Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics
The following discussions related to article topics are requested to have community-wide attention: ()
Biographies[edit]
| Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.
Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled? |
Should the first sentence say Swedish-born French, Swedish-Frenchor some other option? Should we omit von Sydow's nationality in the first sentence and explain it later? As for previous conversations, see this, this and this. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the ancient kingdom of Macedon be described as Greek at the time of Alexander the Great?
If you have time, please read the arguments in the references in footnote (d) in Alexander the Great's page already posted online above (see "Questioning Alexander the Great's identity) but if you do not have much time, please focus on Fine (1983) who summarizes modern scholarship as "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" but did not qualify the timeline and did not use the phrases "reached consensus" nor "reached unanimity". Based on the references in footnote (d), the debate regarding this matter has been ongoing for decades among historians but only references that sided with the argument that the ancient Macedonians were Greek are included in the references in footnote (d). I am not a historian, hence, I do not have access to published books nor to scientific journals. My only references are from tertiary, but reputable, sources: (1) from MIT.edu that states: "all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans."; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica and (3) National Geographic Society, the latter two of which describe the kingdom of Macedon on the topic Alexander the Great as "ancient", not "ancient Greek". Two editors above argue that the MIT.edu source is dated and was published "during the Clinton administration". I do not know exactly when the MIT page was published. In addition, the two editors claim they have consensus, because there are two vs. one (me) and based on this consensus, the "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" is the proper description. As a compromise, I asked the two editors to add a subtopic under Alexander the Great's page that describes the debate among historians that includes both arguments, and revert to "ancient" to describe the kingdom of Macedon until the historians have reached consensus on this matter. Please comment. 142.186.63.204 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity
Should the lede sentence describe the nationality and ethnicity of the subject as:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the order of occupation in the lead be changed from American actress, writer, and directorto American director, writer, and actress? Review the previous discussion here. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Should the first sentence of the article be rewritten in some form to include the phrase "convicted felon?" ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following should serve as the infobox picture for Frederick the Great?
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
| Should this statement: "Abdelkader's family was one of the most influential in the Arab Hashim tribe, which, after residing for a long time in the Rif region of Morocco, moved and established itself in the 18th century in the Beylik of Oran.[1][2][3]" be included in the early years section?808 AD (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Benito Mussolini?
|
(b).png)
.jpg)
(d).jpg)
.jpg)
| Should a listing of Shostakovich's marriages with wedding and death/divorce years be included in the infobox? Please provide your choice of either Option 1 or Option 2 along with a brief statement explaining your choice in the "Survey" section below. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Let's discuss and decide here whether we should mention her as Russian Israeli or as Israeli. This is since the debate is endless and has not been solved until now and it is for a very long time. ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Does the last sentence at the end of the ‘Career’ section which begins "As of 2024, dozens of litigation and arbitration cases…" belong on this page? JesseGoodLeap (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
Economy, trade, and companies[edit]
On what to add at the end of the Foreign relations section to summarise the US' relations with developing countries.
Refs:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies
| Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, Citigroup, NationsBank are examples of bank that have been formed by mergers.
The founders in the infobox of them are the CEOs who happen to be in charge when the mergers occured. I would like to ask if this is acceptable to put it like this or would it be considered extrapolation on the level WP:OR. Right now I cannot really see the sources that explicitly call them "founders". Imcdc Contact 04:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
| This Rfc comes to resolve a dispute regarding when AT&T Corporation was founded. Should the founding date be listed as (A) 1877: the date when Bell Telephone Company was originally founded or (B) 1885: when AT&T was originally created as a subsidiary of Bell Telephone Company? |
History and geography[edit]
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the ancient kingdom of Macedon be described as Greek at the time of Alexander the Great?
If you have time, please read the arguments in the references in footnote (d) in Alexander the Great's page already posted online above (see "Questioning Alexander the Great's identity) but if you do not have much time, please focus on Fine (1983) who summarizes modern scholarship as "almost unanimously recognizes them as Greeks" but did not qualify the timeline and did not use the phrases "reached consensus" nor "reached unanimity". Based on the references in footnote (d), the debate regarding this matter has been ongoing for decades among historians but only references that sided with the argument that the ancient Macedonians were Greek are included in the references in footnote (d). I am not a historian, hence, I do not have access to published books nor to scientific journals. My only references are from tertiary, but reputable, sources: (1) from MIT.edu that states: "all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans."; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica and (3) National Geographic Society, the latter two of which describe the kingdom of Macedon on the topic Alexander the Great as "ancient", not "ancient Greek". Two editors above argue that the MIT.edu source is dated and was published "during the Clinton administration". I do not know exactly when the MIT page was published. In addition, the two editors claim they have consensus, because there are two vs. one (me) and based on this consensus, the "ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon" is the proper description. As a compromise, I asked the two editors to add a subtopic under Alexander the Great's page that describes the debate among historians that includes both arguments, and revert to "ancient" to describe the kingdom of Macedon until the historians have reached consensus on this matter. Please comment. 142.186.63.204 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should this statement: "Abdelkader's family was one of the most influential in the Arab Hashim tribe, which, after residing for a long time in the Rif region of Morocco, moved and established itself in the 18th century in the Beylik of Oran.[17][18][19]" be included in the early years section?808 AD (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
| @DrunkenBedouin keeps disruptively reverting my edits and adding “West Arabian tribe” to the lede, even though the citations cite it from Al Bahah or Bisha, all of which are in South Arabian or even southwest arabian, this all makes it a South Arabian tribe based on the geographical area it lies on, and based on its age. |MK| 📝 10:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples
The following text has been added and removed from the article several times over the past couple months. It had been included under the "contemporary examples" section, under the subheading "Israel", and had a {{main article}} link to Palestinian genocide accusation. Should this, or some version of it, be included in this article?
