cold War II
|The "Group of Two", the proposed "special relationship" between the US and China, was added in the See also section. Edited: Should the "Group of Two" a) remain as part of the "See also" section, b) be moved to the "United States vs. China" section as a hatnote, or c) be removed from the article? Modified and listed for the RfC. --George Ho (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Cold War II
|The current name of the section is "EU and NATO members vs. Russia". Should the name remain as is or be renamed? If the latter, should the section header be renamed to "United States vs. Russia"? If not, what alternative section name do you suggest? (Update): The person using an IP address renamed the section to its current name back in Dec. 2016. --George Ho (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:White House Press Secretary
|Has Spicer's resignation as Press Secretary taken effect with Sanders succeeding him from July 21? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)