Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article topics

Brief context:

• Image A is a cropped still from an interview in 2026.
• Image B is a formal standing portrait from 2024.
• MOS:LEADIMAGE states that "natural" means the usual or expected type of image, not necessarily casual or informal.(see note c)

Additional input is needed

2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Does the current "Controversies" section give undue weight to recent activist/political material and rely on sourcing that is not strong enough for such a serious framing of the company? ~2026-23011-10 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Would be good to get other editors to look at this. Chattenoir (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article describes the Israeli origins of two of the company's founders and the Moroccan ancestry of one of them, and there is no proposal to change that. There is also a surprisingly long discussion of where in Israel one of their factories is located, but that is an issue for another day. Julian in LA (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

There is disagreement among editors about whether the current lead image, a 19th-century Scandinavian Romantic painting by Mårten Eskil Winge, should be retained, or whether it should be replaced with an alternative image.

Some editors support retaining the current image on the grounds that it is a high-quality and widely used depiction. Others have raised concerns that it reflects a relatively late artistic interpretation and may not closely represent descriptions from Norse mythology or earlier historical depictions, and have suggested replacing it with an image based on earlier sources or archaeological material.

Question: Which image is most appropriate for the lead of the Thor article?

• Retain the current painting by Winge
• Replace with an image based on earlier historical or archaeological depictions
• Other (please specify)

Relevant discussions can be found above in this talk page section under Different image suggestion and Ink drawings (1760) by Jakob Sigurðsson Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• Option B: "Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial"
• Option C: "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
• Option D: "Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine"
• Option E: Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• Option F: Remove this sentence entirely: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized ..." while keeping the next two sentences as is, as seen in the current version of the article

Background

For prior related discussion see:

• Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism - RfC workshop
• Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism,
• "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.",
• sources for "Some proponents of Zionism accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.", and
• "Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist."

TarnishedPath^talk 01:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Should the opening sentence be changed to the following?

~2026-24659-54 (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

My counterpart, Hilali Z, reports the Daghaghra are of Arab origin, specifically Banu Sulaym. He bases this on a source attributed to Mohamed Bouzrara (p.115). However, I disagree with this source and its reliability because, despite presenting Bouzrara as a historian, I found nothing about him. When I asked him to justify his claim, he presented this source, describing him as a radio host and a member of the labor movement since 2016, who had completed secondary education. I would add that, in my opinion, the author is uncertain about the Daghaghra's Banu Sulaym origins and hesitates between them and an Omani origin. He also added this source (p.367), which doesn't give an author's name but says nothing about the origin of the Daghaghra, but presents the tribal faction to which they belong and nothing specific about their origin: "Slim: The sons of Diab, the sons of Shahbida, the sons of Slim al-Wadarna, the sons of al-Daghagh"

In my case I rely on André Louis (p.115) who dealt with the question based on local tradition as well as the texts of the medieval historian Ibn Khaldoun who reports that they are Berber. This source is not reliable for him because " just a random theory of 50 years". The work of André Louis will be taken up by several academics including Manel Znidi (who will confirm the Berber origin based on him p.120 on the note), Gianni Albergoni,François Pouillon and Sonia Ben Meriem (p.10) in collaboration with the Institute for Research on Contemporary Maghreb (which aimed to modernize his work but without going into detail on the origin of the Daghaghra). There is also Zouhir Gabsi (p.11) who will quote André Louis directly, which will facilitate the translation: "According to Ibn Khaldun, in the fourteenth century, the Berbers inhabiting Southern Tunisia can be classified as follows (cited in Louis 1975:27):... In the Jebel Ghomrassen, there are the Hamdoun Berbers and in Jebel Abiodh one finds the Berbers of Chehaban, Meghebla and Dghaghra".

There's also the inclusion of "Bedouin" in the origin section, which, in my opinion, doesn't belong there because it refers more to the nomadic way of life, especially since he already mentioned this in the history section, referring to André Louis himself, even though he considers his source unacceptable for the origin section. "André Louis described them as lords due to their nomadic status, while sedentary people were described as serfs of the Bedouins."

