Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Is this article politically biased enough to warrant an NPOV tag? Skirts89 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
| Should content about an EDM proposal to rename Holocaust Memorial Day be relevant enough to be included on this page? RevertBob (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
| Where should we place terms like 'Acting', 'Elect', 'Designate' etc inside infoboxes of political bios? GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
| Should we add the successors of incumbents like this edit? Corky 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil)
| The following links were added to show that the social liberal party's categorization as far right is disputed.
https://www.heritage.org/americas/commentary/will-jair-bolsonaro-make-brazil-great-again https://www.foxnews.com/world/fascist-populist-debate-over-describing-brazils-bolsonaro The links mentioned above and the "disputed" tag was removed from the article. They were removed with comments that the article does not discuss the party itself. While at the same time, the following citations were allowed to remain, which also do not discuss the party as such, but propose the opposite point of view than the ones that were being presented in the articles that were removed. The effect of removing the links mentioned above while allowing the links given below to remain, was that only a single point of view was allowed to express as a commentary on the political party while the opposing point of views were not allowed to be present. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-44919769 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/world/americas/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-election.html https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2018/08/05/politica/1533482571_722395.html I wish to propose that either the other citations which do not discuss the party also be removed on the same grounds that they do not discuss the party as such, or that the 3 links I mentioned above also be added along with a "disputed" tag to show that the "Far-right" designation of the party is disputed. --Berzerker king (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
Talk:Wentworth by-election, 2018
| Pertinent to the above discussions, should the infobox exist and should the figures for the two candidates in the box be included? Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC) |
Should the sentence:
be changed to
|
Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
| Should the article contain this content on the police investigation into antisemitism? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) |
| The usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of the efficient "the British monarch" is improper, and this goes site-wide. With no disrespect to the British, but this site is written in Global English, not "the King's English."-Inowen (nlfte) 01:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC) |
| This article discusses the monarchy of Australia. Should this article use the term "monarch" or "head of state" to describe the monarch? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the following section be included in the article:
Previous related RfC closed 19 March 2017 is here Talk:Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15/Archive_1#Request_for_comment:_add_three_instances_of_criminal_use Springee (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC) |
(1) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:
(2) Should this sentence remain in the Brett Kavanaugh article:
Please note that both sentences are already in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination article. They are at the Public reactions and polling section.
--David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
| There has been debate recently about which administrators should be included on school and school district articles. While WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI indicates we should not be including anything other than the principal/head teacher, that is an essay as @Alansohn: has noted. There was a discussion on this talk page on this subject above, but the respondents would have been only those interested in this project. I am therefore seeking wider input via this RfC.
Question: Should school and school district articles include any administrators other than principal/head teacher/headmaster/superintendent even if we have one or more sources to support administrators below the top administrator? Examples: (1) With only the principal; Dublin High School (California) and (2) With others below the principal; Bayonne High School (infobox and Bayonne_High_School#Administration) Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC) |
| This edit introduced the phrase promotes political violence into the description of Proud Boys in first sentence of the lede, and into the infobox under 'type'.
This RFC does not contest the following lede text which was present in both versions:
Two questions:
|
Talk:List of cults of personality
| Should this article contain a section on the US? Should that section contain an entry on Donald trump? Edaham (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should it (or should it not) be mentioned in the lead, that Elizabeth II is the head of state of all 16 Commonwealth realms? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
| Should the opening sentence of this biography describe Louis Farrakhan, in Wikipedia's voice, as an antisemite (in addition to being an American religious leader, black nationalist, activist, and social commentator), or is that an opinion best attributed to its sources elsewhere in the lead section? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)
| Should the naming format for elections/referendums be amended to move the year to the front of the title? – re-opened 20 October 2018 by User:Number 57. 20:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC) |