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

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources

Which of the following options is suitable regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources?

Option 1: Maintain status quo
Option 2: WikiProject Venezuela cedes control of the article to the Wikipedia community
Option 3: Future sanctions for users who cite the page similar to Wikipedia policy on the project
Option 4: Delete page and refer to existing WP:RSP
Option 5: Other proposal or a combination of proposals

Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Should the three past elections contested by this current U.S. presidential candidate be presented in the form of Election Results tables using Template:Election box (e.g. [1]), or, should they be removed and replaced with this sentence: "Castro contested several elections, but didn't succeed." Chetsford (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Komeito

Does the reference in the infobox for social liberalism comply with Wikipedia guidelines and specifically WP:SYNTH? Helper201 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:La Patilla

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Deprecate

WMrapids (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

In reference to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, the Donald Trump article currently says, According to the Department of Justice, more than 140 police officers were injured, and five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died.

Should the causes of death be listed?
Should the article explicitly mention the Capitol Police officer?

Thanks in advance, Cessaune [talk] 20:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Bakhmut

Should we say the battle is over, and that Russia has won? Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Durham special counsel investigation

Should the current lead sentence...

The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities.

be amended to include this bold content...

The report concluded the FBI had showed confirmation bias and a "serious lack of analytical rigor" toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. Durham asserted this information "in part triggered" the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, echoing a ~~disproved~~ conspiracy theory promoted by Trump supporters.

This question is rooted in what Charlie Savage exclusively reported in The New York Times:

Mr. Durham went beyond criticizing the wiretap applications, writing: "Our investigation also revealed that senior F.B.I. personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation."

But in using the word "triggered," Mr. Durham’s report echoed a conspiracy theory pushed by supporters of Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. opened the investigation in July 2016 based on the so-called Steele dossier, opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign that was later discredited.[2]

~~The NYT does not use the word "disproved" but that can be readily sourced if this edit is ultimately adopted.~~

This matter has been previously discussed in this Talk thread. soibangla (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Ron DeSantis

Regarding the issue surrounding the reports, which previously did not achieve a consensus, three options are proposed:

Option 1: Include the proposed version regarding force feeding reports
Option 2: Include a modified version of proposed wording
Option 3: Maintain the current version

Thank you, Simón, el Silbón (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:PragerU

At the time of this RfC, the article includes a sentence covering how PragerU profited off a video of theirs that contained anti-LGBT content.

There exists three sources for this content that have been discussed thus far, Media Matters, Washington Blade, Columbia Journalism Review.

After intense debate above, it was work-shopped into three proposals:

Option A:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBT group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video featured anti-trans rhetoric and misgendered trans competitors while arguing against the participation of trans athletes in female sports.

Option B:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video, featuring a female high school athlete arguing against against trans-athletes participating in female sports, misgendered trans competitors by saying “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.”

Option C: Leave it out entirely.

17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

How should party colours (as stored in (e.g.) Module:Political party/A and used in infoboxes, results tables etc) be determined? By the dominant colour of the logo or via colours used for the party in the media. Number 5 7 10:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Suriname

Should the maps of Suriname include the disputed areas?--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange

Should the first sentence of the article say that Assange is a "prisoner fighting extradition to the US" or something like this? Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Firehose of falsehood

Which of the two article versions do you conider more NPOV from a global (non-US-centric) perspective? Special:Diff/1155967719 or Special:Diff/1132451253?

[Edit: these are additional questions not compulsory to the RFC]

Could the two be combined into something that is more NPOV than either?

Where do you see the NPOV issues in the two versions? ShabbyHoose (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Daily Caller

Should this article include text about the "heckling of President Obama"[3] Andre🚐 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of guests at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla

How should MOS:JOBTITLE be applied to this page? Should peers be listed under their name and title or title alone? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Serbia

Should a link to Crime in Serbia be included as a ″see also″ entry under the section ″Law and criminal justice″? --TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: Add the tag `{{rfc\|xxx}}` at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, `{{rfc\|xxx\|yyy}}`, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.