How should Jared Taylor's views on Trump's racial beliefs be reflected in the article:
Option 1: "Taylor has said that he doesn't believe Trump is an white supremacist or a "secret race realist." Saying that he thinks Trump has "healthy reactions" to legal and illegal immigration and that Trump's racial views make him a better alternative than his political opponents."
Option 2: Propose what you think would be appropriate.
In the previous discussion, one or more users recommended starting an RFC. The proposed image is:You're of course free to propose other images, or vote for the one already in the infobox. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the following sub-section be added as Gender stereotyping?
In 2016 British clothing brand Jacamo, owned by N Brown Group, was accused of gender stereotyping after posting an advert on Twitter showing a model next to a "real man". Aldous criticised the advert publicly and stated he thought the advert was "homophobic". His criticism was widely reported. He explained his position: "I feel like I am constantly trying to be shoved into a category that I do not want to be in, I feel like I should have to like football, not like the colour pink, shouldn’t dye my hair and should have a girlfriend because I'm a man."
This discussion has been going on long enough. This article currently documents Tufekci's comments and her arguments for why the shooting is indicative of a Second Gilded Age. Should these comments be included, and how?
Option A: Keep Tufekci's comments, but provide other academic sources disputing her claims (please provide).
Option B: Keep her comments. (status quo)
Option C: Remove her comments.
Option D: Remove the Academic Commentators section entirely, along with her comments. (as of the current revision, there is no longer an Academic Commentators section)
This discussion has been going on long enough. This article currently documents Tufekci's comments and her arguments for why the shooting is indicative of a Second Gilded Age. Should these comments be included, and how?
Option A: Keep Tufekci's comments, but provide other academic sources disputing her claims (please provide).
Option B: Keep her comments. (status quo)
Option C: Remove her comments.
Option D: Remove the Academic Commentators section entirely, along with her comments. (as of the current revision, there is no longer an Academic Commentators section)
According to the historian 'Abd al-Wahid al-Marrakushi, Abd al-Mu'min was born in Tagra near Tlemcen during the reign of Yusuf ibn Tashfin, [1] which is consistent with the historical events of that time, as the Almoravids took control of Tlemcen around the year 1081,[2] and The Almoravid Mosque of Algiers was built in 1097, one year after the birth of Abd al-Mu'min, which indicates that the Hammadid borders did not extend beyond Algiers and that's why I ask editors to decide between:
Abd al-Mu'min was born during the Almoravid era
Abd al-Mu'min was born during the reign of the Hammadid dynasty.
There is ongoing disagreement among editors about which landmarks should be included in the lead image montage of the Perth article. This RFC seeks community input on how best to determine which landmarks are most appropriate or representative for inclusion. The dispute revolves around three landmarks:
Please indicate which option you support, and feel free to suggest modifications or alternative combinations. - PastelLilac (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?:
Yes Example opening sentence:The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. or equivalent (new proposed version)
No Example opening sentence:According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war. (previous stable version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the entry for the United States in the table note that the modern-day territory of the United States is much larger than the one it had at independence? Glide08 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Currently the lede states:The 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a formation of the National Guard of Ukraine.
RFC question: Should the first sentence in the lede be changed toThe 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a far-right formation of the National Guard of Ukraine?
In the previous discussion, one or more users recommended starting an RFC. The proposed image is:You're of course free to propose other images, or vote for the one already in the infobox. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
From what I’ve seen for a few months now, the map currently in use is incredibly outdated, and something needs to be done about it. I’ll leave the following two options I suggested here below; Zabezt (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on long enough. This article currently documents Tufekci's comments and her arguments for why the shooting is indicative of a Second Gilded Age. Should these comments be included, and how?
Option A: Keep Tufekci's comments, but provide other academic sources disputing her claims (please provide).
Option B: Keep her comments. (status quo)
Option C: Remove her comments.
Option D: Remove the Academic Commentators section entirely, along with her comments. (as of the current revision, there is no longer an Academic Commentators section)
I added [3] the Punjabi IPA for the name 'Jhelum', as per how it's pronounced in Punjabi, which has been done previously on articles (Pakistani and non-Pakistani article alike). This has been reverted [4] by both @MSLQr and @SheriffIsInTown who believe that only the IPA of the national language, in this case Urdu, should be included.
In short, the question is should the Punjabi spelling and IPA be included in this article, the native tongue of the city? نعم البدل (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Which phrase should be used: "retired English actor" or "English retired actor"? The former follows the linguistic rule that age should come before origin (see Adjective#Order). Other editors are claiming this adjective order implies that the actor has retired from being English. Barry Wom (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
On 22 April 2025 (02:19) I updated the article Implicational propositional calculus. A few hours later the update was reverted with the argument that "I am missing the whole point which is to avoid using falsum in the formulas". Could a third party please verify that claim.
Aside from that, in my opinion the article needs substantial improvements:
The article should highlight that implicational calculus — with — adequately covers classical logic, but does not suffice for full intuitionistic logic, where conjunction () and disjunction () are essential, rather than merely syntactic sugar. This important distinction should not be overlooked.
As to the sections,
The section Completeness is either undocumented or based on (forbidden) original research. The reader loses track in the midst of formal derivations.
The section The Bernays–Tarski axiom system should either be relocated to the article List of axiomatic systems in logic or better justified in context. Highlighting one alternative among a plethora of axiom systems appears arbitrary and lacks relevance to the broader purpose of the article.
The section Adding an axiom schema illustrates that adding non-tautologies —think of a bare propositional variable — as axioms makes the system inconsistent. This is a trivial point and comes across as unprofessional. The section should be removed.
The section An alternative axiomatization is undocumented and lacks references. Without a proper citation, it appears to be original research and should either be sourced or omitted.
There is ongoing disagreement among editors about which landmarks should be included in the lead image montage of the Perth article. This RFC seeks community input on how best to determine which landmarks are most appropriate or representative for inclusion. The dispute revolves around three landmarks:
Please indicate which option you support, and feel free to suggest modifications or alternative combinations. - PastelLilac (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
With lack of guidance from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, should the page include the month and year shows were reported as being in development in sortable list format as in this version ? Some context is that there is an informal practice to remove shows from that list when there has been no update in about three years. newsjunkie (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
In the previous discussion, one or more users recommended starting an RFC. The proposed image is:You're of course free to propose other images, or vote for the one already in the infobox. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Should we add Square Enix's (the game's publisher) comments that Forspoken's sales were "lacklustre" to the lead? The proposed wording is to add "Square Enix described the game's sales as "lackluster"." at the end of the third paragraph in the lead. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
It has been bothering me for a while that some of Eilish's songs that are assigned as singles, since not every standalone release is a single. That is why I think we should move certain songs into promotional singles category. I have put it into a numbered list, to explain why these examples should be switched:
"Come Out and Play" (2018) – song released to be used in a commercial, not tied to any project (besides being a bonus track on Japanese edition of When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (2019)). No airplay release, no physical release either.
"When I Was Older" (2019) – song inspired by a movie Roma (2018), later included in soundtrack album for it and as a bonus track on Japanese edition of her debut album. No airplay release, no physical release either.
"Wish You Were Gay" (2019) – song released as more of a charity single, but it also was included in the standard track listing of her debut album. It did not got neither airplay, nor physical release, and was pushed so close to the album release date, I would categorize it as a promo single.
"Lost Cause" (2021) – another example of song getting pushed close to the album's release, with no airplay and physical release. The song's release date was also unusual, and it is actually the first song on that list that was promoted by a music video, however non-singles also can get visual independent of the album (ex. "Xanny" from her debut album).
"Male Fantasy" (2021) – even though I have created the article about this one, now I do not believe that since some magazines call a song a single it should be categorized as such. It got only music video treatment and a single performance during its "single release" month, not much promotion, especially knowing that it did not appeared on any physical formats or on radios. It did not even had its own separate digital release.
"Hotline (Edit)" (2023) – literally just a portion of previously released single should definitely not be counted as a separate single release. No airplay release, no physical release either.
Update: I think, there are actually more examples than I initially thought of. I am less knowledgeable about her dbeut EP days, that is why I have not included her earlier singles in the list.
"Bored" (2017) and "Lo Vas a Olvidar" (2021) – another soundtrack songs with no physical release, or airplay release.
