Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| As part of a broader discussion concerning improvements to the Copts article, @Epenkimi has presented several sources to support a statement about Copts being "directly" descended from the ancient Egyptians. I contend, however, that these sources, while perhaps valuable in understanding Coptic self-perception, do not constitute authoritative evidence from disciplines such as population genetics or anthropology, which I consider to be the appropriate fields for assessing a claim about "direct" descent, which is a term I don't think is sufficiently defined to begin with. Consequently, I believe that the statement, if included at all, must be properly qualified to reflect the nature of the sources (the quality and reliability of which have been called into question) and the absence of similarly assertive references to the term or conclusion in peer-reviewed genetic or anthropological material.
In addition to advocating for the inclusion of this claim, @Epenkimi has suggested repeating the assertion in several sections and sub-sections of the article, articulated in various formulations. I disagree with this approach and have argued that mention of the topic should be confined, if mentioned at all, to the "Identity" section, where it can be contextualized and addressed with nuance. Our positions are too far apart, and efforts at compromise have not brought us closer to resolution. Accordingly, I believe it would now be most constructive to invite community input on this matter so we can proceed in either direction with broad consensus. As further clarification, this dispute centers on the scientific validity of using the term “direct” descent, especially when based on non-scientific sources. The intention is not to deny or distance the Copts from any particular ancestry, nor is it meant to create a binary conflict between Coptic and non-Coptic Egyptians. Neither position, be it version 1, 2, 3 or 4 attempts to rule out any specific origin. Instead, the primary concern is whether the claim, as worded, is sufficiently and explicitly supported by reliable evidence. One side holds that it is, while the other maintains that it is not. Turnopoems (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association
1) Should the articles of any NBA players say that they are often considered one of the greatest players of all time?
2) If the answer to the previous question is yes, what standard should be used? Note: this question is optional
Context: Various historical NBA players have been called "one of the greatest", "the greatest of all-time", or "the greatest at a position" by the press, magazines, books, former players, experts, etc. These terms are very subjective in nature and cover a 75+ year history, but can be sourced none-the-less. Discussions have ranged from the terms being vital to non-encyclopedic, from leaving the term in a player legacy section to prominently being displayed in the lead to not using the term at all. Please help us out with a yes or no on the term "greatest" in the lead section and the reasoning behind it. Thanks. Pinging previous discussion contributors: @Fyunck(click), Left guide, Wamalotpark, Bagumba, Johnnynumerofive, Somarain, Zagalejo, Eg224, Jessintime, Orlando Davis, Assadzadeh, GOAT Bones231012, Anonymous7432, and Boles P94: |
Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States
| The narrow question is which term to use in article mainspace: "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". The issue focuses on the adjective applied to the noun immigrant—the individual. (This issue is distinguished from using the term "illegal immigration" (the act of immigrating) which is not at issue in this RfC.)
Of course, this RfC does not affect discussion of the terms themselves in the article. I suggest that editors reply with Illegal or Undocumented or other specific adjective. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
| A link should be added at the top of the article to Wikipedia's crisis resources in the hatnotes section. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Euthanasia in the United States
| Firstly, let me set out that I am opening this RFC because similar questions to mine have arisen on this talk page over the years without responses, so I think it is due time to call an RFC, as it would be apparent there would be little if anyone that would respond, given the lack of prior responses on this talk page.
This page is currently very misleading. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are two separate and different things. Euthanasia is ending the life of another person or animal that is either terminally ill or undergoing unacceptable suffering. Assisted suicide on the other hand one person aiding another in taking their own life. Note: I placed in italics what the key difference is. This distinction is further exemplified by the fact that there is a page called Assisted suicide in the United States. However, this page uses the term "assisted suicide" multiple times, seemingly conflating euthanasia with assisted suicide, despite the two being distinct and different; therefore, misleading the reader. The whole section for Maine for example only refers to assisted dying, not euthanasia, which this article is about, along with multiple other uses of the term assisted suicide throughout the page. So where do we go from here? Do we take down the page and put it into draft status until these issues are fixed, or are there people that are willing to run through the page and correct the conflations between assisted suicide and euthanasia and eliminate any use of the former term from this article? I can't say it’s something I have the time to do personally. Helper201 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |
| Does {{Infobox ethnic group}} belong to this article? (The nom was rewritten to address the expressed neutrality concern). --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Know Your Meme (KYM) is a website dedicated to documenting internet memes and viral phenomena. According to their About page, Know Your Meme's research is handled by an independent professional editorial and research staff and community members.The site features different categories of entries, including those marked as "Confirmed," which according to KYM have been carefully researched and verified by the research staff. Currently, KYM is listed among user-generated content sources considered generally unreliable per WP:UGC. This RFC seeks to determine whether "Confirmed" articles on KYM, which have undergone editorial review and fact-checking by staff, should be considered reliable sources for limited use in Wikipedia articles about internet memes and web culture. Proposal (KYM) Little discussion has been had about KYM articles marked as "Confirmed" in the past. The last time this was discussed was 5 years ago, though this was when there was no information about KYM's editorial process or staff, and the result of the discussion was still unclear. Since then, KYM has developed a more robust editorial process with clear guidelines for verification and fact-checking, as outlined on their Editorial Rules page. The site now has an established team of professional editors with specific roles and responsibilities, and their "Confirmed" status has become a meaningful indicator of editorial review rather than merely user-generated content. I propose that KYM articles clearly marked as "Confirmed" or written by staff (e.g. [1]) may be used as reliable sources for limited purposes in Wikipedia, specifically:
KYM's editorial process for "Confirmed" articles involves fact-checking and verification by professional staff. Their guidelines state that This RFC does not propose any changes to the status of KYM articles marked as "Submission" or "Deadpool", which would remain unreliable per WP:UGC. Abayomi2003 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC) |
| There is a debate in the article whether we should include Azerbaijan as a substantial component of the article or not, you can see in the article history which revisions we are discussing. |