Please comment on three related proposals below which are intended to fix a long running structural problem. Currently we have two primary articles on this conflict which (a) cover two separate strands of the conflict, so neither provides a thorough overview, (b) begin in 1948 on the creation of Israel as opposed to the actual beginning of the conflict in 1917-1920, and (c) exclude certain facets of the conflict such as the Iranian involvement. The three proposals below will solve this problem for good. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[1][2]" Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute over how to deal with an editorial argument in the subsection on the recent AAU report. Specifically, the section presents a statistic that most people who experienced a sexual assault who did not report the incident said that they did so because they "did not believe it was serious enough to report". It then presents this argument from an editorial by Stuart Taylor jr.: "Stuart Taylor, writing for the Washington Post, remarked "This most plausible explanation is that most of those classified by the survey as “victims” of sexual assault or rape did not really think that they had been sexually assaulted."" The question is over where/whether to include Taylor's comment, and over whether or not it is appropriate to note, in that section, statements from past research that challenge arguments similar to the one made by Taylor regarding the AAU study. A few solutions that have been proposed are:
1. Leave the entry as is, or use a similar argument from a different editorial such as this one by Emily Yoffe.
2. Move the quote and statistic to a separate subsection that addresses the causes of non-reporting, while also discussing past research on non-reporting, and the "not serious enough to report" response, and the criticisms voiced by people like Taylor.
3. Leave Taylor's argument where it is, but also cite past research that disputes Taylor's argument within the AAU section.
Please use the section below for comments. Nblund (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?
Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section.
A user has added Catalonia is defined as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy. The Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia used the term "nation" before being modified by the Spanish Constitutional Court. I don't think it's correct to say Catalonia is defined as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy, but he doesn't let me change it. How could you solve this? — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Is Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio sufficiently notable in her own right to have a separate article in Wikipedia?
Comments
No - Her notability as a former cheerleader of the Dallas Cowboys is not notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. Her notability emanates solely for being married to Marco Rubio, and as such the article should be merged and redirected there. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input, since the discussion below, this, this and the related discussion at Talk:Woman indicate that wider input is needed. My commentary below is the older commentary. The RfC concerns whether or not to expand the guideline that was formed via this discussion to cover all topics about large human populations. Some editors also wonder whether the guideline should only focus on lead images. I will alert the WP:Image use policy talk page and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Request for comments on the paragraph "Notably, the tenets of those operations attempting to make Poles, not Germans, responsible for the genocide, still live in the hearts of some politicians including John Mann, the recipient of the Jan Karski Award, who in his interview for the Jewish Chronicle.com proclaimed, without mentioning the 3 million Polish Jews murdered by the Germans in Poland, that Poles were the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and that claiming victimhood by Poland is a "revisionist angle" similar to that of Lithuania and Latvia.", or similar ones, being added by user:Poeticbent with a citation link to an article by John Mann in the Jewish Chronicle [1] called "Europe must focus on Baltic hate". The "operations" referred to are those by ex-Nazi secret service police after WWII mentioned in the section "Operations to whitewash German responsibility for WWII". To me this paragraph seems like original research, POV and are not in the cited source. Rapido (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Should the lead include statements comparing with "after a full term" instances of elections after 4 years of a max 5 year term? etc DrArsenal (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Should flag icons, where available, be used for the rump militias involved in this, as per other civil conflict infoboxes such as Waco Siege?
Survey
YesMaybeYes - This provides an easy reading reference which is why we generally do it in most articles. To vaguely say "militias" obfuscates the details of this situation to the detriment of readers. Inclusion of icons, as well as specific names of groups and wikilinks, should be done whenever possible (I created the article on the involved extremist group 3 Percenters specifically after writing the Malheur incident article, in fact). If we delete any flags, I would support deleting all flags per Cwobeel and MOS Flags, but not one side or the other. LavaBaron (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
When I originally created this article I used the term "rump militia" in lieu of "militia" (the specific term used by news sources) to provide just a basic level of clarification for our non-American readers that these were not governmental military units. "Rump militia" has wider historic, geographical usage as a term indicating non state-sanctioned paramilitary groups and is often specifically invoked in specialist and lay observer circles to refer to groups associated with the militia movement in the United States and differentiate from the National Guard and State Defense Forces, the latter of which sometimes specifically also use the word "militia" in their names. Recently, IP editors have started changing this to "civilian militia" throughout the article, contending "rump militia" displays bias. What term should be used?
I've gone ahead and turned this poll into a WP:RfC. The WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include regarding Lawrence's ties to the 2014 celebrity photo hack. For more information regarding the dispute, see the discussion above on the article talk page. I will alert the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this poll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Can descriptions of certain countries' laws or policies, carried by generalist publications such as newspapers, which do not describe such practices as ethnocracy (or even mention ethnocracy), be included in the specific sections related to those countries, or does this violate WP:SYNTH? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:
"Today, in most of the Islamic world, homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted."
To:
"Prejudice remains, both socially (edit: or) and legally, in most of the Islamic world against people who engage in homosexual acts."
Beyond a problem of a clear generalization being presented in regard to LGBT people not being "socially accepted", the issue here, that has already received a lengthy introduction in the previous two paragraphs, is one of prejudice. As the next sentence clearly demonstrates, the issue may frequently be a matter of life and death.
In other Wikipedia articles such as those on the treatment of Jews, gypsies and black people in WWII Germany, and article would not merely say that these people were "not ... accepted" not least because that would not be true. Wikipedia even present: Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust. People in such circumstances were taken into homes, hidden, protected and certainly accepted. In a similar way it seems to me that Wikipedia goes too far with its unsubstantiated claim that "homosexuality is not socially ... accepted" "in most of the Islamic world". As with all similar issues, it depends on the extent of their prejudice of the people concerned.
Can we generate consensus for the addition of the honorific prefix of "The Honorable" on the articles of the United States Presidents? 1. Should we add them in the first place? 2. Should we keep them on ALL US presidents, or just the living ones? 3. Should it be boldened? CatcherStormtalk 06:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC tag was removed from the previous discussion due to the AfD discussion, which resulted as "kept". The title dispute shall be revisited now that the content issue is resolved. According to the closing rationale of the previous discussion, the title must not be implied as a successor to Cold War. As asked previously, does the title accurately reflect the content? If not, what alternative title do you propose? --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Should use of all of |name=, |official name=, and |settlement type= be required for all Canadian cities? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (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.
