As this talk page shows, there has been an intractable debate on whether the subject should be described as Greek (or Albanian etc) and what spelling his name should have and connected questions. This RfC hopes to solve this issue. The issues are as follows:
How should the subject of the article be named?
Is the Albanian-language version of his name necessary or appropriate?
What prominence should be given to the Albanian-language version of his name?
Is it appropriate to describe him in the lead as Greek?
With regard to WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and current academic consensus, should the article present the Reconquista as a matter of historical fact at face value or as historiographical narrative?
This has been a perennial discussion (such as here), and the article would benefit from some stabilizing, somewhat binding consensus. I am hoping for robust engagement with the latest scholarship and the most reliable sources. إيان (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the Minneapolis article begin its first section with A) an overview of the Native Americans who lived in the area (as it does now) with the heading "Dakota homeland, city founded", or B) the first European to view the area that became Minneapolis (as it does in this version) under the heading "Dakota people, city founded"? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the following sentence be included after the heading Deployments in Peacekeeping Missions:
Sri Lankan peacekeepers have been embroiled in a child sex ring scandal in Haiti, with at least 134 soldiers being accused of sexually abusing nine children from 2004 to 2007.[1]
Following his inquiry, Justice Sansoni submitted his report, which was known as the "Sansoni Report" to President Jayewardene in July 1980.[2] The riots were explained in the Sansoni Report in terms of "Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the 1977 general election campaign".[3] The Sansoni Report has been criticized for pro-government bias,[4][5][6][7] being hampered by political interference[8][9][10] and for "victim blaming" Tamils.[11]
One editor wants the last paragraph to be changed to the following, as he believes both the Kearney and Manogaran sources have "accepted" the reasons attributed by Sansoni for the riots, whereas other editors believe that those sources are merely summarising Sansoni's reasons, and are not personal approvals. Do you agree with the proposed change below?
Following his inquiry, Justice Sansoni submitted his report, which was known as the "Sansoni Report" to President Jayewardene in July 1980.[2]
Over the years the Sansoni Report has been recived diffrent reviews. Robert N. Kearney found that the Sansoni Report explained the riots in terms of "Sinhalese reaction to Tamil separatist demands, terrorist acts committed in the name of separatism, and anti-Sinhalese statements allegedly made by Tamil politicians in the course of the 1977 general election campaign".[3] According to Chelvadurai Manogaran, the Sansoni Report attributed many factors as the cause of the riots, including "TULFs anti-Sinhalese proganda advocating separatism, Sinhalese extremists' statements claiming that Tamils intended to wipe out the Sinhalese and acts of violence committed by the liberation Tigers". The immediate cause of the violence Manogaran finds is rumor of Sinhalese policemen been attacked in Jaffna by Tamil militants. He further states that due to the violance (in Augest 1977) and events that followed many Tamils both extreme and moderate were convinced the need to establish a separate state[12]
The first sentence of the section on alleged war crimes in the Sri Lankan Civil War currently reads:
The Armed Forces along with the LTTE have been accused of committing war crimes during the war, particularly during the final stages. A panel of experts appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the civil war found "credible allegations" which, if proven, indicated that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE, with most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on Sri Lankan Army shelling, with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises.
Should the last phrase read:
Awith most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war being blamed on indiscriminate Sri Lankan Army shelling and the LTTE being blamed for using civilians as a human buffer.
OR
Bwith the LTTE accused of significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war, by using civilians as a human buffer and shooting civilians attempting to escape the conflict zone.
Should Belarus be listed in the infobox, and accordingly described in other parts of the article concerning the events since 24 January 2024: (a). no (as at present); (b) as supported by; (c) as a co-belligerent; (d) without qualification?
In the lede, after the first casualty mentions, should we mention that some of the Israeli and Palestinian casualties were caused by friendly fire? If so, should we include this as a footnote or as direct text?
Specific wording would be determined through normal editing, but may be along the lines of:
For Israeli Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by friendly fire or as a result of the Hannibal Directive
For Palestinian Casualties: This includes an unknown number killed by the approximately ten to twenty percent of militant rockets that fall short
Is Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Current_consensus #14 still valid?. It says: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (May 2020)" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2024 (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.