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| The RfC resolves primarily around whether the origin of the breed should be listed as Morocco or North Africa (or any alternative location). Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| We seem to have two different ideas about how much information should be in the infobox for this article. Here are the two most recent versions. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties:
Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by:  Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for). Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
Language and linguistics[edit]
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Maths, science, and technology[edit]
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Climate section include the IFAPA Almeria station data as shown below? Weatherextremes (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Climate section include the following statement:
More recently the city neared freezing temperatures with 0.9 °C (33.6 °F) recorded on 23 January 2023. [22] Weatherextremes (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Art, architecture, literature, and media[edit]
Should the first sentence say Swedish-born French, Swedish-Frenchor some other option? Should we omit von Sydow's nationality in the first sentence and explain it later? As for previous conversations, see this, this and this. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
| In the text Rembrandt is referred to as "a Dutch Golden Age painter", not as a "Dutch painter". However, not all painters of the Dutch Golden Age were actually Dutch. Therefore, this is potentially confusing and definitely not accurate. Should this be replaced by a normal reference (e.g. "Dutch painter") to his nationality? Nico Gombert (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
There has been a bit of disagreement on which word should describe Twitter's situation (specifically in the first sentence and in the infobox) now that X is its own page.
Unnamed anon (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the Infobox of the artist include the fact that the town Bruegel in Brabant is a possibility - as one of the two sources of the text is claiming - where Pieter Bruegel was born? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There has been a long-running slow-motion dispute on this page regarding the list of tour dates for the supporting album tour that ran from February 4 to July 22, 2023.
The project page, WP:CONCERT TOUR, says that for an article on a concert tour, " Neither of these pages are policy, but they leave gray the question of how to treat a concert tour that is arguably notable enough to have a separate article, but can arguably more concisely be presented to the reader as a section of an article on the album being promoted through this tour. BD2412 T 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the order of occupation in the lead be changed from American actress, writer, and directorto American director, writer, and actress? Review the previous discussion here. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Jed Mercurio be listed in the Infobox of this page as a showrunner?TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Project Wingman: Frontline 59
| Refer to the discussions above. Should Project Wingman: Frontline 59 belong to the category of PS5-only games? Jursha (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should a listing of Shostakovich's marriages with wedding and death/divorce years be included in the infobox? Please provide your choice of either Option 1 or Option 2 along with a brief statement explaining your choice in the "Survey" section below. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Let's discuss and decide here whether we should mention her as Russian Israeli or as Israeli. This is since the debate is endless and has not been solved until now and it is for a very long time. ArmorredKnight (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry (memoir)
| Should Fun in a Chinese Laundry (memoir) § Selected excerpts be removed from the article? See discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)
| @Wikiwickedness disagrees with this article's premise that Haydn's opus 20 quartets were a milestone in the history of quartet composition. Please refer to the discussion on the talk page for details of the disagreement. Ravpapa (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
Politics, government, and law[edit]
| Issue: In a 2017 RfC, it was determined that this article should not refer to Donald Trump as a "liar" or statements by Trump as "lies". This consensus has recently been challenged in this discussion.
Question: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled? |
On what to add at the end of the Foreign relations section to summarise the US' relations with developing countries.
Refs:[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Republican Party (United States)
| Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should Neo-fascism be included in the infobox?
|
| A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A) "in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
|
Noting the existence of the subsection Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:2024 United States presidential election
Should the following sentence be added to the lead:
|
| Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts. Should the first sentence of the article be rewritten in some form to include the phrase "convicted felon?" ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
| Please add your votes with your comments and arguments. If you agree to remove the numbering, then vote Remove. If you don't agree to remove the counting or you have other opinions, then vote Keep 14 for PM Modi as 14th PM, or Keep 15 for PM Modi as 15th PM, or provide a custom vote. This discussion will be treated as a consensus for future reference. GrabUp - Talk 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Deep state in the United States
| Does the WP:WEIGHT of the currently cited sources support characterizing the concept of a deep state in the United States as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice in the opening sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples
The following text has been added and removed from the article several times over the past couple months. It had been included under the "contemporary examples" section, under the subheading "Israel", and had a {{main article}} link to Palestinian genocide accusation. Should this, or some version of it, be included in this article?
