Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Rosalind Picard

Hello editors,

I would like to discuss the inclusion of a recent controversy involving Rosalind Picard’s keynote speech at NeurIPS 2024.

Context: During the NeurIPS 2024 keynote, a slide presented by Picard included remarks that were criticized for cultural generalizations. NeurIPS issued an official statement on their verified X.com account acknowledging the issue, apologizing, and clarifying that the remarks do not align with their code of conduct. I added this incident to the article with a factual and neutral tone, citing NeurIPS' official statement as the source. However, the edit was reverted with the reasoning that more than a primary source is needed.

My Argument: While Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, the NeurIPS statement is a **reliable primary source** for verifying the occurrence of the incident. It:

1. Comes from NeurIPS’ official and verified X.com account.
2. Is a direct response to the controversy.

Since this is a very recent event, secondary sources may not yet exist. I propose the following:

• Include a brief, factual mention of the incident, using the NeurIPS statement as a **temporary source**.
• Commit to revising or expanding the content once independent secondary coverage emerges.

This approach aligns with Wikipedia’s principles of **verifiability** and **neutrality** while addressing the timeliness of the incident.

Suggested Wording: At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard’s keynote presentation included remarks that drew criticism for cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. NeurIPS issued a statement acknowledging the remarks and clarifying that they do not align with the conference’s code of conduct.[NeurIPS official statement source here.]

I welcome input from other editors to form a consensus on this matter.

Request for Feedback: I kindly request editors' input on whether this edit can be retained temporarily with a primary source until reliable secondary sources become available.

Notifications for Wider Participation: Related WikiProjects: - @WikiProject Biography: - @WikiProject Artificial Intelligence:

I have also notified the editors at the relevant WikiProjects to gather broader perspectives.

Pinging Involved Editors: @Hammersoft, @Isabelle_Belato: Your feedback would be greatly appreciated as this discussion develops. Thank you!

Thank you all for considering this. I look forward to working collaboratively to reach a consensus. Lancer999 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

There are several questions, as follows:

1. Should the lead of the current guideline be replaced with lead of the rewrite?
2. Should the "Common newcomer scenarios" section and the "How to avoid being a "biter" section of the current guideline be replaced with "How to avoid biting" section of the rewrite?
3. Should the "Ignorantia juris may excuse" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "It is okay not to be aware of guidelines" section of the rewrite?
4. Should the "What to do if you feel you have "bitten" or "have been bitten" section of the current guideline be replaced with the "I have bitten someone—what do I do?" section of the rewrite?

The proposed rewrite can be found here: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Please refrain from making significant changes to the rewrite while the RfC is ongoing. Also see the idea lab discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Rewriting WP:BITE. After the last RfC, User:Alalch E. has done work on cleaning up the "Understanding newcomers" section. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War

The RfC is whether to retain or remove Syrian mercenaries from the belligerents section of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)

Shall we add this text:

In the case of a monotypic genus, the species and genus are covered in a single article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for more advice.

to the lead of this notability guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Expand language

Should the sentence in the instructions to this template "If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article" be reworded? Fangz (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli

Does the community believe that the following media should be included in the article? To put this into perspective it was made by an anonymous and unknown Youtuber, who is not a historian of any kind. There seems to be confusion on what WP:RSPYT means, so this should open the discussion up further. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

RfC: Should the following paragraph be added to WP:NMOTORSPORT?

10. Meet the following criteria for the the respective single seater series: A driver who has met at least one of the following criteria for single seater racing:

• Completion of one full season or a race winner in a Formula Regional series.
• Completion of one full season or a race winner in W Series/F1 Academy.
• Podium finish in the Macau Grand Prix (single seater).
• Champion or runner up in a Formula 4 series.

note: strikethrough text was replaced by underlined text after the proposal per the discussion.

GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

I propose the following text be added to WP:SUSPECT:

Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned on the main page of the encyclopdia until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal. Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law."

I have decided to post this as an RfC as this would involve a non-trivial amendment to WP:POLICY and the issue has become a contentious point of debate involving several nominations at WP:ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Short description

I have asked this question multiple times and have received no complete consensus to change WP:SDNONE to apply article names such as History of Nottinghamshire and Watersheds of Illinois. When this is resolved, please update WP:SDNONE to comply with this ruling. This RfC is necessary since there are thousands of articles where this applies where there is no consensus for use of WP:SDNONE. Additionally, the guideline is extremely short and vague for something that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles.

Potential options:

1. Yes, articles on subnational entities and municipalities in the title should have "none as a short description"
2. Only for cities and subnational entities that an "average reader would know" (which I have seen brought up in the past) should have "none" as a short description (most readers know about Delhi, Texas, and Moscow, not so much Kilgore, Texas, and Ncojane) (This has been brought up in the past by Remsense)
3. No, none of these apply for WP:SDNONE (a format will have to be provided for what should be recommended in the new guideline)

Thanks! -1ctinus📝🗨 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)