| Revision as of 12:08, 8 June 2006 editFRCP11 (talk | contribs)1,563 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:01, 26 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,807 edits Added: Talk:Squad (U.S. Congress). |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<noinclude> |
|
{{shortcut|]<br>]}} |
|
|
|
{{rfclistintro}} |
|
{{RFCheader|Politics}} |
|
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
<nowiki>Should the Squad be described in the article as "far left?" ~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 22:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should the bottom of the infobox in this election and all elections that follow it, which use the mixed-member proportional system, show the Prime Minister and their party alone (similarly to other Westminster systems, such as ], ], and ]), or the Cabinet and its member parties (similarly to other systems that have coalition governments, such as ], ], and ])? ] (]) 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
What should the infobox indicate as the location of the hostilities? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Option 1''' - ] and ], ] |
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
*'''Option 2''' - ] |
|
*] - Is a direct quote by ] columnists about the 2004 election that the singer has not denied making a ]? ; . 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - can statements be inherently derogatory, and can we assert such things, or should we point to actual people who assert that statements are derogatory. 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Should admitted Right-Wing lawyer insert biased framing in order to imply a false financial quid pro quo.22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]Can two admitted right-wing editors stop all factual contributions they disagree with by working together and make frequent and in bad faith 3RV claims.22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Is a POV tag appropriate when editor unhappy with results of 2 RfCs and refuses to identify specific contested text? 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Revert war about whether including criticism of Gregoire's most notable accomplishment is NPOV. 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Anonymous editor insists on repeatedly deleting well-sourced text discussing Scoop Jackson's influence on the neoconservative movement. Various violations of ] in this revert war by the two opponents, one of whom insists that while Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative, Scoop Jackson isn't. 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Should the article mention the Independent Counsel controversy and to what extent? Image vandalism is also occurring.05:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] should the article mention that the Hebrew word for "separation", the term used by the Israeli government for its policy of disengagement with the Palestinians has been translated as "apartheid" by some sources while also pointing out why this translation is contested? Several editors are attempting to remove any reference to this. ] 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Should ] be merged into the catchall article ]?] 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] is it "] to assert in the opening paragraph of the article that neo-Nazis like David Duke have used the term "Israeli apartheid" and "apartheid state" while not mentioning use of the phrase by Archbishop ] or Jewish Israeli politicians such as ]?] 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Should the controversy surrounding ]'s anti-Semitic statements be omitted entirely from the article on this person? Some editors are pressing for the removal of this subject en toto to ]. However, selective removal of the anti-Semitism controversy alone, while other controversies are discussed in the article, would seem to skew the POV of the article. --] 14:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Should the JDL be included in <nowiki>]</nowiki> based on the fact that the FBI has referred to it as a "terrorist organization"?] 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A dispute concerning the presence or absence of neo-fascism in the United States. Some editors delete any mention of the debate. Others fill the page with large blocks of text listing alleged fascistic currents seen in the Bush Administration. A few editors try to find a middle ground, but we have all failed to still the passion of the editors at the polar ends of the dispute. We are either stupid censors of creeping fascism in the U.S. or stupid traitors who hate America. Help!11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] and ] - There is an upcoming Democratic Primary Election on June 6th for Governor of California and supporters of each camp are adding POV and bashing the others'. I would like other Wikipedians to keep an eye on each page and revert all advocacy and vandalism.--] 23:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] and ] - a longstanding dispute over the inclusion of material from scholars who are more skeptical of the significance of the ] translations of deciphered Soviet espionage messages, or who think there should be more skepticism about accepting the contents at face value.21:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A dispute on the current political status of ] and how it should be mentioned in the introduction of the article, the article is locked by and administrator until dispute is solved. Talk page link contains a short summary of the dispute. 12:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A user has claimed that "insurgency" is POV. It should be noted that there was already a vote on this (see ]). |
|
|
*]: is it incorrect to have a page disambiguating the word ] from the phrases ], ], ], ] and ]?] 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Accusations of racism/fascism/Eurocentrism in a seemingly anarchist-oriented event. 13:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Single editor engaging in revert war to delete notable and verifiable fact that Scoop Jackson was influential on modern neocons. 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Does there need to be a source for speculation that Byrd may still be a member fo the ]. 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Is the title of the article valid? Should it be redirected to ]? — 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Is Lukashenka a dictator? —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Is the rewritten section about the "virtual first amendment" violative of the prior consensus, ], or ]? |
|
|