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Template talk:Infobox political party
| I have noticed that a new convention has formed regarding the ideology parameter, which is to only put one or two all-encompassing ideologies (see Labour Party (UK)). It used to be the case that the ideology parameter had five or so more specific entries that gave the reader a good impression of the party at a glance (see Bharatiya Janata Party).
In light of this, I think a 'Key positions' parameter would be a good addition which has, say maximum five entries which editors agree on, including regarding their order, and they would be based on citations from recent academia. The policy on this could distinguish between social, economic, national, and international positions to ensure a wide coverage. A national one could be say Unionism for a UK party, and an international one could be Euroscepticism for a European party. The name 'Key positions' is problematic as there are political jobs also called positions, however I can't think of a better term. Maybe 'Political positions'? Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
There are two questions:
|
| We seem to have two different ideas about how much information should be in the infobox for this article. Here are the two most recent versions. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties:
Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by: Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for). Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
Religion and philosophy[edit]
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn#Comparative_mythology, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
On the order, wording, and framing of the three definitions in the first paragraph of the lede, which currently is:
It has been stipulated that the middling definition is more commonly found in dictionaries and among the general population and should have primacy, and that the status quo gives the broad definition WP:Undue weight, however the broad definition is supported by a plurality of recent academia and its primacy allows for a natural procession into narrower definitions. An alternative might be:
Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Society, sports, and culture[edit]
How should the Nakba described?
Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
| This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.
A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented. I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names. It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year". B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates. There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024. The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century. C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates. Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it. In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that. D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system, switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900. E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era. The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch. — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?
Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting
| Should we include "motherfuckers" in this article? Three options: -- GreenC 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity
Should the lede sentence describe the nationality and ethnicity of the subject as:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues?
|
| Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn#Comparative_mythology, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
Noting the existence of the subsection Israel#Apartheid accusations in the body of the article, should the text that has been bolded below be added to the lead of this article? Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the implementation of policies that amount to apartheid, against the Palestinian people by human rights organizations and United Nations officials.starship.paint (RUN) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.
Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
| There is now a definitive court rulling regarding the records of this club, recognised today by the Romanian Football Federation, which will inform UEFA.
[10] [11] [12] [13] Should we update the Honours section of this article to reflect the correct and definitive records of this club? Gunnlaugson (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
| Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. (1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
| How should non-AL & NL leagues (namely late 19th century major leagues, 1914–1915 Federal League, and seven 1920–1948 Negro Major Leagues) be integrated (as previously agreed, in regards to the Federal League) into MLB season page infoboxes? Is my attempt a good solution or should it be different? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should a listing of Shostakovich's marriages with wedding and death/divorce years be included in the infobox? Please provide your choice of either Option 1 or Option 2 along with a brief statement explaining your choice in the "Survey" section below. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
| The RfC resolves primarily around whether the origin of the breed should be listed as Morocco or North Africa (or any alternative location). Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
| Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?
Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ Brill, E. J. (1993). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936. A - Bābā Beg. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-09787-2.
- ^ "ʿAbd al-Ḳādir b. Muḥyī l-Dīn". referenceworks. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Larousse, Éditions. "Abd el-Kader en arabe 'Abd al-Qādir ibn Muḥyī al-Dīn - LAROUSSE". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ ODA-2019-detailed-summary https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/ODA-2019-detailed-summary.pdf
- ^ Carson, Thomas; Bonk, Mary (1999). Gale encyclopedia of US economic history. Gale Group. pp. 467–469. ISBN 978-0-7876-3888-7.
- ^ Xypolia, Ilia (2022). Human Rights, Imperialism, and Corruption in US Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99815-8. ISBN 978-3-030-99815-8. S2CID 248384134.
- ^ Uzoigwe, Geoffrey (2019). "Neocolonialism Is Dead: Long Live Neocolonialism". Journal of Global South Studies. 36 (1). Springer: 59–87.
- ^ Turner, Louis (1974). "Multinational Companies and the Third World". The World Today. 30 (9). Royal Institute of International Affairs: 394–402.
- ^ Da Cruz, Jose; Stephens, Laura (2010). "THE U.S. AFRICA COMMAND (AFRICOM): BUILDING PARTNERSHIP OR NEO-COLONIALISM OF U.S.-AFRICA RELATIONS?". Journal of Third World Studies. 27 (2): 193–213.
