Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| @DrunkenBedouin keeps disruptively reverting my edits and adding “West Arabian tribe” to the lede, even though the citations cite it from Al Bahah or Bisha, all of which are in South Arabian or even southwest arabian, this all makes it a South Arabian tribe based on the geographical area it lies on, and based on its age. |MK| 📝 10:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples
The following text has been added and removed from the article several times over the past couple months. It had been included under the "contemporary examples" section, under the subheading "Israel", and had a {{main article}} link to Palestinian genocide accusation. Should this, or some version of it, be included in this article?
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| NOTE: THIS RFC HAS BEEN REWORDED.
OLD RFC Question: There is an ongoing editorial dispute on this page as to the use of the word 'Genocide' in the article's lede. Should the word 'Genocide' be used in the lede of this article? NEW RFC Question: There is an ongoing editorial dispute as to the wording of the article's lede. Which of the following drafts for the lede is preferred? A: The Black War was the genocide of Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania by British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832. British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history". B: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The event has been retrospectively described as an act of genocide by the British colonists. C: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War should be defined as an act of genocide by the British colonists. D: The Black War is a term used to refer to the violent conflict Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania and British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832. This conflict has been characterised retrospectively by many historians as a form of genocide. British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history". Jack4576 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
| The RfC resolves primarily around whether the origin of the breed should be listed as Morocco or North Africa (or any alternative location). Traumnovelle (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
There has been edit warring over the past weeks over whether or not to use the wording of "Indo-Muslim" in the lead, particularly in the first sentence. (see rev 1224577943 for example) There was a previous discussion over whether or not to include it [1] but little consensus was achieved, perhaps on the side of not including it but the opposing side kept adding the wording. The wording was later moved to the second paragraph of the lead [2] but this may be controversial as well.
Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
| We seem to have two different ideas about how much information should be in the infobox for this article. Here are the two most recent versions. Which do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Biden's building of a port to facilitate American aid to Palestinians be mentioned in the lead?
Does it merit inclusion? KlayCax (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
| Should we include the following in the lead, directly after listing casualties:
Reports of widespread rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas-led militants emerged. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:
? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
Should Belarus be listed in the infobox (and accordingly described in other parts of this article) concerning the events since 24 February 2022: A) no (as at present); B) as "Supported since 2022 by:  Belarus" (in Russia's side).
Please enter your answer to the question in the Survey section with a brief statement. Please do not respond to the statements of other editors in the Survey section. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section (that's what it's for). Note to closer and other participants: this RFC was started because the previous similar RFC (started on 16 March 2024) was closed on 17 May 2024 without a clear consensus regarding options A and B, but the uninvolved closer Compassionate727 stated that "Finally, there seems to be a consensus that if added, Belarus should be added with a note that its support began in 2022, although there is no reason that shouldn't be confirmed in the next RfC, which I assume will be forthcoming shortly". -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests
| Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.
Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki. The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome? If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ "The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective" (PDF). Center for Constitutional Rights. October 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-11-02. Retrieved 2023-10-12.
- ^ Bartov, Omer (10 November 2023). "Opinion | What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 18 December 2023. Retrieved 16 December 2023.