"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.

Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 

Should this photograph be removed from the Israel-Hamas war#7 October attack section? 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Version 2.1:

On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.

Version 3.1:

On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence. The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations, received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.

The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."

Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.

Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Centre
• Centre-right
• Centre to centre-right

Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the article mention that in the "Media coverage" section ?

If so, could this draft work ?

In April 2024 certain Western media outlets called the war as the Israel-Gaza war.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The Washington Post published an article titled "six months of the Israel-Gaza war: a timeline of key moments".[7] BBC explained the history of the conflict, calling it the "Israel-Gaza war".[8] El País called it the "war between Israel and Gaza".[9] The Guardian talked about the "Israel-Gaza war" when analyzing US views.[10] CPJ spoke about the "Israel-Gaza war" by writing about journalist casualties.[11] Deblinis (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Should the article include, bolded in the lede, the primary title ("Israel–Hamas war")?
2. If so, should the article also include, bolded in the lede, any or all of the various alt titles?:
   1. Israel–Gaza war
   2. Gaza war
   3. Israel's war in Gaza
   4. Israel's war on Gaza
   5. Operation Swords of Iron
   6. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
   7. Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood

07:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: Keep The Quote

Option #2: Remove The Quote

Merzostin (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Palestinian victory, withdrawal of Israeli forces as in this version
2. Palestinian victory, withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Gaza as in this version
3. Israeli withdrawal as in this version
4. Israeli withdrawal from southern Gaza as in this version
5. Israeli victory and subsequent withdrawal as in this version
6. Other result not previously used

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Version 2.1:

On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.

Version 3.1:

On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence. The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations, received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.

The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."

Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.

Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

1. (As a new point 5 in the criteria) Tornado outbreaks inside the United States with five or more tornadoes rated EF2
2. (As a new criteria section similar to “Rare oddities”):

Section title: High impact tornadoes
Text: Any tornado not meeting the above criteria may still qualify for inclusion as a “high impact” event. A hypothetical example of this criteria is an EF2 which does not kill or injure anyone, however, it damaged or destroyed 90% of a town of 2,000 people. Inclusion of these tornadoes is subjective. Any editor is allowed and should add such tornadoes to Tornadoes of XXXX articles, as inclusion of such events are considered to have presumed consensus. However, once a “high impact” tornado’s inclusion is challenged, a talk page discussion should occur to determine if the specific tornado qualifies as a “high impact” tornado and if it should be included or excluded in the article.

• Option 1 — Support addition of both proposed criteria points
• Option 2 — Support addition of proposed criteria #1, but oppose addition of proposed criteria #2
• Option 3 — Support addition of proposed criteria #2, but oppose addition of proposed criteria #1
• Option 4 — Oppose addition of both proposed criteria points

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wiki English. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki.

The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome?

If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wiki Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research. Example of non-medical information: Financial compensation from Havana Act and .

b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals? Examples of government reports: and .

c) For medical information in this article: does WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article? Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example, when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source). Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source: and

Noleander (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Should this article say in the lead that Mukokuseki is when a "character is perceived as having [...] stereotypically Western characteristics"?
2. Should this article mention the Language Awareness study? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

1. New York is a global center of finance and commerce, culture and tech, entertainment and media, academics and scientific output, and the arts and fashion.
2. ...and is sometimes described as the world's most important city and the capital of the world.
3. ..the most economically powerful city in the world.

be removed from the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Mokadoshi (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Version 2.1:

On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.

Version 3.1:

On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence. The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations, received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.

The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."

Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.

Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Centre
• Centre-right
• Centre to centre-right

Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.

I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.

Specifically, I propose that the current version "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

a) Can this article include non-medical information about Havana Syndrome (provided the information is properly sourced)? Examples of non-medical information include politics, economics, relationship to cold war, espionage, directed energy weapons, statements by foreign governments, conflict-of-interest allegations, and historical chronology of hypotheses & research. Example of non-medical information: Financial compensation from Havana Act and .

b) Can this article include USA government reports, studies and statements from the executive branch, US Congress, CIA, Department of Defense, State department, National Institutes of Health, etc. (provided they are reported on by major media)? Specifically, is it okay if some sources are not from medical or scientific journals? Examples of government reports: and .

c) For medical information in this article: does WP:MEDRS prohibit the use of primary medical sources in this article? Opposing view: Havana Syndrome is relatively new and evolving so it is okay to use primary medical sources in some situations (for example, when the primary source is widely reported in major media; or when the primary source is reporting a significant new result; or when there are no secondary sources yet available that have reviewed and summarized the primary source). Examples of recent widely-reported primary sources that have not been assessed by a secondary source: and

Noleander (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Geert Wilders tweets his endorsement of Christine Chandler for her reelection. No journalists cover it, so we do not mention it.
• The Party for Freedom, of whom Wilders is the sole member, endorses Chandler in a press release on their website. It is inherently reliable and therefore included because the PVV is a group.

So why the double standard? 97.155.100.43 (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-listed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Version 2.1:

On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report reigniting speculation that hostile Russian action was responsible for the syndrome. The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely." Following the report, several U.S. Senators, including Susan Collins, Jeanne Shaheen, and Mark Warner, sent a letter to the President calling for further investigation into the cause of the anomalous health incidents.

Version 3.1:

On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was caused by actions of Russian military intelligence. The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations, received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana Syndrome incidents worldwide.

The Kremlin Press Secretary dismissed the report as "nothing more than baseless, unfounded accusations by the media." In response to the report, the White House Press Secretary said that a "foreign adversary is very unlikely."

Following the report, in a letter addressed to the President several U.S. Senators called for further investigations into the causes of the anomalous health incidents.

Please provide your opinions and rationale for supporting either version 2.1 or 3.1 and please ensure your responses are based on Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. (FailedMusician (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Centre
• Centre-right
• Centre to centre-right

Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Option A, Option B, Option C, Option D, or Option E (photo not in gallery, feel free to add additional options)? Please note there is currently consensus not to use Trump’s presidential portrait, since it is from 2017.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Should this article say in the lead that Mukokuseki is when a "character is perceived as having [...] stereotypically Western characteristics"?
2. Should this article mention the Language Awareness study? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Loki (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Option #1: Kennedy Jr. should appear in the infobox of every state he has ballot access in.

Option #2: If the aggregate state polling shows Kennedy Jr. under >5% or >10% (whatever is determined by the RFC): then he shouldn't be included. If no polling has been done or he is above 5-10%, then he should be included.

Option #3: Kennedy Jr. should not appear in the infobox if polling of the state has not been performed.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)