There's also this source on the tribe's founding, which raises the same reliability concerns for me because it comes from a web article and lacks the necessary rigor to discuss origins. Furthermore, I think we all agree it's not real; we don't know where this myth comes from, and it's never been repeated before, which I consider unprecedented.

• Option A: The Daghaghra are a Berber tribe (example permalink)
• Option B: The Daghaghra are a Arab tribe (example permalink)
• Option C: Other suggestion

Mhmdgrd (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

See #Propaganda. Julian in LA (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

1. The historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, described in Encyclopaedia Iranica as originally of Arab descent and subsequently Kurdicized, as relevant context for Ayyubid origins
2. Minorsky's hypothesis, included by R.S. Humphreys in Encyclopaedia Iranica's Ayyubids entry, that the Rawādīya Kurds may descend from the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī
3. The politically motivated Arab genealogies sponsored by some Ayyubid rulers, as described in Encyclopaedia Iranica

Proposed wording:

The progenitor of the Ayyubid dynasty, Najm ad-Din Ayyub ibn Shadhi, belonged to the Rawādīya, a Kurdish branch of the powerful Hadhbānīya tribe and the dominant Kurdish group in the Dvin district. He was a member of the sedentary political-military elite of the town.

The Rawwādid dynasty, with which the Rawādīya are associated in the sources, was originally of Arab descent but became Kurdicized over time. The precise relationship between the two groups is debated in scholarship. In later periods, members of the Ayyubid dynasty sponsored genealogies claiming descent from noble Arab lineages, including the Banū Umayya; these are generally regarded as politically motivated. The historian Vladimir Minorsky argued that the Rawādīya Kurds may descend from the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī, who governed Tabriz in the early 9th century and whose lineage became Kurdicized in Azerbaijan. If sound, this would mean the later Arab genealogies of the Ayyubids preserve a distant memory of genuine Arab origins.

Background:

A content dispute has developed over whether the above material constitutes undue weight under WP:DUE or is appropriate sourced content for an Origins section. The dispute began in March 2026 when one editor repeatedly removed the material citing WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. A Third Opinion was sought; the volunteer raised cross-article consistency concerns referencing the Saladin article and WP:DUE.

Several points of context are relevant for RFC participants:

• Both editors agree the Ayyubids were Kurdish. The dispute is solely over whether earlier documented ancestry and historically attested genealogical claims may be discussed with appropriate attribution under Origins section.
• Encyclopaedia Iranica, the premier reference work on Iranian and Islamic history, is the primary source for all proposed content. Its Rawwadids entry explicitly describes the group as "a family of Arab descent" that became Kurdicized. Its Ayyubids entry, authored by R.S. Humphreys, includes Minorsky's hypothesis and the Ayyubid-sponsored genealogies as relevant to origins.
• The proposed wording is consistent with the approach outlined by administrator Al Ameer son in a December 2020 discussion on this talk page, in which he stated that mentioning Minorsky's theory with attribution and the Ayyubid-sponsored genealogies with attribution to Humphreys would not constitute undue weight, and that both should be included. The proposed wording follows that framework closely.
• The Saladin talk page archives, referenced by the Third Opinion volunteer as evidence of cross-article consensus, primarily contain discussions rejecting claims about Saladin's ethnicity that lacked reliable secondary sourcing, a materially different situation from the attributed scholarly content proposed here. The specific Iranica material proposed here was never discussed on that page, and no determination was ever made that this material constitutes an extremely small minority view under WP:DUE.
• The politically motivated Ayyubid-sponsored genealogies have not been addressed by the opposing editor despite being raised repeatedly throughout this dispute, and their relevance to Origins section has not been disputed on policy grounds by any participant.

Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Question 1: Is Omniglot a reliable source?

• Option Q1.1: Generally reliable for factual information
• Option Q1.2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option Q1.3: Generally unreliable for factual information
• Option Q1.4: Unreliable to the point that it should be deprecated

Question 2: Should it be listed on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources?

