The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
Should the infobox photograph be changed from the current 1959 portrait to something else? Note that the other three images below are purely illustrative and not part of the proposal. Cremastra (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Some Kashmiris, along with numerous other commentators, have described these policies as "settler colonialism".
be added after the second paragraph in the Background section? The Background section currently reads:
In 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status previously granted to Jammu and Kashmir, and extended the Constitution of India to the state in full, enabling non-Kashmiris to purchase property and settle down in Kashmir. Also related is the issuance of domicile status to non-Kashmiris, qualifying them for jobs and college seats. Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.
During late 2024 to early 2025, there has been a tendency from multiple users (mostly IP and/or recently-created accounts) to add composition bars to the "Status in legislature" field in the infoboxes of cabinet/government-related articles. This situation has resulted in a number of issues that need to be addressed. Researching on this matter, I have found hardly any discussion or substantial input on this issue, meaning there is no explicit consensus for this (in fact, composition bars seem to have been added either unilaterally or in good faith by people who actually thought this was a widely-accepted formatting). Due to this affecting a wide range of articles, I believe a RfC is the most straightforward way to proceed. Thus, the question put forward is: should we include composition bars on legislature status in the infoboxes of cabinet articles, Yes or No? If Yes, how should it be formatted? Impru20talk09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)
"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Edit war regarding "Grand Hotel" controversy, with a candidate for President accused of being a bodyguard for prostitutes. Is this even okay to cover considering they're accusations (with a pending lawsuit for defamation)? And if so, then how to cover it correctly, without breaking wikipedia guideliens? Polish kurd (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Should the bolded text in this sentence of the lead be removed:
Trump began his second presidency by pardoning around 1,500 January 6 rioters and initiating mass layoffs of federal workers.
I believe this merits an RfC because I have proposed this change before and each discussion ends without a consensus. Bill Williams18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
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.