*] Is an organization's website a reliable source for information about who belongs to that organization, or does members' membership have to be independently verified? 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - a dispute over whether details about the company's principals, including George H. W. Bush, and their connections with US government and intelligence, belong on a page about the company rather than pages about those individuals. 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] There have been discussions and edit wars about Starčević's racism. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Involved in a censorship dispute. ] 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Is the term "eco-capitalist" POV? 04:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Does this article have inherent POV issues, most notably in the "Background" and "Claims of a Democratic-Republican party alliance" sections? (Is it accurate to term the vote the result of an "alliance"? Does the evidence in this section prove even the claim of an alliance?) Is the proposed article as written on the Talk page ] preferable to the current one, especially so in regards to the "Background" section? Does the current article need its "Works Cited" section and/or would such a section be more useful in a different format? ] 15:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] <span style="border: 1px solid green;"><font style="background: green" face="Arial" color="#FFFFFF">]</font></span> 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Does Eric Raymond's quote about "cultural genocide" mean that he wants to do it, or only that he thinks readers will accuse him of wanting to do it? Also, is "cultural genocide" an accurate and unbiased summary of the rest of the source material even not counting the quote? 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Should ] article exist, or should it redirect to ]? 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Concern about the use of term "statistical bias" versus "influence." 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: long time edit conflict, added sourced material critical of the party concerned, removed with different pretexts. Page is currently protected. 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]: Dispute regarding the addition of out of context quotes which make no sense to the reader. One user encourages readers to "read between the lines". Also a dispute over whether or not to include any wikilinks in these quotes. 17:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]: Copy-vio material, most probably taken from website, routinely inserted. Claiming that the ] is the same as the original TKP. 14:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]: Dispute on edits suggesting that an Indian/Pakistani peace group is strongly biased against India, and toward Pakistan. 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]: One editor insists the article violates NPOV, but refuses to say why. 23:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]: Mention of Metzger "going broke and living down by the river"15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ]: Should the article contain a section dedicated to controversial statements made by the Senator? 18:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] There's a disagreement over whether an article is in violation of our copyright rules. 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Is it POV to mention that Harris came from a "wealthy and influential family"? 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. A disagreement over whether this party should be referred to as "Democratic-Republican" or "Republican" (the latter is the original name, and increasingly used by historians, but may lead fo to confusion with the modern Republican Party). |
|
|
*]: How can we achieve balance in an introduction summary. Weasel words regarding Reagan's impact - "Most historians", "a distinct minority". Should a critical addition to the introduction remain as a counter-balance to "hailed as one of the greatest leaders", "the Great Communicator". 08:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: should the introduction plead the case that her execution was inappropriate? Should her article contain the names of the seven men she's killed, or should a sanitized version prevail? 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A template displays the fact that he's a Jew. Is this apropriate? -- 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Mediation has failed. Some users believe that Cuba should be presented in the opening paragraph as (A)"the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy in addition to being the sole Communist State in the region". Other users believe that(B)"Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party" and that questions of democracy should be explored in the main body of the article. --] 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Some users feel that: (A) the character of opposition to this concept is not being fairly represented in the introduction; (B) that perspectives on the concept are being arbitrarily restricted to exclude ideas other than the "new anti-semetism" emenating from the left wing anti-Zionists. 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. General dispute over content of article. Unfounded POV statements, frequently pure fabrications, inserted regularily. Discussion on talk page tends to lean over to side-tracks rather than the article material at stake. 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute over information added on Sanders relationship with Bush Adminstration. 07:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Dispute over whether the consensus lead section of the article is a circular definition. 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Is it valid to say that ] is a think tank or is it a website which claims to be a think tank. There have been multiple reverts over multiple days involving more than 3 editors. A section on the talk page has being created to summarize the arguments. --19:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC), '''UPDATED''' 23:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Three regular editors remain at perpetual loggerheads (often 2:1) over which sources to use, whether criticisms have been disproven or answered in part, and even what several sources say. There is much bad blood and has been an arbitration. A larger group of editors could help with the research chores, help establish consensus and reduce tensions.19:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Should discussion of the wrongful killing rate be included in ], or only in ]? () 10:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Whether or not ] belongs on ] under ]. 22:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - should Martin Kramer be denoted as "American" or "Israeli-American" in lead sentence of article. Martin Kramer has not confirmed or denied in any material found so far whether he has Israeli citizenship -- thus no primary source is available. There exist secondary sources including two U.S. Middle East professors from reputable universites who claim he has Israeli citizenship. A few news articles in neutral and reputable publications also refer to Martin Kramer as "Israeli-American." The discussion is starting to deteriorate on the talk page. --02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Is citing sources without reading them "extremely widespread" in academia and is it original research to use two small studies of scientific papers to make that claim of historical writing? 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Do the recent changes regarding Reagan scandals adhere to neutral point of view? 06:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - should the U.S. Democratic party be described as (1) the oldest party in the world, (2) one of, if not ''the'' oldest party in the world, or (3) one of the oldest parties in the world? 23:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Julius Stone was a prominent international jurist, who in 1967 argued that the Israeli settlements were legal under international law. Julius Stone had a record of agreeing with official Israeli position on a number of issues. Should he be presented as "a prominent international jurist ''who had a life-long commitment to Israel''" (my italic), or does this formulation unintentionally suggest that Julius Stone is prejudiced in favour of Israel? 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Note that the phrase ''had a lifelong commitment to Israel'' is not original but a quotation taken from the given official biography of the academic institution where he was employed, and which bears his name.15:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - proposal of merger of page with both ] and ]. Some feel anti-abortion can be included in both articles, others feel article should remain separate. Some also feel if there is an anti-abortion page alongside pro-life, their should be a pro-abortion page alongside pro-choice.06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] and ] - overhaul of these articles for both stylistic/grammar and POV concerns resulted in reverts. Trying to reach a consensus on what needs changing. 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - a few substantive and categorizational questions that have turned into an edit war; these are explained on the talk page.--23:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - should relevant information be deleted from the article because it comes from an op-ed piece?--06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Should a biographical article acknowledge the existence of longstanding rumours about a public figure's sexual orientation? (Nobody thinks we should treat the rumours as true; the dispute is about whether WP should even acknowledge that such rumours ''exist''.) 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Is Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar a terrorist? If not, is he even notable? 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Is a conference on the Privatization of National Security notable? 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Dispute concerning what information should be included in the sections describing support for universal health care and opposition to universal health care. Which commonly cited reasons for and against universal health care should be listed? 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Dispute over how an image caption should describe the Arab-Israeli conflict. Caption may or may not be appropriate depending on ], neutrality of content, and sources cited. Arguments include expanding the caption to include reference to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, limiting the caption to describe Israel without mentioning the religious nature of the conflict, and removing the caption altogether and moving the content to the lead section. Three competing versions of the caption may be viewed at ] and an informal poll has started in the section entited "RfC". 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Somewhat related to Tom G. Palmer below, we have an edit war involving factually incorrect material being restored, along with false accusations of vandalism against other users. 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] – There is a bit of a revert war going on related to the inclusion or exclusion of this link in the article's "External links" section: . Some argue that the tone of the content at the linked page is too informal and too hostile towards Palmer and is therefore unfit for linking from Misplaced Pages. Others argue that since the primary party responsible for that content is ], the blog constitutes a notable criticism of Palmer by another individual notable in the same realm of discourse as Palmer. Please advise. 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - There are 8 articles talking about various details within one book by Ayn Rand. In any other case, for any other book with similar notability and fame (ie. low), it would be deleted as fancruft. 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] ] insists on inserting ] under related material, making the implicit implication that the latter was also perpetrated by Westerners when no evidence supporting or contradicting that has been given. User is also insisting on inserting a blog quote that (in my view) is soapboxing by proxy. It is not incisive about the event and is editorializing on a grander scale using the event. 18:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] Original research, insulting accusation and flame bait. Couple of users are pushing very offensive agenda without any sources or proofs for their claims. They are continually bullying other users and reverting article. 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] — a number of editors, one a member of the party in question, others implacably opposed to it, have been fighting over the article for some time, and refuse to stop. The more editors involved the better, I think, so come one, come all. 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** The Swedish article ] was a page of much discussion recently and was completely protected for a month. This page appears to suffer the same problems, but hopefully the dispute resolution works better. / ]-] 16:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] Whether ]'s allegation that the ] was intended to kill Annette Lu and her only belongs in the article. 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Page editing is dominated by harsh critics. Repeated attempts to highlight secondary issue of rules for excommunication within Catholic Church. Page needs more balance. Several editors simply refuse to cite published sources.01:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Concerns about neutrality, deletion of sourced material, reversion without participation in Talk, and inclusion of images with no copyright licenses.13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Repost because of continuing dispute and lack of response. In the article ], some editors feel the need to dismiss mentioning criticism of the UET because they assert that the presented sources are inadmissible. Can criticism be discussed? 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: This article contains criticism of MEMRI by historian ] (along with a response from MEMRI) Two editors also want to include criticism of Cole. Another editor feels that criticism of Cole is off topic and should be limited to the Cole article and that some of the edits are a misrepresentation of Cole's position. 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC). Note from another editor: Some brief background on Cole is helpful in putting his remarks into context, especially since although he is a historian and Arabist, his writings on MEMRI are all from his non-academic blog rather than any academic source. Editing on the MEMRI page has been uncollegial and contentious with one editor making very harsh and dismissive comments. |
|
|
