1. Should information about genetic studies in Colombia be included in this article, or only in Race and ethnicity in Colombia?
2. Which studies should be used for this information (in both articles)?
   • Rojas, Winston; Parra, María Victoria; Campo, Omer; Caro, María Antonieta; Lopera, Juan Guillermo; Arias, William; Duque, Constanza; Naranjo, Andrés; García, Jharley; Vergara, Candelaria; Lopera, Jaime; Hernandez, Erick; Valencia, Ana; Caicedo, Yuri; Cuartas, Mauricio; Gutiérrez, Javier; López, Sergio; Ruiz-Linares, Andrés; Bedoya, Gabriel (September 2010). "Genetic make up and structure of Colombian populations by means of uniparental and biparental DNA markers". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 143 (1): 13–20. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21270. PMID 20734436. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
   • Ruiz-Linares, Andrés; Adhikari, Kaustubh; Acuña-Alonzo, Victor; Quinto-Sanchez, Mirsha; Jaramillo, Claudia; Arias, William; Fuentes, Macarena; Pizarro, María; Everardo, Paola; de Avila, Francisco; Gómez-Valdés, Jorge; León-Mimila, Paola; Hunemeier, Tábita; Ramallo, Virginia; Silva de Cerqueira, Caio C. (2014-09-25). "Admixture in Latin America: Geographic Structure, Phenotypic Diversity and Self-Perception of Ancestry Based on 7,342 Individuals". PLOS Genetics. 10 (9): e1004572. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004572. ISSN 1553-7390. PMC 4177621. PMID 25254375.
   • Homburger, Julian R.; Moreno-Estrada, Andrés; Gignoux, Christopher R.; Nelson, Dominic; Sanchez, Elena; Ortiz-Tello, Patricia; Pons-Estel, Bernardo A.; Acevedo-Vasquez, Eduardo; Miranda, Pedro; Langefeld, Carl D.; Gravel, Simon; Alarcón-Riquelme, Marta E.; Bustamante, Carlos D. (2015-12-04). "Genomic Insights into the Ancestry and Demographic History of South America". PLOS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005602. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1005602. ISSN 1553-7390. PMC 4670080. PMID 26636962.
   • Mooney, Jazlyn A.; Huber, Christian D.; Service, Susan; Sul, Jae Hoon; Marsden, Clare D.; Zhang, Zhongyang; Sabatti, Chiara; Ruiz-Linares, Andrés; Bedoya, Gabriel; Endophenotypes, Costa Rica/Colombia Consortium for Genetic Investigation of Bipolar; Freimer, Nelson; Lohmueller, Kirk E. (2018-11-11). "Understanding the Hidden Complexity of Latin American Population Isolates". American Journal of Human Genetics. 103 (5): 707–726. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.09.013. PMC 6218714. PMID 30401458.
   • A study not included on this list (please provide full citation).

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
2. The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
3. The Nakba should be described. But neither of the sentences above should be used.
4. The Nakba shouldn't be mentioned.

Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented.

I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names.

It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year".

B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates.

There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024.

The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century.

C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates.

Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it.

In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that.

D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system,

switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900.

E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era.

The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch.

 — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, it should be referred to as genocide in Wikivoice.
2. No, it should not be referred to as genocide in Wikivoice.

Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• A. Naseem Hamed is a British-Yemeni boxer.
• B, Naseem Hamed is a British boxer of Yemeni descent.
• C. Naseem Hamed is a British boxer.

? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Loki (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Review the previous discussion here. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] Should we update the Honours section of this article to reflect the correct and definitive records of this club? Gunnlaugson (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)