Should the following material be included in the article?
"In 2020, Shohreh Bayat stated that she feared "returning to Iran after an image of her at a chess tournament abroad seemed to show her not wearing a hijab."[1] Bayat received support from American embassies through Twitter, with the United States Embassy in Lisbon saying “No wonder Shohreh Bayat is afraid of returning to Iran", "Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, women risk harsh prison sentences for violating the mandatory hijab law.”[2]Saff V. (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Disagreement exists on whether the lead of the article should state "also known as Judith Halberstam" or "formerly known as Judith Halberstam." Mentioning, and how to mention, Halberstam's pronoun usage in the lead is also a point of discussion, but is not the main focus.
So should the lead of the article state "also known as Judith Halberstam"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The Slitherlink article currently has a detailed list of solution methods at Slitherlink#Solution_methods. Would removing this section improve the article?
Should the lists of "People born in Year of the [Sign]" be removed from Chinese zodiac articles? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I've a proposal to modify the lead of the "Millennials" article from saying,
"Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted defining range for the generation."
to "Researchers and popular media typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted defining range for the generation."
My justification here, as I've mentioned before, is that a whopping 27 sources in this article ended Millennials in the mid 90s. Only 4 sources in the body end the generation in the early 2000s (2000-2003), one of the them (the Census Bureau) even saying they don't officially define Millennials, another (CNN) saying "sometimes 1980–2000" (emphasis on "sometimes"), and the other two (Elwood Carlson and U.S. PIRG) being outdated sources from when this generation's identity was still heavily in flux.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Should this article contain the "In Logic" section seen in this diff? The disputed text is Sanctity of life fails on a following question: "Would you kill Hitler in 1939?". Both possible answers (yes/no) don't respect sanctity of life.gnu57 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The question is whether the lead of the article should only mention definitions of Chinatown from local government bodies, or whether it should mention other definitions of Chinatown quoted by secondary sources such as newspapers.
Should the Battered woman syndrome and Battered person syndrome articles be merged so that the medical and legal aspects defined under the terms "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are covered in one article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)