Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service Talk:September 11 attacks
| Which collage should be used in the infobox for this article? Sdkb talk 19:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC) |
Should this article make the following statement in WP:WikiVoice?
|
| Should Wikipedia present China as a superpower since the 2020s or should we present an academic debate? Moxy🍁 20:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:Reactions to the September 11 attacks
| The section on Palestinian reactions has a significant portion of the sourcing from Fox News. Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, "there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News [for pre-November 2020 politics] is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use."
I have marked the Fox sources in that section with the "unreliable source?" template. But should we remove the sourced material entirely as unreliable or keep it in with attribution? Evaporation123 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC) |
Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria
| Should the article include a summary of the effects of the 1963 Algerian Nationality Code on the remaining Jewish population?
Background: There is a dispute (see the section above, '"they left Algeria en masse, not because they were persecuted there as Jews"'), over whether to include academic perspectives (specifically from Johannes Heuman and Delphine Perrin) regarding the post-independence legal status of Jews who remained in Algeria, and how the 1963 Nationality Code impacted their community. Option A: Include the following or substantially similar text which summarizes Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Code in the Independent Algeria section:
Option B: Exclude any mention of the 1963 Nationality Code and its effects from this section. Option C/Other: Include, but a different text. |
Talk:Operation Wheeler/Wallowa
| Edit: User is gatekeeping my contributions and reverting every edit I am making.
Requesting comment on this article, since this user has a history of edit warring me for some reason. The results section stating Operational Success, and these are original research evaluations that are neither stated or supported in the actual cited articles and seemingly openly contradicted in the aftermath discussion. I am requesting comments on whether the result section of the template box should be modified, and whether my contributions should be kept. I wrote a longer form discussion here, since this is a pattern across many articles describing US military operations in the Vietnam War:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history Summerhall fire (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |
| Edit: User is reverting my edits to campaign box, I am RFCing this edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Cedar_Falls&diff=1339950814&oldid=1339730550 The formatting of this campaign battle template is irregular and inconsistent compared to the standard format of other types of wars. I noticed most edits are being reverted and blocked by a user. Several articles in this conflict seem to have similar issues with having a consistent format or following template conventions. A second issue is wounded figures are missing despite being found in the article itself. I would suggest this campaign box be edited to follow the format of Siege of Mariupol. In particular the casualties section and figures for non-combatants, including internal relocations. Summerhall fire (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC) |
- Heuman, Johannes (2022-01-27). "The silent disappearance of Jews from Algeria: French anti-racism in the face of antisemitism in Algeria during the decolonization". Journal of Modern Jewish Studies. 22 (2): 149–168. doi:10.1080/14725886.2022.2027211. ISSN 1472-5886. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19.
- Perrin, Delphine (2013-03-14), "Citizenship struggles in the Maghreb", Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies, Routledge, doi:10.4324/9780203102015.ch19, ISBN 978-0-203-10201-5, retrieved 2026-03-05
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)