A. The lead currently says, "President Donald Trump endorsed Moore a week before the election,[9] after which some Republicans withdrew their opposition to Moore". Should we edit that to say, "President Donald Trump supported Moore's opponent during the primary, and endorsed Moore a week before the final election,[9] prompting some Republicans to withdraw their opposition to Moore"?
The first paragraph of this article currently contains mention of Trump/Pence signs sourced to one analysis article in a highly reliable source. The issue with inclusion is WP:NPOV with particular attention to the following exhortation in WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Also note that NPOV states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Earlier discussion can be found at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Trump/Pence_signage.
Should the text "Trump/Pence signs" be included in the lead and/or body? Please respond with:
Yes, Yes – Include in the lead and body Yes, No – Include in the lead only No, Yes – Include in the body only No, No – Do not include O3000 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Should obituaries in the New York Times NOT be counted toward notability for people that live in the New York Metropolitan area because it is a local paper when tributing local people? Does Wikipedia actually ban local content when accessing notability? We are excluding the paid obituaries that are carried as advertisements in this argument. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the lead say that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, which is the number two position in that division....” instead of only saying that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that this section is completely unnecessary. Pell is not a world-renown intellectual nor thinker, he is just one of bureaucrats inside the Catholic clergy hierarchy. He became exposed to the public limelight for being the highest ranked official of the RCC accused for sexual abuse coverup and for sexually abusing the children. In the current version we have six pages dedicated to his views and only four dedicated for the abuse coverup and the sexual abuse itself.
I do not see any significance of his views. My proposal is completely eliminate the Views section or reduce it to no more than a half of the page.--Taribuk (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
(fix)Section Reaction: The sentence "Former US Ambassador for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp compared Praljak's suicide by poisoning to that of another war crimes convict, Hermann Göring, ..." shall be replaced by Praljak, a convicted war criminal staged publicly his suicide. Like Göring, he drank a cyanide capsule due to the fact that the same type of statement belong to many (>50) around the globe, not just to former US Ambassador, and shall be the first sentence in this section.
(fix)I've tried to fix In 2008, Croatian Ministry of Culture deemed that 18 of his works about Croatian War of Independence, Bosnian War, and relations between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were not books but brochures of schund literature, by changing were not books but brochures of schund literature to were not books but works categorised and taxed as pap, trash and pornography. The fix was directly supported by the reference
Krešimir Žabec (4 July 2012). "Ministarstvo generalu Praljku: Vaše knjige o ratu spadaju u šund i pornografiju, platit ćete 628.726 kuna poreza!" Translation: Your books belong to šund (pap, trash) and pornography, you shall pay tax in the amount of 628.726 kuna
Further in the text: "Odnosno, ocijenjeno je da Praljkova djela spadaju u šund i pornografiju, na što se mora platiti PDV." Translation: Therefore, the Praljak works were appraised as šund (pap, trash) and pornography for which he had to pay VAT (value added tax)
In addition the schund literature phrase is semanically wrong. The schund is a German word and it's opposite to the literature; therefore saying schund literature is equally meaningless as heiß (hot) ice. The current phrase "wortless literature" equally makes no sense in English language.
(remove)Out of context, not a main point: However, ICTY agreed that the bridge was a legitimate military target.[10] In addition to the responsibility and whether it was a legitimate military target, ICTY also examined whether the earlier siege by JNA and Bosnian Serb forces contributed to the bridge's collapse. - these claims are just the Court responses to the Praljak's defense
(remove)False statement: He was acquitted of some charges related to the destruction of Stari Most.[3][6]
Section Regional reaction. (fix)False statement: "All the party caucuses of the Croatian Parliament except the SDP and GLAS issued a joint statement ..." It was about a Croatian Parliament session statement which SDSS, GLAS and SDP members did not attend. Only one IDS MP was present but no information whether he supported the statement (add and update)Missing reactions:
a. After publicly displeased disagreement coming from the diplomatic corps in Zagreb and Brussels, both Kitarovic (the president) and Plenkovic (prime minister) relativized their statements (the details are here, and here)
b. The action of praising Praljak as an innocent man and hero was orchestrated by the far right.
c. Journalists(Štefica Galić, for example) and some politicians (Mesic, former president, Pusic, former state secretary) received death threats for not honoring this war criminal as a hero.
d. Actually a small number of Croats attended public commemoration of the Praljak suicide (the details are here).
e. Also, there were Croatians who commemorated the victims of the group of war criminals Praljak belonged to.--Taribuk (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
As with the ongoing RfCs at Talk:Blake Shelton and Talk:Tim McGraw, per MOS:BLP the genre should be included in the lede on a case-by-case basis, so should "country singer-songwriter" be mention in the lede here? On a side note, I think that the provision of MOS:BLP is sort of unnecessary, but there is a reason why I did not WP:BOLDly add it. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
How early and clearly should our lead talk about fake credentials, as well as plagiarism and abusive treatment of students? We currently state "self-educated psychoanalyst" and that simply is not the case.
There's another issue. When I do a search on Bettelheim, my mobile device truncates our lead and shows the first 35 words. And though we might cry to the heavens that this is not the way people should use wikipedia, all the same, this is in fact how people often do use wikipedia. I think we should endeavor to cover both sides of his career in those 35 words. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Should this article on an adult female human continue to refer to her by her first name throughout? Her name was Grey as a young woman and became Butler when she married. Would it really be too confusing to refer to her by those names? --John (talk) 14:17, 11 December 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.