- ^ Tegegne, Yalemzewd (2024). "Neo-colonialism: a discussion of USA activities in the Horn of Africa". Cogent Arts & Humanities. 11 (1).
- ^ Nwosu, Francis (2023). "MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND NEO-COLONIALISM IN AFRICA". Awka Journal of International Relations. 1 (1).
- ^ Garten, Jeffrey (1997). "Business and Foreign policy" (PDF). Foreign Affairs. 76 (3).
- ^ Rosenburg, Emily (1994). "Economic interest and United States foreign policy". American Foreign Relations Reconsidered. Routledge.
- ^ Fordham, Benjamin (1998). "Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy". International Organization. 52 (2).
- ^ Magdoff, Harry (1968). The Age of Imperialism: The Economics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Monthly Review Press.
- ^ Hunt, Michael (1987). Ideology and U. S. Foreign Policy. Yale University.
- ^ Brill, E. J. (1993). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936. A - Bābā Beg. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-09787-2.
- ^ "ʿAbd al-Ḳādir b. Muḥyī l-Dīn". referenceworks. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ Larousse, Éditions. "Abd el-Kader en arabe 'Abd al-Qādir ibn Muḥyī al-Dīn - LAROUSSE". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-05-21.
- ^ "The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Center for Constitutional Rights. October 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-10-12.
- ^ a b Bartov, Omer (10 November 2023). "Opinion | What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 18 December 2023. Retrieved 16 December 2023.
- ^ "0.9C IFAPA Almeria station". Retrieved 15 May 2024.
- ^ ODA-2019-detailed-summary https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/ODA-2019-detailed-summary.pdf
- ^ Carson, Thomas; Bonk, Mary (1999). Gale encyclopedia of US economic history. Gale Group. pp. 467–469. ISBN 978-0-7876-3888-7.
- ^ Xypolia, Ilia (2022). Human Rights, Imperialism, and Corruption in US Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99815-8. ISBN 978-3-030-99815-8. S2CID 248384134.
- ^ Uzoigwe, Geoffrey (2019). "Neocolonialism Is Dead: Long Live Neocolonialism". Journal of Global South Studies. 36 (1). Springer: 59–87.
- ^ Turner, Louis (1974). "Multinational Companies and the Third World". The World Today. 30 (9). Royal Institute of International Affairs: 394–402.
- ^ Da Cruz, Jose; Stephens, Laura (2010). "THE U.S. AFRICA COMMAND (AFRICOM): BUILDING PARTNERSHIP OR NEO-COLONIALISM OF U.S.-AFRICA RELATIONS?". Journal of Third World Studies. 27 (2): 193–213.
- ^ Tegegne, Yalemzewd (2024). "Neo-colonialism: a discussion of USA activities in the Horn of Africa". Cogent Arts & Humanities. 11 (1).
- ^ Nwosu, Francis (2023). "MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND NEO-COLONIALISM IN AFRICA". Awka Journal of International Relations. 1 (1).
- ^ Garten, Jeffrey (1997). "Business and Foreign policy" (PDF). Foreign Affairs. 76 (3).
- ^ Rosenburg, Emily (1994). "Economic interest and United States foreign policy". American Foreign Relations Reconsidered. Routledge.
- ^ Fordham, Benjamin (1998). "Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy". International Organization. 52 (2).
- ^ Magdoff, Harry (1968). The Age of Imperialism: The Economics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Monthly Review Press.
- ^ Hunt, Michael (1987). Ideology and U. S. Foreign Policy. Yale University.
- ^ https://freedomhouse.org/country/cyprus/freedom-world/2022
- ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13608746.2024.2304445
- ^ https://www.cyprusprofile.com/page/country-information/politics?lang=en
- ^ https://theconversation.com/cyprus-what-is-elam-the-far-right-nationalist-party-seeking-success-after-the-demise-of-golden-dawn-165639
- ^ https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-hard-right-conservatives-reformists-cyprus-election/
- ^ Balz, Dan (January 6, 2024). "Three years after Jan. 6 attack, the political divide is even wider". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
Three years on, there is no escaping the impact on American politics of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Other issues will significantly influence the 2024 presidential election, but few define more clearly the contrasts, stakes and choice that will face voters in November than Jan. 6.
- ^ Easley, Cameron (January 5, 2024). "Jan. 6 Is Looming Larger for Voters' 2024 Decision". Morning Consult. Archived from the original on January 31, 2024. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
- ^ Fisher, Marc; Flynn, Meagan; Contrera, Jessica; Loennig, Carol D. (January 7, 2021). "The four-hour insurrection: How a Trump mob halted American democracy". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved April 14, 2024.
The attack, which some historians called the most severe assault on the Capitol since the British sacked the building in 1814
- ^ "The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Center for Constitutional Rights. October 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-10-12.