The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Talk:PNS Ghazi
| I'm not sure how the ship articles are treated... do transferred ships have different articles for services with the two navies or are split on normal reasons of articles being long? I think the history with US Navy can be accounted for in the same article. Better to have a single article and take it to GA status? Propose merging the article about the same submarine for its service with the US Navy, USS Diablo (SS-479), here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Template talk:Music of Canada
Template talk:Intellectual property activism
| Some users have suggested (e.g. in this merger TfD) that this template be cleaned up, but no one as yet has stated the specifics. So let's have a discussion. What should be kept here, what should be removed. 178.37.150.228 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
Seeing as though my previous post didn't get any attention in a week, I'm making an RfC. I still believe that nobody should be listed in this section unless their discussion as a possible running mate to Romney has been specifically mentioned in a reliable source, and that source is cited. Christie, Rubio and McDonnell are currently unsourced, and Trump's sources aren't the best, as I pointed out above. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations
Talk:Pakistan
| There has been discussion on whether mentioning of Pakistan as a "failed state" is undue. Past discussions show one prominent report that describes it as such. Prior discussions have been inconclusive, and the issue is up for discussion again. Lynch7 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012
| Should the story regarding alleged assault of a Ron Paul supporter by Newt Gingrich's security personnel be included in this article? Location (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:7 World Trade Center
Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
| Following a very long discussion (and straw poll) above, the question here is whether to include Dan Savage's "Spreading santorum" website at www.spreadingsantorum.com as an external link for this page. Some people believe that it is a BLP violation, while others reject that view and believe that it is a proper EL and even belongs here per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The following represents a summation of the opposing views...
Argument for inclusion: The site is the official site of the subject of the article (the campaign) and is discussed in the text as central to the article's subject. A reader of the article is likely to seek out the site as a further method of inquiry, which is the purpose of including an external link. While WP:BLP applies to some extent, it is not a justification for removing or curtailing coverage of well-sourced, notable, neutrally-presented criticism of a public figure. Our obligation to consider harm extends only to making sure the article is fair and neutral, not to abandon WP:NPOV by adopting Santorum's interests as our own. Our personal opinion of the campaign is not relevant; we provide external links to many other sites that we would never "promote" and are deeply offensive to many, including ones which feature personal attacks. Our NOFOLLOW tags in outgoing links mean our inclusion will not affect page ranking, and what other sites that mirror our content choose to do is not within our control.
Argument against inclusion: WP:BLP requires us to consider the harm done to living persons by the content of Wikipedia. In this case, providing a link is inherently non-neutral because it involves participation in a campaign to attack an individual. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and the consequence of including the link is to increase both traffic to the site and possibly to keep it on top of search engine rankings for a longer time, because we know our mirrors do not necessarily use NOFOLLOW. We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum. In comparison to this significant harm, including the link would result in only trivial benefit to the article at best. A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the already incorporated but non-hyperlinked URL or searching for it in Google. The site itself is merely vulgar insult and personal opinion, and therefore not an important information resource. It is its existence, rather than its content, that is important to the article. 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Romanians of Serbia
| There is a proposal and attempt to clarify, merge parts of and clean up the articles Romanians of Serbia and Vlachs of Serbia. If interested to help with the consolidation/clarification and/or if you want to make any suggestions, please do on there corresponding talk pages. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
| Should the section for "Suggested historical precedents" include the Reichstag Fire as a common comparison made by conspiracy theorists?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
| Should the article include the categories for denialism, pseudoscience, and/or pseudohistory?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Swiftboating
WP:NPOV, "Explanation of the neutral point of view", offers the following guidance...
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Is the characterization "smear", as applied to the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth campaign, a statement of "opinion" or is it a statement of "fact"? Comments on what criteria you have used and/or editors should consider in making such a determination would be helpful.
Opinion or Fact? 17:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Occupy Marines
| Occupy Marines is an article about a Facebook group of former US servicemen supporting Occupy protests in the US. I believe there has been a continuous problem on this article with misinterpretation of wikipedia policies on sourcing, as well as confusion between fact and opinion. The Raw Story article on Occupy Marines, is one example. Consulting WP:RSN archives, indicates that doubt about its reliability has been expressed for some time [1],[2] and more recently [3]. As a largely WP:SPS The Raw Story would appear to fail WP:RS. In addition, [4][5] it has been used to source speculation by its author, which does not qualify as encyclopedic content. The reasons justifying this include a consensus can decide a WP:SPS is reliable [6], it has survived an AfD, so it must be reliable [7]. It is also demanded that I prove the Raw Story is unreliable. I request external opinion on the interpretation of wikipedia's policy on this article, together with guidance for editors interested in the article to avoid the constant edit warring, WP:TAG, WP:PA and the general bickering that has plagued the article so far. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Communist Romania
| The fact that Romania was a satellite state of the USSR is constantly being removed from the article. Should the article state the obvious fact the Romania was a satellite state? Some sources. Communist terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965 pp244 Ceauşescu and the Securitate: coercion and dissent in Romania, 1965-1989 pp387 The American Past: A Survey of American History pp853 History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and disjunctures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Volume I pp29 The twentieth century world pp68
|
Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks
| An editor recently has removed from the article the fact that this attack was constantly updated during the attack. I realize of course this is quite normal for wiki, however the editing on this particular article appears to be quite notable, as such I feel it warrants a mention. We have at least three books mention it. [8][9][10] Along with some news outlets such as the Telegraph.
|
Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence
Support for domestic terrorists
The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[1] The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[2] Pakistan denies all such claims.[3][4][5] The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen.[6] The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[7][8] Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.[7]The ISI also helped with the founding of the group Jaish-e-Mohammed.[9] The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[10]
Which version should be retained in the article? (number 1) This all of which is sourced to the academic press, or (number 2) This one with all the reliably sourced content removed?
- (1) Reliably sourced content should be restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Swiftboating
| Should the article say in Wikipedia's voice that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a "political smear campaign" against John Kerry? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Talk:Palestine
Which map should be at the top of this article? Current options are:
Option 1
|
|
|
Feel free to add more options. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality
Request board
- This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.
|
|
|
| Articles |
Biographies (bio) • Economy, trade, and companies (econ) • History and geography (hist) • Language and linguistics (lang) • Maths, science, and technology (sci) • Media, the arts, and architecture (media) • Politics, government, and law (pol) • Religion and philosophy (reli) • Society, sports, and culture (soc)
|
|
| Non-articles |
|
|
| Instructions |
To add a discussion to this list:
- Use the RfC posting tool, or:
- Add the tag
{{rfc|pol}}. at the top of a talk page section.
- 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.
- To add an entry manually, see the request board.
|
|
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.
_showing_Israel%27s_1948_and_1967_borders.svg)
