There has been some discussion about how to create/maintain articles on civil parishes in England. There has been discussion on having a bot create the articles but this hasn't yet been done due to not having the code or consensus (generating a code for this is needed so if anyone can that would be appreciated). Although this RFC is mainly aimed at page creation it does also talk about how the data can be added/maintained to existing articles. Previous discussions at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 79#Civil parish bot and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160#Civil parish bot. The 1st, 2nd and 3 (which will probably simply be "no") questions relate to civil parishes, namely their creation/maintenance and if they should be split or merged. The 4th and 5th aren't that relevant here but are related to how to handle other places and their notability so answering these questions isn't so important but please feel free to try to answer then to. Note that I have removed NOMIS due to that fact that its boundaries shown seem to be inaccurate but if you look at this version you can see the boundaries since it the maps are better than City Population De's. Please answer each question in its section and make other comments in the "Discussion" section. My !votes are already on the user page but yours should go here. @PamD, Acabashi, Amakuru, SilkTork, Redrose64, Spike 'em, Headbomb, DannyS712, Keith D, and Rodw: who have made significant contributions, please feel free to ping anyone else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The houses should be changed to "castle" for greater significance to the original context. Secondly, the assumptions should be avoided and it should be limited to what he wrote in his journal. The article itself says that it can't be a precise location of the Babri Masjid. Writing it regardless of its absence in the very source would confuse the readers. Lastly, the entire quotation about the 'castle' should be included and should not be cherry-picked. Jenos450 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
According to a BBC article, the US government described the MEK as a "Cult", with one US colonel saying "the organisation was a cult", and yet another retired US general saying "Cult? How about admirably focused group?". United States Department of State describes MEK in a 2008 report as "cult-like terrorist organisation". Iraq's ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaidaie, said in 2011 that the MEK was "nothing more than a cult". Some academics, including Ervand Abrahamian, Stephanie Cronin, Wilfried Buchta, Eli Clifton and others have also made similar claims. Former French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal criticized the MEK for having a "cult nature"; while Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that he was "ashamed" by this statement.
A report commissioned by the US government, based on interviews within Camp Ashraf, concluded that the MEK had "many of the typical characteristics of a cult, such as authoritarian control, confiscation of assets, sexual control (including mandatory divorce and celibacy), emotional isolation, forced labour, sleep deprivation, physical abuse and limited exit options". In 2003 Elizabeth Rubin referred to the MEK as "Cult of Rajavi".Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a dispute about changes in origin section particularly related to derogatory words used here and also the origin image?
The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among the historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of a mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.
Thus, modern scholars summarise that Rajputs were a "group of open status" since the eighth century, mostly illiterate warriors who claimed to be reincarnates of ancient Indian Kshatriyas – a claim that had no historical basis.
Folks these sentences have been disputed by the litigant Mr. Sajaypal007 while me and LukeEmily are agreed on keeping present version. The litigant may rise another sentences they are not in agreement with. Thanks
Heba Aisha (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
There's an edit war happening at this article by editors who are not participating in any discussion despite repeated requests. The last revert happened right after this RfC was opened (still no participation, only revert). Aditya(talk • contribs)19:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The last stable consensused revision of the page is this. As may be read on above talk, a few controversial edits has been introduced. Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania, without taking sides. A user removed the significant Romanian population and took sides, claiming significant would not be neutral, at the same time added the Hitchins quote copied from the earlier mentioned article, which is exactly reflecting the neutral approach based on the two censuses, not taking sides. Is really significant not an appropriate description? Or should be write instead near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians? Or we should just refer it like in the Hungary in World War II article like a total population of 2,578,100 divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (depending on the census, cf. Second Vienna Award)?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Lately, I have been arguing with editors, Joker0002710 and Mattia332, over whether Nicholas II should be characterized as a "good ruler" in the lead. In light of the sources I've cited as well as the overwhelming evidence set forth in the article, it is my position that such a description is a minority viewpoint which should not be used to sum up assessments of his reign recently made after the Soviet Union's fall. If the consensus among Wikipedia's Community is that this view should be included, I'll yield the argument. However, it seems very inappropriate to do so given the existing consensus on Nicholas's reign. Emiya1980 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
However, this is controversial, given that most sources give the titles as '...Quarry'. The purpose of this RfC is to attempt to gain a consencus on what title capitalisation should be used for quarries.
Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least, [1] and based on these sources? -Darouet (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Question: What should we do with the paragraph that says that the American revolution was an inspiration to the French Revolution, currently in the lede?
Good evening all,
I have come across a paragraph discussing the American revolution as a precursor or inspiration to the French Revolution. At first the suspect paragraph was in the lede, which I have now moved to the causes sections, as it seems more appropriate.
In doing so, I reviewed the sources involved for this paragraph, and found them to be lacking. In particular, these two claims are using rather unconvincing, and I'm uncertain of their veracity. Acebulf (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2020 (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.