*]: two editors who are litigants named (when not reverted) in the article are constantly reverting and rewording edits they consider critical of themselves (regardless of fact) or not critical enough of the liquidator, with whom they are in dispute. 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Dispute over whether article is POV or not; most of the sources cited in the text link to opinion-based sources. 03:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]: Dispute over how to describe the controversy over Livingstone's invitation to Yusuf al-Qaradawi. 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Dispute over the inclusion of the ] and the ], both targets of revisionism, in the article. 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A dispute over whether the cartoons ought to be displayed on the page. 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - two opposing versions of a page, competition over the actual usage of the term. 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Nice friendly discussion trying to reach NPOV, could really use some more eyes. Some editors feel old version was POV (too Pro-Scouts), some editors feel current version is too POV (Anti-Scouts) and should be reverted.03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Question of notability of term and those using it; verifiability; appropriateness of mirroring a list of allegations made by those using the term. At least one WP editor on the talk page is mentioned on the article page. 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - dispute over how to describe the nature of the organization. 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]; dispute over two versions (other at ]). 11:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] dispute over whether Obama "identifies" as an African-American and whether the description of his heritage should appear in the intro to the article. - 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] dispute between two editors about the question whether references for the trivia section are superfluous or not. The dispute is not about contents!! 21:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] I also posted this in the RCF in religion and philosophy, but I figure that this article also has to deal with politics. A user continues to insert an inappropriate paragraph (around 10 times by now). The guy seems rather hurt by the fact that everyone else keeps removing it and responds with statements like "''Since you rejected a compromise, I'll never surrender''". I've laid out my case on the article's discussion page. 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - disagreement over uses of words ] and ], both highly contentious and contoversial terms. 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] - disagreement over how to describe certain source documents and studies.03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] - Nonsensical discussion taking place while the article is disputed. If the tag is removed it will escalate into an edit war. 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] - There has been a lot of trouble in coming to consensus over how the introduction should be worded. I think some fresh points of view will hopefully help resolve this. - 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong? ]---]---]---] Please discuss and vote on this dispute at ].15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] - ] has repeatedly deleted referenced text on ]. The text deleted can be seen and on the ]. The user is biased on this issue as can be seen by reading the talk pages on ] articles. He deleted referenced material on Indian civilians that lost their lives due to terrorists, on the terrorist camps in ] and ], on terrorist groups and on Hindus and Sikhs displaced from Kashmir due to terrorists. Deletion of referenced material need valid reasons. He deletes all the different changes by claiming that they're pro-India and pov. The editor who added the changes the Misplaced Pages project as a consequence. 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Regarding the article ] there is debate as to what would be contemporary police states. Please have a look and add your comment ] to countries substantiating why you think it should or should not be included in the article. Provide reputable sources (International Human Rights organisations, the UN, doctors without borders, et cetera). Don't forget to sign! 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*], There is a dispute over the inclution of an image of Lindsey German. ] refuses to engage in any discusion, they do not respond on the talk page and blank any comments made on their user talk page. Fashion1 makes bad faith claims to be reverting vandalism when deleting the picture.--] 12:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Should a political poster with strong quotes and imagery from the 2002 presidential election be included in the article? 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Discussion section. ]] 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
This a request for comment on the above question and previous section. Is the Mackinac Center for Public Policy a Conservative group and should be described as such? And does the polices listed above overrule the more widely available references describing their relationships and them as Conservative vs Free-Market? ] (]) 02:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should the Riverina chapter of the NSN be included in the infobox? ] (]) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should the article include the guard’s actions (grabbing the camera lens and touching Hersant’s shoulder) and the court’s findings regarding Sewell’s claims on racial motivation and self-defence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
] |
|
|
|
Should this template (a modified version of the political party infobox) be used on US political party pages? (]) ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
The current lead contains a simple mention of Trumpism. Should a brief description be added to this mention? A proposed wording for the added text, which is also up for debate here: {{tq|characterized by ], "]" nationalism, and economic ].}} — ] (]) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
The RfC is whether to retain or remove Syrian mercenaries from the belligerents section of the infobox. ] (]) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Is the Syrian civil war over? ] (]) 00:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
I'm opening a new RfC in an attempt to permanently solve this dispute. Should the Estado Novo regime be considered fascist? -- ] (]) 23:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Debate is ongoing as to whether content should be included in this article. This RfC covers two questions: |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Question 1:''' Should this article mention the John Conyers report "What Went Wrong In Ohio" |
|
|
*'''Question 2:''' If so, what wording should be used? |
|
|
'''] ]''' 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Does this sentence violate NPOV and should it be removed from the lead and the body? |
|
|
|
|
|
"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" ] (]) 18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should Masha Amini be referred to as Kurdish-Iranian in the first sentence of the lead? |
|
|
|
|
|
This has previously been discussed at ], ] and ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should allegations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape be covered in the lead? If yes, to what extent? |
|
|
|
|
|
Prior discussions have occured at ], ] and ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{RFC list footer|pol|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |