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, seeWikipedia:Feedback request service
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
How the biographicinfobox birthplace of people born on the territory ofLithuania,Latvia, orEstonia during1940–1941 and1944–1991 annexation by theSoviet Union should be displayed?e.g. Artūras Barysas; Born 10 May 1954;
- Panevėžys,Lithuanian SSR,Soviet Union
- Panevėžys,Lithuania
- Panevėžys,Soviet Union
- or propose another variation
Please briefly explain your decision.Gigman (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Should the following text be restored to the article?Fidjeri (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia recognizes that there is ascholarly consensus that theGaza genocide is ongoing, and is caused by Israel. Therefore, Wikipedia states that a genocide is ongoing in wikivoice. This in turn asks the question if Wikipedia should also recognize that Netanyahu is a genocide perpetrator, given how he is the Prime Minister of Israel and implicated inmany of the sources that agree on the genocide interpretation. Is there similar consensus, withWP:BLP in mind, that Wikivoice should explicitly state that Netanyahu is a perpetrator of theGaza genocide? If so, then shouldn't Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders should be added toCategory:Genocide perpetrators?HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Sébastien Lecornu resigned as prime minister of 6 October 2025 and served as a caretaker prime minister until a successor could be appointed. However, 4 days later, President Macron reappointed him prime minister.
Because Lecornu hasn't served as prime minister in full capacity since 6 September 2025, some users have been debating the formatting of the infobox. Should he have a note by the term start date? Should there be an underlining mention that he served as a caretaker during the 4 days? Or should there be nothing there at all?
Which option of infobox should we use for this pageOption A,Option B, orOption C? See the three options in infobox form below.TimeToFixThis |🕒 01:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Military–industrial complex
Which should we use: A or B?
A: The speech was authored byRalph E. Williams andMalcolm Moos and was foreshadowed by a passage in the 1954 bookPower Through Purpose coauthored by Moos. The degree to which Eisenhower and his brotherMilton shaped the speech is unclear from surviving documents. Planning commenced in early 1959; however, the earliest archival evidence of a military-industrial complex theme is a late-1960 memo by Williams that includes the phrasewar based industrial complex. A wide range of interpretations have been made of the speech's meaning. Looking back in 1985, Williams wrote that he was "astonished" at the attention given to themilitary-industrial complexsound bite, saying that it "has been distorted beyond recognition ... it became red meat for the media".[1]
B: The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military", a claim passed on only by oral history.[2]:111Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version.[3]James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence.[4] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwritersRalph E. Williams andMalcolm Moos.[5]Uhoj (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
The infobox currently uses the following description forNorth Korea's government form: "Unitary one-partysocialist republic under atotalitarianhereditarydictatorship", which has been taken into dispute. What, if anything, should replace it?TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict
Prior discussions and attempts at dispute resolution, fulfillingWP:RFCBEFORE, can be foundhere andhere.
Should the following statement be included under the "India" subsection of the "Reactions" section?
Opposition leaderRahul Gandhi criticised Modi's acceptance of the ceasefire, alleging that it amounted to a surrender under pressure from Trump.[1][2]
Does the European Armed Forces exist or is the European army a policy proposal? 14:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes
Should Donald Trump be added to this list based on his 2024 conviction for falsifying business records?TRCRF22 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Question: Should the lead paragraph include the word "authoritarian"?Seahumidity (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Gaza genocide consensus sentence
Is this template ready for use in article main spaces such as the lead paragraph ofGaza genocide,UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Gaza genocide,List of genocides, andGeneral debate of the eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly?Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Editors here have discussed findings from the academic community on fascism, which is increasingly characterizing Donald Trump's policies as fascist/proto-fascist/neo-fascist, or that they are leading the US towards fascism. Editors on pages regarding fascism continue to remove content regarding these findings, citing a lack of consensus about whether or not to include such material. Should articles regarding fascism expand their coverage of the scholarly debate about whether and to what extent Trumpism is a form of fascism?Rangooner (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Afriforum describes itself as a non-governmental organisation, which has the self stated purpose of "to call up Afrikaners to participate in public debate and actions outside of the sphere of party politics."[3] In 2014 Afriforum described itself as a "South African civil rights organisation focusing on minority rights (and especially Afrikaner rights). [Afriforum] aims to activate the South African civil society to participate positively in the promotion and protection of minority rights outside the realm of party politics. "[4]
It has been argued by everday South Africans that Afriforum is a white supremacist organisation with an alternative purpose.[5] The journalist Pieter du Toit has argued that Afriforum is an Afrikaner Nationalist group (specifically he called them an "emissary of a new form of Afrikaner nationalism". The founders of Afriforum have been accused of aiming to build a "Volkstaat" (a white homeland for Afrikaners within South Africa).[6] Afriforum has been called a racist lobby group.[7] In general their description as an organization, and their purpose as an organisation is highly contestable.[8][9]
Should we define Afriforum as a non-governmental organisation with its self-stated purpose and place criticisms of this description later in the lead, or should we describe them differently (whether white supremacist, afrikaner nationalist ect), with a different purpose at the start of the lead. If we describe them differently, how?Nib2905 (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)