Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017
|The longform election infobox does not have room for inclusion of all 13 candidates for the leadership and has therefore not been included in this article until a few days ago when an editor added it with the top 4 candidates according to polling. I have removed it since this was done without consensus. Is there consensus to re-include the infobox? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect
|Please indicate which version you believe better reflects reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidlines, and say why:
- Longer version here
- Shorter version here
Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:2017 Stockholm attack
|Should the dog that was killed in the attack be mentioned among casualties/fatalities in the body of the article?
I have chosen to start this RfC since the previous discussion about it (see Talk:2017 Stockholm attack/Archive 1#Pet dog) didn't lead to a clear consensus, and is "open to interpretation", as can be seen in the page history of the article, so to settle it once and for all (unless someone starts a new RfC at some later time...) please state your opinion below. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
|At least one undisputed and one potential concern with source reliability exist in our article W56 in the last sentence: "One warhead, owing to its use of high performance but high sensitivity PBX nearly experienced a high-explosive detonation with no nuclear yield in 2005 because an unsafe amount of pressure was applied to the non-insensitive high explosive while it was being disassembled.". More sources of information on the "W56 mishap" exist, one of which refers to the nuclear detonation hazard and to statements made by workers at the plant where W56 mishap happened. Which of these sources should be used to provide more nearly accurate coverage of this notable mishap, a danger common to all W56 warheads?. Thanks in advance! loupgarous (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:First Cameron ministry
|Debate has been raging over whether or not the title of this article is adequate for several years now. Most discussants have opposed the status quo in the past, mostly due to a lack of reliable sources supporting it and the fact that it's not the common name for the subject. The trouble is that editors have found it difficult to agree on a better name for this article. I proposed Cameron–Clegg coalition above, yet support for it failed to gain much traction. Indeed, the RM itself was mostly ignored until a couple of days ago. Nevertheless, I do believe there is consensus to rename this article, but rename it to what remains an open question. Here are a few alternatives that have been put forth, which all abide by the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Ministries:
- Cameron coalition ministry
- Cameron–Clegg coalition
- Cameron–Clegg coalition ministry
- Cameron–Clegg ministry
I have stated the case as to why I believe Cameron–Clegg coalition, given its popularity among reliable sources.--Nevé–selbert 18:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
|# Is this article broadly compliant with our BLP and neutrality policies?
- If not, what broad steps should be taken to correct the problem(s)?
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Plummer v. State
|Should the Internet meme section of the article be replaced with the following (between the three dash line on top and bottom):
Plummer v. State, along with Bad Elk v. United States, is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted. The misquote is that "“citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary" although the Plummer quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion. Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law, what one legal commenter stated was a "bizarre, irrational or merely grossly wrong understanding of law...." Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.
- ^ Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).
- ^ Robery Cubby, The Right to Resist An Unlawful Arrest, Law Enforcement Today (Dec. 10, 2014) (archived from the original).
- ^ Cubby (citing Paul Markel, Do You Have the Right to Resist an Unlawful Arrest? The Blaze (May 9, 2014)).
- ^ Cubby.
- ^ Scott H. Greenfield, Bored or Crazy, They're Us, Simple Justice (Feb. 21, 2013); Scott H. Greenfield, “Taser Joe” Martinez Meets The Line, Simple Justice (May 21, 2013); see also Richard G. Kopf, Swisher Sweets, Hercules and the Umpire (Aug. 16, 2014) (U.S. District Judge Kopf and several attorneys discuss Bad Elk in the comments).
- ^ Scott H. Greenfield, Curb Your Catharsis, Simple Justice (Sep. 16, 2013).
- ^ Andrew P. Wright, Resisting Unlawful Arrests: Inviting Anarchy or Protecting Individual Freedom? 46 Drake L. Rev. 383, 387-88 (1997) (covering the common law rule, but noting that as of publication, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests); see generally Darrell A.H. Miller, Retail Rebellion and the Second Amendment 86 Ind. L.J. 939, 953 (2011).
The above was revised based on comments from the initial RfC before I withdrew it to revise it based on the comments by the community. GregJackP Boomer! 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)
|Should al-Masdar be used as a source in this article? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups
|Should this listing of SPLC-designated hate groups include non-linked/non-notable organizations? – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
|Should information from Jeffrey Carr that conflicts with the CrowdStrike report and US government intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC (as detailed in the Miami Herald , Harper's , and Fortune ) be included in this article's section on "Cybersecurity analysis", and should information from the International Institute for Strategic Studies corroborating on CrowdStrike's credibility problems (described to Voice of America: ) be included as well? Adlerschloß (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
|The hatnote on this page previously read This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation). The hat note has been changed to This article is about the systematic murder or destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is also a page Genocides in history. Should we restore the original hatnote and treat this as a law article? (Talk page discussion is at the end of this section) Seraphim System (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:International Justice Mission
|Question: Should criticism of International Justice Mission stand in the Criticism section, or should it be incorporated throughout the article where appropriate?
Relisted, due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
|*Should the ethnicity/nationality of the men involved in these crimes be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede (as in this version) or further down in the lede (as in this version)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Brandishing a firearm
|Should this article exist as a standalone piece or should it be redirected to another article? KDS4444 (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|Should following be included in the article (sourced from the Daily Caller): He has also built mosques for Afghan soldiers and he funded the film The Stoning of Soraya. Seraphim System (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
|Should the opening sentence read:
(1) "Catalan Countries refers to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken", or
(2) "Catalan Countries is a term used by some sectors of Catalan nationalism referring to those territories where the Catalan language, or a variant of it, is spoken"?
Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
|Should the proposed lead section replace the current version? If not, what must be changed to make progress? — JFG talk 04:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Protests against Donald Trump
|There ha been an undergoing dispute regarding whether to mention the fact that the riots occurred in several cities or to mention the exact number of cities in place of the word several. Read the section Multiple cities to see the full discussion. TheBD2000 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Draft talk:US Presidents navbox
Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement
|Should the following content be added to the article (or something similar)?
- In 2016 Prince supported Republican candidate Donald Trump for President of the United States. Prince had no formal role in Trump's transition. In December 2016 Prince visited the transition team offices in New York. In April 2017 as part of a broader investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating a January 11, 2017 meeting in the Seychelles at which Prince presented himself as an unofficial representative of Trump.
For reference, here's an incomplete list of additional sources covering the same story: CBS News, NBC News, The Hill, Esquire, NY Daily News, Fox News, the AP, Boston Globe. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
|Is the opinion of Yad Vashem chief historian Dina Porat about Al-Husseini role in Holocaust of UNDUE weight for the Holocaust section of Al-Husseini article?Tritomex (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
|Should the Introduction paragraph continue to display a reference source from Encyclopedia Judaica (reference source citation ) when it was taken down by the website, and is a dead link (currently retained by use of Wayback Machine). Also, should the same reference source citation display the entire paragraph from the encyclopedia?
Full statement reads, as it is currently displayed in the WP article's reference citation:
Encyclopedia Judaica. Retrieved 5 October 2015. Haller's army ("Blue Army"), force of Polish volunteers organized in France during the last year of World War I, responsible for the murder of Jews and anti-Jewish pogroms in Galicia and the Ukraine… Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them. In 1920, during the Polish offensive toward Kiev resulting from the Pilsudski-Petlyura alliance, anti-Jewish pogroms occurred in the region.
- Remove - entirely
- Keep - but remove the excessive quotation of the entire paragraph
- Keep - entirely
--E-960 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:John Fleming (American politician)
|There was lengthy discussion in 2012/13 regarding a brief posting of a link to a satire site (The Onion) on Congressman Fleming's Facebook page. Though it was never determined whether Fleming or a staff member actually posted the link, it was reported as one of many accidental references to satirical sites by politicians, editors and news anchors. Ultimately it was determined that it was not suitable for the article and has been deleted since then. There has been no further disclosures or incidents, but a single editor has posted it again to the article creating a disagreement as to whether it would improve the article when no new information or incidents have been reported. I request comment from other editors as to whether the new posting of the same information from 2012 should be re-added to the article.Tomuchtalk (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
|Should the article contain material about the current (2016–2017) political situation in the United States? – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017
|Should this list exclude incidents of demolition of homes built without permit? 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)