Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/RFC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy
Requests for comments

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

Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy

There is a disagreement over the lead including the various accusations of the demonstrations against the CTA and Dalai Lama and result of the public denouncement, instead of just criticism of those who practice Dorje Shugden and that 'there are demonstrators'. Should these accusations be included?Prasangika37 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Acharya S

Somewhat odd to have two unrelated questions running simultaneously on the same article, but both related to the active campaign by the bio subject to have critical scholarly reception excluded from the article. The new book by Maurice Casey for T&T Clark has been notified at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Maurice_Casey_reliable_for_Acharya_S._article.3F. Now should content from Casey be included in the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


First complaining the references are cherry picked, then additional references were added and finally existing once were deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

Membership to Kokuchūkai deleted in lede, reference dealing with it also deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Acharya S

Should the result of previous RFC Talk:Acharya_S/Archive_12#Request_for_comment be restored? See above comment User:Rjd0060 "As for which version was protected, I'm sure I protected The Wrong Version. My apologies, but per PPOL and administrative procedures, we typically must stay completely neutral in the case and protect the article in the current state, rather than a preferred state". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party

The section on the Godhra train burning in the BJP article is using weasel words to avoid stating by whom the train was burned, even though the article BJP contains paragraph upon paragraph on the related Gujarat incidents. It's like saying that Muath al-Kasasbeh was burned alive, but avoiding to state that he was burned by ISIS militants.

The Godhra train burning happened when a Muslim mob set fire with highly inflammable liquids on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims and hindered the fire fighting systems. A court convicted 31 Muslims for the incident and the conspiracy for the crime.

The section should clearly state that the train was set on fire by a mob and that people have been convicted for it. (as the wikipedia articles already state).

Secondly, the paragraph should also state the official numbers of the victims in the riots that followed (800 Muslims, 250 Hindus), and not only estimates which could be inflated and/or ignore Hindu victims.

I propose to change the statement:

On 27 February 2002, a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was burned outside the town of Godhra, killing 59 people. The incident was seen as an attack upon Hindus, and sparked off massive anti-Muslim violence across the state of Gujarat that lasted several weeks. The death toll estimated was as high as 2000, while 150,000 were displaced.


On 27 February 2002, a Muslim mob set on fire a train wagon carrying passengers returning from Ayodhya, killing 59 people, including twenty-seven women and ten children, who were burned alive. This incident sparked off a cycle of communal violence across the state of Gujarat that lasted several weeks. The riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus, and many more were forced to seek shelter in refugee camps. Some observers have estimated the death toll to be as high as 2000, while 150,000 were displaced.

Also AP has shown that the article gives too much weight on Godhra/Babri/Gujarat riots (which are all related). Indeed, in the period 1980 to 1998 (18 years), about 95% of the article is on this issue. Did nothing else happen in these 18 years for the BJP?.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sam Harris (author)

Was this edit [1] to this BLP proper? 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization

Should the material made by the origanization's Vice President, Steve Haas, and responses to it be included in the article? If so, what should the heading be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

When a divinity from a religion (particularly applying to poly theistic religions) shares its name with one of more other notable topics, then the disambiguation may work in either of two ways, either to: "... (deity)" or to "... (god)" or "... (goddess)". There may be some divinities that are not presented in relation to gender or which may have representations to which gender may be a less than prominent feature of the persona (such as with some divinities in for instance animal form). In other cases I would like to propose that a general move is made towards "... (god)" or "... (goddess)" disambiguation as a general rule but a concerted move in the opposite direction would provide consistency.

I have not done a full survey but from what I have seen I think that there may be a tendency to present male divinities as gods and female divinities as goddesses. If this is so then this would not present NPOV and I suggest that an agreement regarding consistent presentation would resolve such an issue. GregKaye 08:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


(1) Should the lead to the Alawites article include a summary of the section of the article entitled "Beliefs"?

(2) If "yes", should that summary be as follows:

Alawites have historically kept their beliefs secret from outsiders and non-initiated Alawites, so rumours about them have arisen. Arabic accounts of their beliefs tend to be partisan (either positively or negatively).[1] However, since the early 2000s, Western scholarship on the Alawite religion has made significant advances.[2] At the core of Alawite belief is a divine triad, comprising three aspects of the one God. These aspects or emanations appear cyclically in human form throughout history. The last emanations of the divine triad, according to Alawite belief, were as Ali, Muhammad and Salman the Persian. Alawites were historically persecuted for these beliefs by the Sunni Muslim rulers of the area.

  1. ^ Friedman, Yaron (2010). The Nuṣayrī-ʻAlawīs: An Introduction to the Religion, History, and Identity of the Leading Minority in Syria. p. 68. ISBN 9004178929. 
  2. ^ Friedman, Yaron (2010). The Nuṣayrī-ʻAlawīs: An Introduction to the Religion, History, and Identity of the Leading Minority in Syria. p. 67. ISBN 9004178929. 
DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jemima Goldsmith

Should the infobox religion entry list Jemima Goldsmith (Khan) as both Judaism and Islam? -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.