Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Disputed revision [[1]]
I edited the article today because the description of Salome Zourabichvili as the incumbent president is misleading. Although there is no doubt that Georgia is mired in a political crisis, there is no consensus that this crisis is "constitutional" (see Talk:2024–2025 Georgian constitutional crisis#Requested move 5 January 2025). Although, Zourabichvili refused to accept the official outcome of the parliamentary elections and the subsequent appointment of her successor, she voluntarily vacated the presidential palace on 29 December 2024. In doing so, she acknowledged that, according to both the constitutional provisions and the established practices of Georgian institutions, her term had ended. (Had she remained in the palace, it would have sparked a genuine constitutional crisis.) Mikheil Kavelashvili, elected on 14 December and inaugurated on 29 December 2024 is the recognised head of state by all formal Georgian institutions. To claim otherwise is POV. Even though Zourabichvili herself, many opposition figures, some Western countries, and parts of civil society continue to contest his legitimacy, from a constitutional standpoint the dispute is purely political and reflects differences of opinion over the electoral process rather than an actual constitutional impasse. To put this into perspective, if every allegation of electoral fraud were to trigger a "constitutional crisis", then virtually every country (especially those with authoritarian tendencies where disputes over election results are common) would be per this article standard in a perpetual state of constitutional crisis/disputes. Constitutional law requires a separation between legal procedure and political disagreement and the distinction between political and constitutional dispute must be clear. In Georgia's case, the constitutional framework itself clearly stipulates that the president is elected indirectly. The election was held and was not challenged by the Constitutional Court. In conclusion; The characterisation of this dispute as constitutional rather than political misrepresents the state of affairs in Georgia, where, despite political contestation, the constitutional procedures have been followed, and all institutions now formally recognise a new president. While Zourabichvili and her supporters continue to maintain an alternative narrative, according to the Georgian Constitution and the formal decisions of Georgian institutions, she neither de jure nor de facto holds the presidency. I therefore propose to keep my revision, which clearly states that Zourabichvili's mandate has ended, with an added note explaining the context (the political dispute and the crisis in Georgia). (By the way, this is not the only article about Georgia that is subject to POV dispute.) Tahomaru (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC) |
| There is currently no rule regarding "[author] ([year])" citing within a sentence. Should there be? 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC) |
| this article contains the following quote “ Over the years that followed he added COVID conspiracies, MAGA support, open discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, lizard and paedophile conspiracies, alt-right propaganda, getting in bed with white supremacists and who knows what else by the time you read this introduction.” I believe that this is good enough to include in the overview section about what sinfest is about. We’ve been having a great deal of difficulty sourcing actual quotes about what it’s about, so this was hard to get. Another user believes since it’s a quote from a quote of an unreliable source, that it’s unusable, but I believe that since a reliable source quoted the unreliable source as fully accurate and true, at least in this case, it’s a good quote. Is the quote usable? Le Blue Dude (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/SPS RfC
| This RfC is to determine the consensus about (1) whether the current explanation of "self-published" in WP:SPS generally serves us well, perhaps with small improvements, or if it should be revised in some significant way, and (2) how editors interpret "self-published," in order to help us revise the explanation if needed. |
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Should WP:ATD-R be amended as follows:
|
There is no point in syntaxhighlighting a word code.
The meaning of 'distinct' is "different from one another." -- Cedar101 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Changing username
| In this discussion on Meta-Wiki last month, some renamers suggested closing the English Wikipedia usurpation request page and directing users to Meta instead. As far as I know, English Wikipedia is the only wiki with its own usurpation page, while all other wikis process such requests on Meta. While requests on Meta are typically handled within hours, those on English Wikipedia often face delays due to a lack of attention from renamers. Given this, should all future usurpation requests be directed to Meta instead? – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |