Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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:Femosphere

Does the current "Radicalisation narratives" section in the *Femosphere* article comply with core Wikipedia content policies - specifically, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, and WP:OR?

This discussion follows the AfD outcome (‘Keep, without prejudice toward a rewrite to address NPOV and other content issues’).

The section groups several claims (e.g., rejection of liberal feminism, invocation of fallacies, mimicry of manosphere logic) into what appears to be an established “radicalisation narrative” or “pipeline.”

However:

- Some sources do not use the term “femosphere” at all (e.g., referring instead to “womanosphere”), which may raise WP:SYNTH concerns if they’re synthesized to support the same point.

- Several claims appear in Wikipedia’s voice without clear attribution to secondary sources, which may affect WP:NPOV and WP:V compliance.

- None of the cited sources define or support the grouping of these ideas together under any "radicalisation narrative" or "pipeline," raising concerns under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. One source (The Guardian, 2024) states that "there's no evidence to say that the femosphere is radicalizing its members in the same way as the manosphere," which appears to contradict the framing of the section.

Editors are invited to weigh in on how best to bring the section into alignment with policy.

Potential options might include (but are not limited to):

Keep as is
Revise for clearer attribution, sourcing, or scope
Remove section until stronger sourcing is available

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. It does not change the policy's intent or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply, based on how editors already interpret and implement it in practice. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material^[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,^[b] include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material^[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,^[c] sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Oriental (Morocco)

Previous discussion on this talk page did not reach consensus on whether the Tifinagh name ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ should be included in the infobox for Oriental (Morocco).Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#c-Skitash-20250507220800-ElijahUHC-20250507215400

Should the Tifinagh name ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ be in the infobox of Oriental (Morocco), sourced to the Moroccan government's official website: https://www.maroc.ma/amz/taxonomy/term/9. This is not a translation or interpretation — it appears directly on the government’s interactive map, labeling the region in Standard Moroccan Tamazight (Tifinagh script), alongside Arabic, French, and English. This concerns the administrative region’s official name, not common usage or linguistic preference. Other proposed names cited earlier do not appear in the sources attributed to them, nor in the governmental site. Per WP:PRIMARY and WP:V, official government sources are reliable for official names. Does this justify including ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ in the infobox? ElijahUHC (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Casas

Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Should articles created under a conflict of interest be allowed to run on Did you know? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Torture

Can we have a see also section on this page? Recent edits to include one have been reverted. Helper201 (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference namerfc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.
^ For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[namerfc-1] Cite error: The named reference namerfc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[3] For example, O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was later found liable for their wrongful deaths in a civil trial.

[a]

[b]

[c]

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: 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.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.