Talk:Reporters Without Borders
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reporters Without Borders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
RfC: "RWB" or "RSF" initialisms in article body
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the body of the article use RWB or RSF as an initialism for Reporters without Borders? Their logo uses the french initialism, and their English abbreviation is RWB. The article currently uses both arbitrarily. dudhhrContribs 06:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Dudhhr: You don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC for this. I see no evidence that there has been any dispute (such as the acronym being changed back-and-forth by two or more editors), nor any indication that the suggestions given at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried, let alone exhausted.
- Start off by being bold then if somebody reverts you, discuss it (perhaps as a continuation of this section). Only go for RfC when all else fails. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Criticism
[edit]I'll be bold and remove the Criticism section. It has been poorly sourced for a long time, used to consist also in content from deprecated sources, and I doubt that it current weight is appropriate. At its current state, it essentially amounts to an attack section. The removal can be contested, but if so the issues must be addressed because of these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- I see the criticisms as valid and correct. It would be grievous to remove them. 118.211.76.187 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Criticism, separate sections are not very encyclopaedic. CMD (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class France articles
- Low-importance France articles
- Paris task force articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- B-Class organization articles
- Mid-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Internet articles
- Unknown-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles