Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Should the following infobox to the right be added to the article? ] (]) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)}}
Should the following infobox to the right be added to the article? ] (]) 20:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
I agree. I think the immediate ''Scramble for Africa''-esque rush to edit articles based on breaking news, some of which can be found to be '''untenable''' after further inquiry, is a tad nutty. Right now, I'm concerned with the affixation of "Special Counsel" to among Mueller's offices held given that it is not a formal title; I say this with reference to the page on ], former Solicitor General under JFK who was appointed (and subsequently fired) as Special Counsel on the Watergate story, which does NOT list this as a position he assumed in the officeholder box. What's the protocol for this? ] (]) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)}}
''']'''
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
{{rfcquote|text=
Revision as of 06:01, 19 May 2017
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
There seems to be multiple editors complaining about the final paragraph in the lead section that says: There is no empirical evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born. However, the proposal has gained popularity among a number of anti-immigration activists. There is also a POV tag on the top of the page. So the question for editors is: Should the lead section acknowledge the crime rate of illegal immigrants or not? THE DIAZ22:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Q: Should declared candidates be required to receive media attention from reputable sources before being included in this article?
Currently the consensus is that if a declared candidate has a wikipedia page, he is deemed notable and is included. Some users have contended that the bar for inclusion is too low and potentially violates WP:Notability. Let's see where this rfc goes. Crewcamel (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I think the immediate Scramble for Africa-esque rush to edit articles based on breaking news, some of which can be found to be untenable after further inquiry, is a tad nutty. Right now, I'm concerned with the affixation of "Special Counsel" to among Mueller's offices held given that it is not a formal title; I say this with reference to the page on Archibald Cox, former Solicitor General under JFK who was appointed (and subsequently fired) as Special Counsel on the Watergate story, which does NOT list this as a position he assumed in the officeholder box. What's the protocol for this? Frevangelion (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
There has been lots of discussion over mentioning the name "Tuesday Night Massacre" in the article. It has been discussed in a few different places in different contexts (in fact some individuals attempted to use that phrase as an excuse to delete this article).
For the record: This phrase is widely used and notable. Certain individuals have attempted to purport that this is an obscure phrase that was invented by a random WP editor. However the widespread usage of this name has been well established:
There's a quotation by Rousseau in this book saying "We have recently seen a horrible example of the Wahhabi's cruel fanaticism in the terrible fate of Imam Hussain." Considering that, can "fanaticism" be mentioned as one of the motives for Wahhabi's attack to Karbala? Thanks. --Mhhossein14:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Visnvoisnvo: also pinging @Sleyece: and @CFCF: since both were involved in the previous discussion: Should the position of Acting President be included in the infobox? Cheney held the position for several hours on two occasions: June 29, 2002 and July 21, 2007. It should be noted that never did Cheney actually hold the position of President, he merely assumed the powers and duties of the role while Bush was undergoing surgery. Visnvoisnvo recently added the position in the infobox, noting, "Do not change without discussion. This is an historical event. Check out: https://en.wikisource.org/Dick_Cheney_Letter_2007-07-21." I have since reverted the changes.
Options
A) The position of Acting President is included in the infobox
B) The position of Acting President is entirely omitted from the infobox
C) While the position is not displayed along with other political offices, a footnote is included in the infobox which notes he acted as President
There has been an edit war here that includes multiple anonymous editors inserting the same material. The edit seems to revolve around Korean v. Chinese versions of history. Is one side more accurate, or can the two versions be brought together somehow? Thanks, Aristophanes68(talk)19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A previous RfC was held nearly a year ago at , where the consensus was not to put "Racial Hatred" in the motive section of the perpetrator infobox. The major reasons cited was that at the time of writing, sources were not available on the nature of the motive of the perpetrator, and putting in any motive would be considered speculative. Since then, a year has passed, and reliable sources have called it racial hatred, including then president Obama. I therefore propose that we re-introduce the term "racial hatred", supported by the citations given in the lead infobox, in light of the advances that have occured since the last RfC. BrxBrx(talk) 07:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this and this content be in the article? See above for more information. Also the tags "Original research" and "Syntesis" are necessary? Rupert Loup (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
How should the political position of "En Marche!" be described within the infobox? Please choose only one option. I want to resolve this issue quickly but thoroughly – and preferably see that this has received sufficient input and can be closed before the second round on 7 May. (Randomized using random.org, per request)
A: Centre-right
B: Centre
C: Centre to centre-right (or the opposite ordering)
D: Other option (please describe below)
E: Centre to centre-left (or the opposite ordering)
Should the following critique be added in the Accuracy section of this article?
A common criticism of SOHR has been that it is "difficult, if not impossible" to fact check SOHR's data since its director, Rami Abdulrahman, "does not share his data or methodology". Syria conflict expert James Miller has criticised the SOHR suggesting that it knew "field reporters who have never encountered a SOHR source in Syria." When presented with a chart showing the number of war dead in April 2014, Miller made several remarked: "There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples why is a terrible source" and "Everything about that chart screams BS!"
Also, the entire quote doesn't have to be placed in the article. If you would like a modified rendition of the critique, feel free to propose it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Nonpartisanism is a lack of affiliation with a political party. Political parties are very rarely affiliated to each other, so I don't think this should be here. I think its being used as a substitute to state that the party does not place itself on the left-right political spectrum, of which I would agree, I just don't think this is relevant and should be removed. Helper201 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon recommended we do RFCs for specific candidates that may or may not be worth including. I'll start with Jeremy Gable. Should Jeremy Gable be included as a candidate in this article yes or no? 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I restored a section about the debate that had been removed by user SummerPhDv2.0. He/she then removed it again. As you can see here, he/she initiated a discussion that ultimately included only him/herself before originally deleting it. I think that a more sustained discussion is warranted. I also believe that Breitbart should not automatically be excluded. While they are certainly biased, they are not remotely in the same league as, say, Infowars. (It should be obvious that I am not accusing SummerPhDv2.0 of acting in bad faith; I simply think he/she acted a bit rashly.) Best, Costatitanica (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.W10:29, 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)
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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Ministries:
I have stated the case as to why I believe Cameron–Clegg coalition, given its popularity among reliable sources.--Nevé–selbert18:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Should the Internet meme section of the article be replaced with the following (between the three dash line on top and bottom):
law
---
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.
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).
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. GregJackPBoomer!16:43, 20 April 2017 (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.