Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
Should we add Rowling's comments on India Willoughby from March 2024 to the end of the second paragraph of views -> transgender people before the paragraph as a whole is rewritten? I am proposing that we (only) add a short summary of the fact she did misgender Willoughby on Twitter and a short quote of one of the comments she made (see examples I have proposed elsewhere in this talk page). It would have a maximum length of two sentences. Subsequent developments after her comments themselves (police report etc) would not be included. The comments Rowling made on Willoughby in March are separate from those made on several transgender people including Willoughby on April Fools' Day. I'm almost certain her comments in March were the first times Rowling publicly misgendered a trans person. This would not include Rowling's additional recent comments on trans people in Nazi Germany, or other recent (separate) topics related to her views on trans people. 13tez (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors. The conversation about changing Ariana's photo seems to be going nowhere. From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be any decisions being made but constant edit warring, so I thought starting an RFC would be the best course of action. There are so many images available so I am unsure why this has become a problem but hopefully this speeds things along. Comment below which photo you think the article should to change to and feel free to comment on why! Maxwell King123321 01:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
As this talk page shows, there has been an intractable debate on whether the subject should be described as Greek (or Albanian etc) and what spelling his name should have and connected questions. This RfC hopes to solve this issue. The issues are as follows:
How should the subject of the article be named?
Is the Albanian-language version of his name necessary or appropriate?
What prominence should be given to the Albanian-language version of his name?
Is it appropriate to describe him in the lead as Greek?
Should the lead say, (a) RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, (b) RFK Jr. promotes conspiracy theories, or (c) avoid both terms in describing his views. TFD (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing impasse as to who should be listed as the founders for Tesla Inc. One argument states that only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning should be designated as the founders because they originally incorporated the company which ultimately became Tesla Inc. Another argument states that Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J.B. Straubel should also be included as founders because a lawsuit settlement agreement stipulated that they should be designated as "co-founders". Bearing this in mind, which figures (if any) should be listed as founders in the infobox section? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The question is whether or not to add the following section, named "Controversy", to the article:
There have been allegations that LiveJasmin, a brand of JWS Americas S.à r.l., which is a subsidiary of "Duodecad IT Services" (part of "Docler Holding")[1][2][3][4], is offering cam model work to models in countries where this job is illegal[5], like the Philippines[6][7] and Russia[8][5]
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication[9] reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, relating to model arrests in Uganda, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda".[10] The article was authored by Luc Caregari[11], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg.
For more background, see discussion threads above as well as initial comments on my talk page User_talk:Alexfotios. Alexfotios (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Is the current title NPOV? (Edit, change to POV from NPOV since all the answers are the other way about) If not, what would be an appropriate title? Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the alternative spelling Sulayman Beg and the mention of the presence of a Turkmen minority be included in the article?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in the lead, that the governor general is described as Canada's de facto head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ?
If so, could this draft work ?
In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[1][2][3][4][5][6]The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[7]BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[8]El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[9]The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[10]CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[11]Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
An IP user added a description like 'geographiclly located in Northern Europe' in the lede. (1, 2, 3, 4) I think it violates "Lithuania solution", the consensus which is made in the previous talk. (#RfC - The geographic locale of Estonia) I request other users' opinions for this issue. Do you support or oppose to add this description? 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi editors, this is regarding wether the article should include the quote from Zhou Qufei, Lingwai Daida or not. The history of the quote has been disputed on the talk page, since there are no consensus between Merzostin and Nitekuzee, RfC seems to be the best course of action. In light of the source and evidence, it should be determined wether to:
There are several editors in disagreement about how to state the result of the battle. Which option fits best? (Options picked from all previous main-space versions of the result section)
There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.
Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.
Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.
Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.
Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The Royal House of the Medieval Cholas has been disputed in This discussion. @Pikachu 9988 has suggested that the imperial Cholas originate from the Pottappi branch. This has been challenged by other users. This has been a subject of various edit wars on related articles. Reviving this discussion for consensus. SKAG123 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As this talk page shows, there has been an intractable debate on whether the subject should be described as Greek (or Albanian etc) and what spelling his name should have and connected questions. This RfC hopes to solve this issue. The issues are as follows:
How should the subject of the article be named?
Is the Albanian-language version of his name necessary or appropriate?
What prominence should be given to the Albanian-language version of his name?
Is it appropriate to describe him in the lead as Greek?
With regard to WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and current academic consensus, should the article present the Reconquista as a matter of historical fact at face value or as historiographical narrative?
This has been a perennial discussion (such as here), and the article would benefit from some stabilizing, somewhat binding consensus. I am hoping for robust engagement with the latest scholarship and the most reliable sources. إيان (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the alternative spelling Sulayman Beg and the mention of the presence of a Turkmen minority be included in the article?--Ermanarich (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Should Tifinagh transcriptions be included in articles relating to Morocco following the proposal set forth in the WikiProject's previous talk page discussion? NAADAAN (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki.
The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome?
If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research. Example of non-medical information: Financial compensation from Havana Act[12] and [13].
b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals? Examples of government reports: [14] and [15].
c) For medical information in this article: does WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article? Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example, when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source). Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source: [16] and [17]
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.
Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.
Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.
Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.
Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors. The conversation about changing Ariana's photo seems to be going nowhere. From what I can see, there doesn't seem to be any decisions being made but constant edit warring, so I thought starting an RFC would be the best course of action. There are so many images available so I am unsure why this has become a problem but hopefully this speeds things along. Comment below which photo you think the article should to change to and feel free to comment on why! Maxwell King123321 01:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Is the current title NPOV? (Edit, change to POV from NPOV since all the answers are the other way about) If not, what would be an appropriate title? Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.
Specifically, I propose that the current version "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." be replaced with "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 crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I would like to restart a previous RfC on calling the operation a Hamas victory in the infobox. In the interim, multiple other sources ([1], [2]) have supported this position. No consensus was reached in the past RfC however I think the decision then was erroneous. Most of the opponents had no compelling arguments except essentially appeals to emotion that the attacks were "terrorist" and that it would somehow be immoral to call "terrorists" winners. That RfC was further tainted by an e-mail canvassing situation. I believe that the closer erred in his judgement of no consensus.
The operation should be called a Hamas victory.
The operation should be called an Israeli victory.
Should it be mentioned in the lead, that the governor general is described as Canada's de facto head of state? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
What should the result section of the infobox say? Leaving out some possible options here, other suggestions are also welcome.
Iranian operational failure. This appears to be the widely reported conclusion. 99% of the aerial objects have been reportedly intercepted, without any Israeli casualties and only minor damage sustained at one airbase.
Iranian partial operational failure. Another similar result, with partial for minor impact.
Successful Israeli defense. An alternative
Israeli Victory. Another alternative
Iranian Victory. Since Iran claimed victory
Discuss. Ecrusized (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
On replacing neo-fascism with post-fascism in the ideology section of the info box (both are in the lede). Please read RfC2 and the below post, which is effectively option 4. SUPPORT/OPPOSE for option 4 but wider discussion is welcome and needed.
There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.
Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.
Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.
Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.
Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research. Example of non-medical information: Financial compensation from Havana Act[12] and [13].
b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals? Examples of government reports: [14] and [18].
