Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

• Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état (RFC ) — I'm creating an RFC partially just to draw attention to this article in general (it's a magnet for POV from both sides - I've seen a number of article edits which really stretch WP:AGF), but the specific issue is what the article name should be. Some claim that it should be called "2009 Honduran coup d'état" because "coup" is the word used by the overwhelming majority of WP:RS worldwide for the events of June 28th. Others claim that it should be at "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis" because (variously) the article covers more than just the coup, or because "coup" constitutes a legal accusation that violates WP:BLP, or because a number of Honduran RS (and Honduran editors) do not consider it a coup. Also, one user (me) has proposed a compromise, by which the "call it 'coup'" group would allow the name "constitutional crisis" as long as "Coup d'état" were one first-level section header inside the article. Obviously, both sides of the question would in any case be given their WP:DUE weight in the article. Homunq (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Template talk:Politics of Honduras (RFC: Who is president? ) — There is obviously an edit war over who is president right now. Zelaya was legally elected and claims that he was illegally exiled and is still president. Micheletti and his supporters claim that Zelaya had violated article 239 of the constitution and thus was no longer president, and so Micheletti is the legal successor. I think that this template should not take sides; there should be some way to indicate the dispute. President Zelaya*...President Micheletti*The government of Honduras is controlled by Micheletti who has been sworn president in congress. If Mel is reinstated as president, Micheletti was president from June 25-[X date]. Although by law Mel can't be president again because it counts as re-election which is illegal by the article #4 and if he does, he loses his status as citizen according to article #42 number 4. Chupu (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Pacifica Forum (Longrunning Dispute) — I would like some outside feedback on this article. User: Xeugene keeps making edits to the article in a fashion that seems to me to be anti-Semitic; at one point he/she dissed Elie Wiesel in a comment accompanying an edit. Also, this user keeps insisting that David Irving and Mark Weber are not Holocaust deniers because they don't deny the entire Holocaust, just 90% of it (they claim 600,000 deaths as opposed to 6 million).I reverted these edits because denying part of the Holocaust is still considered a form of Holocaust denial, at least according to the legal codes of countries in which it is unlawful to deny or minimize the Holocaust. However User: Xeugene keeps reverting me back. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so I'd like an outside opinion. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Animal Liberation Front (FBI quote ) — Should a source providing the FBI's position on the ALF be added to the lead? Should the current Dept of Homeland Security and SPLC opinions remain? Please read this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia () — Centralized discussion on Macedonia. 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:A New Beginning (RfC: Opinion of Non-Governmental Agencies on Speech, primary source issues, and disputed reporting) — Does it violate the rules of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT to have the opinion of people who are not in any kind of government position in the article? At issue are CNN pundit David Gergen,[1] Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies,[2] Charles Krauthammer,[3] Christopher Hitchens, [4] Martin Peretz,[5] Rami Khouri of The Daily Star, and Al Jazeera bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara. Those two other unlinked people are cited to this.There are also three seperate issues. (1) Whether or not Christiane Amanpour of CNN's statement describing the Muslim world's general reaction as very favorable and supportive is includable. (2) Whether or not her reporting that the fact that Obama never mentioned the word "terrorism" or "terror" was positively interpreted by many in the Muslim street, given that many of them see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam', is includable. (3) Whether or not Anderson Cooper's statement that American conservatives also picked up on this and argued that it weakened Obama's overall message is includable. These issues are that of reporters giving their impression of the facts, not their opinions, and their inclusion depends on their reliability and the weighting issue. The source is here.P.S. This article is under discretionary sanctions. Any personal attacks and/or incivility will be reported to them immediately. The Squicks (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Rachel Corrie (RFC: Is the See Also section NPOV and appropriate to the article? ) — I removed the See Also section from this article, as it was only a list of other ISM activists killed by the IDF during the Second Intifada. It has since been replaced and removed several more times, so clearly not only is the supposed "long-standing" consensus to keep it not valid, but a new consensus needs to be reached. Therefore, I propose the following statement and RFC to reach a new consensus:Various claims were made for the relevance of the section citing "patterns of behavior" by the IDF, or relevancy of the timeframe, but I feel it violates NPOV because it purports to show "a pattern of behavior by the IDF" that is not supported by any reliable sources. I would point out, though, that where the section is now is a little better than where it was: previously the names said "killed by the IDF" with no clarifier as to why they were listed (they were in warzones with the ISM), and now there is at least a rationale. However, I don't believe the rationale is correct: a victim list is appropriate for this type of article (as mnetioned in the earlier discussion directly above). So, I think there are two issues to be resolved here. One, is the section NPOV, and if it is, is it still appropriate for the article? MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Right-wing politics () — The term right-wing originated in 18th century Europe where more conservative members sat to the right of the president in parliamentary chambers It is still used especially in France and Italy where the more conservative parties have an historic connection with right-wing parties of the past, and continue to sit on the right. In the twentieth century a number of social and political scientists constructed models that applied the term to the politics of English-speaking countries. Since then American conservatism has been called right-wing, although the term is generally considered derogatory in other English-speaking countries.Should the article treat the Right as a single topic with unifying features or should it state that it is used in different ways? Is there one definition for the Right or are there several? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Gun violence (RfC: Should the firearm homicide table in Gun Violence include columns of non-gun-related homicides? ) — Is the inclusion of general homicide data, implemented with other than guns, warranted in the table of gun-related homicides by country for an article on gun violence? Yaf (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Mark Levin (RFC: Men In Black) — There is a dispute over whether to include a summary of one chapter from one of Mark Levin's books in the article, in addition to the paragraph already at Mark Levin#Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America. The summary is sourced from the chapter itself.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• User talk:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (Good enough? ) — Hello everyone. What do people think of this article as it stands? Does it pass for being "worthy of notice" yet? Feel free to improve as you see fit. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:Denmark–Mexico relations (RfC on inclusion of information on Danish mortgage system) — I seek external viewpoints on whether or not this information (as discussed above) should be included. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Talk:British National Party () — Correct Use of the "Ideology" section of the Infobox. See also Template_talk:Infobox_Political_party, where it is pointed out that the section in question should only include "Official Policies" to prevent edit wars and misinterpretations --Eros of Fire talk) 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. Should the word "Nakba" be used on Wikipedia to describe the exodus of Palestinians from their homes in Palestine, in connection with the creation of the state of Israel? 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)