"Watch", "Copycat", "Idontwannabeyouanymore", and "My Boy" (all 2017) – all of these songs were released shortly one at another in anticipation of the EP, some of them got remixed versions released, but still no physical or radio release.
"&Burn", "Bitches Broken Hearts", and "Party Favor" (all 2018) – all of these songs were issued as standalone releases before getting added as bonus tracks of her debut EP. No radio release, however "Party Favor" was released physically, even before its digital release, but it still does not make it official single.
Does WP:GNG allow for album reviews containing substantive, in-depth analysis to ground the notability of a song article, or does the categorical prohibition in WP:NSONG apply?
If a song article has substantive in-depth coverage across multiple reliable sources, but they are all album reviews, it can still be notable under WP:GNG despite plainly failing WP:NSONG. WP:NSONG should be modified to remove the prohibition on album reviews to establish notability, and refer to WP:SIGCOV.
A song being substantively covered across multiple reliably-sourced album reviews is not a sufficient basis for notability—a notable song should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. NSONG should be clarified as superseding GNG for songs.
No change is necessary and the current wording of WP:NSONG is sufficiently clear (please explain your rationale).
Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the entry for the United States in the table note that the modern-day territory of the United States is much larger than the one it had at independence? Glide08 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Currently the lede states:The 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a formation of the National Guard of Ukraine.
RFC question: Should the first sentence in the lede be changed toThe 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a far-right formation of the National Guard of Ukraine?
From what I’ve seen for a few months now, the map currently in use is incredibly outdated, and something needs to be done about it. I’ll leave the following two options I suggested here below; Zabezt (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the political position in the infobox and in the opening line of the "Ideology and platform" be changed to "right-wing to far-right" given the number of sources that have now been introduced in the "Ideology and platform" for far-right? Helper201 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
In light of the above discussion, I've decided to start a RfC on papabili sections and lists. Should there be papabili sections in papal conclave articles, and should there be lists of papabili in said sections? 73.8.239.215 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Is the handwritten testimony letter of Geneviève Esquier, a former French Catholic journalist for the French Catholic publication L'Homme Nouveau, a reliable primary source for her own words and testimony?
Should the article, including the opening sentence of the lead section, state the Gaza Genocide in wikivoice as fact?:
Yes Example opening sentence:The Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel during the Gaza war. or equivalent (new proposed version)
No Example opening sentence:According to a United Nations special committee, Amnesty International, and other experts and human rights organisations, Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people during its ongoing invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip as part of the Gaza war. (previous stable version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for this article to include the material about grooming gangs currently included here, either in its present form or modified? Reopened by Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
As part of a broader discussion concerning improvements to the Copts article, @Epenkimi has presented several sources to support a statement about Copts being "directly" descended from the ancient Egyptians. I contend, however, that these sources, while perhaps valuable in understanding Coptic self-perception, do not constitute authoritative evidence from disciplines such as population genetics or anthropology, which I consider to be the appropriate fields for assessing a claim about "direct" descent, which is a term I don't think is sufficiently defined to begin with. Consequently, I believe that the statement, if included at all, must be properly qualified to reflect the nature of the sources (the quality and reliability of which have been called into question) and the absence of similarly assertive references to the term or conclusion in peer-reviewed genetic or anthropological material.
In addition to advocating for the inclusion of this claim, @Epenkimi has suggested repeating the assertion in several sections and sub-sections of the article, articulated in various formulations. I disagree with this approach and have argued that mention of the topic should be confined, if mentioned at all, to the "Identity" section, where it can be contextualized and addressed with nuance.
Our positions are too far apart, and efforts at compromise have not brought us closer to resolution. Accordingly, I believe it would now be most constructive to invite community input on this matter so we can proceed in either direction with broad consensus.
As further clarification, this dispute centers on the scientific validity of using the term “direct” descent, especially when based on non-scientific sources. The intention is not to deny or distance the Copts from any particular ancestry, nor is it meant to create a binary conflict between Coptic and non-Coptic Egyptians. Neither position, be it version 1, 2, 3 or 4 attempts to rule out any specific origin. Instead, the primary concern is whether the claim, as worded, is sufficiently and explicitly supported by reliable evidence. One side holds that it is, while the other maintains that it is not. Turnopoems (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