c) For medical information in this article: does WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article? Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example, when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source). Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source: [16] and [17]
Should we add Rowling's comments on India Willoughby from March 2024 to the end of the second paragraph of views -> transgender people before the paragraph as a whole is rewritten? I am proposing that we (only) add a short summary of the fact she did misgender Willoughby on Twitter and a short quote of one of the comments she made (see examples I have proposed elsewhere in this talk page). It would have a maximum length of two sentences. Subsequent developments after her comments themselves (police report etc) would not be included. The comments Rowling made on Willoughby in March are separate from those made on several transgender people including Willoughby on April Fools' Day. I'm almost certain her comments in March were the first times Rowling publicly misgendered a trans person. This would not include Rowling's additional recent comments on trans people in Nazi Germany, or other recent (separate) topics related to her views on trans people. 13tez (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
In the RfC that this guideline is based on, it seems to be taken for granted that endorsements by notable individuals that are not covered by reliable and independent sources fail the inclusion criteria, but endorsements by notable organizations inherently merit inclusion. Somebody raised this important point in a prior RfC but received no meaningful answer. Here's a more airtight example:
Geert Wilders tweets his endorsement of Christine Chandler for her reelection. No journalists cover it, so we do not mention it.
The Party for Freedom, of whom Wilders is the sole member, endorses Chandler in a press release on their website. It is inherently reliable and therefore included because the PVV is a group.
So why the double standard? 97.155.100.43 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussions on whether or not the language used by Elissa Slotkin should be used in the article when she said:
"For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived. As someone who used to negotiate international agreements, I know that no one should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I hope the UAW and the Big Three continue to negotiate in good faith to reach a fair agreement as quickly as possible."
There has been a lot of contention over the meaning of this quote, with many saying it is anti-union and some saying it is pro-union or mundane. There has also been a debate over many of the sources that have been used quoting her as being anti-union, many of which are deemed reputable by Wikipedia (although there are debates over biases). Considering this, should this quote be characterized or partially included on the article? OrcaLord (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Does this source comply with WP:SYNTH is so far as its use in the ideology section of the infobox to label the party conservative? Helper201 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the lead say, (a) RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, (b) RFK Jr. promotes conspiracy theories, or (c) avoid both terms in describing his views. TFD (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles about religious organizations often contain a “beliefs” section that describes the beliefs and practices of the organization and its members. Is About Self sourcing on the organization’s beliefs or practices acceptable as Reliable Sourcing when the information is derived directly from the religious organization or published by an employee or member of the organization irrespective of whether secondary sourcing is available? This RfC assumes that all other Wikipedia editing policies are observed. ~~~~ Meta Voyager (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Which photo should we use for Trump for the infobox & article:
Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.
There is currently an edit dispute on whether Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of states that will likely not receive polling in the 2024 presidential election or have not been polled yet.
Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.
Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.
Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.
Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead section first sentence says "The bridge was", in past tense. Should the first sentence be in past tense (Support past tense); or in present tense (Oppose past tense)? -- GreenC 19:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Should Tifinagh transcriptions be included in articles relating to Morocco following the proposal set forth in the WikiProject's previous talk page discussion? NAADAAN (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Should Female finishers be recorded separately for the Barkley Marathons?
A number of related questions have come up on this article in the past few days due to Jasmin Paris recently becoming the first woman to complete the Barkley Marathons. Most sporting events keep stats separately based on gender but the Barkley Marathons don't make this distinction as they aren't part of any kind of larger organization or used as qualifiers for anything.
It's important to note that the table originally came from a discussion on labeling her time as the "slowest finish", a metric often recorded for fixed time races but could be seen as demeaning the first woman to finish the race to outsiders. Input on that subject is also appreciated. PyropePe (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the Bokator article mention "The martial art is believed to be the precursor of all forms of kickboxing present in the former provinces of the Khmer empire, namely Kun Khmer in Cambodia, Muay Lao in Laos and Muay Thai in Thailand"? The discussion in the talk page with Gandtha seems to be going nowhere and the aggressivity([12]) is increasing, while the reverts keep on going. Previous consensus on the matter has been reached on the talk page of Muay Thai[13], it was decided not to include contentious journalistic sources but only academic sources. For context regarding the reference (book) cited in the talk page, Bokator led to Muay Korat which led to Muay Boran which itself led to Muay Thai. Pierrevang3 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2024 (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.
Option A (Current infobox image)
Option B
Option C
Option D.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