• Option Q2.1: Yes, it should be listed in the table under whichever Q1 option has consensus
• Option Q2.2: No, it does not need to be listed in the table
• Option Q2.3: Defer, either unsure or should wait

~ oklopfer (💬) 01:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• A, or a,
• Ø (or miniscule: ø)
• Æ (lowercase: æ)
• Ż, ż (Z with overdot)

(The first three have already been changed by him)

The solution that he and I ended up with is:

1. For the first mention of a letter that is the subject of the article (in the lead sentence), A (miniscule: a) will be used.
2. For the first mention of a letter that is not the subject of the article, A (a) will be used.
3. For any mention of a letter that is not the first mention of it, simply A will be used.
4. For any mention of a letter that is not the subject of the article, simply a will be used, per MOS:WAW.

Note from 2026-04-05T15:45:00Z: MOS:WAW seems to take precedence, therefore both 2 and 3 have been merged to 4.

Example article to explain the usage, about the letter X:
X (miniscule: x) is the 24th letter in the English alphabet. It is immediately before the letter Y (y) y, which is the 25th letter. Both X x and Y y are often used as variables in mathematics.

Please either:

• Support - Change the usage of letters in articles to match with the solution above
• Oppose - Have a different solution for any three, or keep the articles as-is

As this is my first time personally starting an RfC, I am not completely sure if an RfC should be started for this, however I feel that it is a good idea. dot.py 04:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

A: Describe the Dead Internet theory as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice, and present it as a conspiracy theory that proposes that since 2016 the internet has consisted primarily of bot activity and automated content manipulated by algorithmic curation, that aims to control the population and reduce genuine human interaction. The non-conspiratorial alternative can be mentioned in the article but will not be the focus.

B: Describe the Dead Internet theory as a "theory" in Wikivoice, and present it as a theory that proposes that the internet is becoming predominantly populated by AI-generated content in the wake of generative AI. The conspiratorial origin can be mentioned in the article but will not be the focus.

05:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

There is disagreement among editors about whether the current lead image, a 19th-century Scandinavian Romantic painting by Mårten Eskil Winge, should be retained, or whether it should be replaced with an alternative image.

Some editors support retaining the current image on the grounds that it is a high-quality and widely used depiction. Others have raised concerns that it reflects a relatively late artistic interpretation and may not closely represent descriptions from Norse mythology or earlier historical depictions, and have suggested replacing it with an image based on earlier sources or archaeological material.

Question: Which image is most appropriate for the lead of the Thor article?

• Retain the current painting by Winge
• Replace with an image based on earlier historical or archaeological depictions
• Other (please specify)

Relevant discussions can be found above in this talk page section under Different image suggestion and Ink drawings (1760) by Jakob Sigurðsson Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Multiples, copies and versions
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Articles to write
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Sources

17:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

A: Describe the Dead Internet theory as a "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice, and present it as a conspiracy theory that proposes that since 2016 the internet has consisted primarily of bot activity and automated content manipulated by algorithmic curation, that aims to control the population and reduce genuine human interaction. The non-conspiratorial alternative can be mentioned in the article but will not be the focus.

B: Describe the Dead Internet theory as a "theory" in Wikivoice, and present it as a theory that proposes that the internet is becoming predominantly populated by AI-generated content in the wake of generative AI. The conspiratorial origin can be mentioned in the article but will not be the focus.

05:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

a. Keep this article at the current title, with the disambiguator being (story)

b. Change the article so that it has a different disambiguator (please propose one)

c. Partially undo the previous rough consensus, deeming this article the primary topic for Twelve Angry Men but not 12 Angry Men

d. Merge this article with the Twelve Angry Men (Studio One) article, and retitle it Twelve Angry Men (teleplay)

Background - please read: This article was designed as a broad-concept article for the various versions of the Reginald Rose story of twelve jurors that attempt to determine a person's innocence or guilt. The most notable of these, by a considerable margin, is the 1957 Sidney Lumet film 12 Angry Men, which was recently determined to be the primary topic. Normally, this would preclude the use of a broad-concept article, as those are only supposed to be used if there is no primary topic. However, editors in that discussion felt that having one would be beneficial to reader understanding, due to the complicated interplay between variations of the story. To make a long story short, it was first created as an episode of the television series Studio One, and then adapted into all manner of other media. However, following the release of the Sidney Lumet film, a majority of the following adaptations were adapted not from the television episode, but rather directly from the film itself; having a page that can explain this seemed useful. In addition, a number of the adaptations are not actually called "Twelve Angry Men", but rather other things, so finding them would be difficult as they would not be on the disambiguation page.

