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:T. V. S. N. Prasad

I am requesting community input on whether the following sentence should be included in the lead section of the article on T.V.S.N. Prasad:

"His bureaucratic career, including his role as Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, has been the subject of sustained public and legal scrutiny due to a series of controversies and administrative decisions that attracted criticism from courts, media, and civil society."

This sentence summarizes significant events during the subject’s public service career, as detailed in the "Controversies" section. These events include:

A Supreme Court contempt warning related to environmental inaction
A proposal for extensive post-retirement benefits
A contempt petition before the High Court over administrative delays
An Election Commission appeal involving multiple top positions
A police officer’s harassment and retaliation complaint

All incidents are supported by reliable, independent sources such as The Tribune, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Indian Express, and court records.

I believe the sentence satisfies the following policies:

WP:V (Verifiability): All claims are supported by third-party, published sources
WP:DUE (Due Weight): The events received sustained public and judicial attention
WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View): The phrasing is factual and non-judgmental

This sentence aims to give readers a balanced and accurate overview of the subject’s public life. There has been some disagreement about its inclusion, so I am opening this RfC to seek broad community consensus. Feedback from uninvolved editors is welcome and appreciated.

This content reflects verifiable past events that received significant public and judicial attention at the time. The goal is not to assess current or future appointments, but to provide a balanced historical account per Wikipedia’s policies.

Note: In recent revisions, nearly the entire "Controversies" section, despite being based on reliable, published sources, has also been removed without clear policy justification. While this RfC specifically concerns the lead sentence, the broader pattern of content removal is affecting the neutrality and completeness of the article. I welcome input on how best to address this if it falls outside the RfC's scope. Thouartmylife (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. 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: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)

^ ^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.