There was, however, considerable disagreement on what to do with the article. The suggestion implemented was to use the disambiguator (story), but nobody was very happy with it, including me, who suggested it. However, nobody was able to come up with a better one; if you have an idea, please suggest it here. There was a consensus that the difference between Twelve Angry Men and 12 Angry Men was too small for it to be considered a WP:SMALLDETAILS difference, but that consensus was relatively weak and can be overturned here. Another proposal that gained significant traction was to merge this article with Twelve Angry Men (Studio One), the original version of the story, and rename it Twelve Angry Men (teleplay). What should be done with the article? Ladtrack (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

— EarthDude (Talk) 06:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: a "rock" duo

  (a broad, neutral tag that follows standard lead conventions)

• Option B: a "math rock" duo

  (a specific and frequently used descriptor by journalists and reliable sources)

• Option C: an "experimental rock" duo?

  (an umbrella for "math rock" and a reflection of the band's avant-garde nature)

Kinnimeyu (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Business Insider said the film "makes some jokes about racism and political correctness, but doesn't go anywhere with them", adding that "Even positive reviews say the movie feels artificially constructed."^[1]
• Marc Bernardin in The Guardian said that, despite its multiple awards, the film offers a limited and superficial treatment of race in rural America. Bernardin criticised the film's handling of racism, particularly through the character of Officer Dixon, saying that the movie downplays Dixon's explicit racism, attributing his behaviour to personal anger and providing him with a redemptive arc that lacks accountability for his actions against Black characters. Bernardin suggests that the film uses racial themes without meaningfully interrogating them, contrasting it unfavourably with Get Out (2017).^[2] Film Comment argued that, despite a strong cast, the film feels contrived, tonally inconsistent, and lacking in realism.^[3]
• The film faced "loud backlash" for its portrayal or racism and race,^[4][5] with CNN saying it became "one of Oscar season's most divisive films."^[6]

Oskarimi (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Brief context:

• Image A is a cropped still from an interview in 2026.
• Image B is a formal standing portrait from 2024.
• MOS:LEADIMAGE states that "natural" means the usual or expected type of image, not necessarily casual or informal.(see note c)

Additional input is needed

2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option A: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized it as colonial or settler-colonial" (status quo)
• Option B: "Early proponents of Zionism characterized it as colonial"
• Option C: "Early Zionists described their activities in Palestine in ways that now correspond to academic descriptions of colonialism or settler colonialism."
• Option D: "Until the mid-20th century, Zionists used terminology related to 'colonization' when referring to immigration and settlement efforts in Palestine"
• Option E: Some other way of wording this (please specify your exact wording).
• Option F: Remove this sentence entirely: "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized ..." while keeping the next two sentences as is, as seen in the current version of the article

Background

For prior related discussion see:

• Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism - RfC workshop
• Zionists saying Zionism is Colonialism,
• "Various proponents of Zionism have characterized Zionism as colonial or settler-colonial.",
• sources for "Some proponents of Zionism accept the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.", and
• "Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist."

TarnishedPath^talk 01:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Does the current "Controversies" section give undue weight to recent activist/political material and rely on sourcing that is not strong enough for such a serious framing of the company? ~2026-23011-10 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe the 2026 Iran war as an element of American expansionism under Donald Trump? Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

There is disagreement among editors about whether the current lead image, a 19th-century Scandinavian Romantic painting by Mårten Eskil Winge, should be retained, or whether it should be replaced with an alternative image.

Some editors support retaining the current image on the grounds that it is a high-quality and widely used depiction. Others have raised concerns that it reflects a relatively late artistic interpretation and may not closely represent descriptions from Norse mythology or earlier historical depictions, and have suggested replacing it with an image based on earlier sources or archaeological material.

Question: Which image is most appropriate for the lead of the Thor article?

• Retain the current painting by Winge
• Replace with an image based on earlier historical or archaeological depictions
• Other (please specify)

Relevant discussions can be found above in this talk page section under Different image suggestion and Ink drawings (1760) by Jakob Sigurðsson Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)