Should the very first sentence of the article Which now reads "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and widely regarded as its founder.[1][2]" Be Changed to include a referenced note at the end which says something like "He is considered by some Muslims to be the founder Islam, while according to other Muslims he should not be called the founder as in their view Islam is the first primordial faith given by God and has no human founder. Non-Muslims, however, consider him to be the founder of Islam". The note should contain at least three references, one for each viewpoint. Similar note technique has been used to give various viewpoints on his station as the "Last Prophet". I propose using Amina Adil's book Muhammad as the source for opinion that he is founder, this history book as a source for the opinion that he is not considered the founder and Esposito as the non-muslim source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, User:Marteau's sole rationale for inclusion is that it has been reported in a couple of places. I direct them to WP:ONUS, part of a Wikipedia policy. Is this information significant or relevant enough to include? If so, how? ―Mandruss☎ 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)|Marteau]]'s sole rationale for inclusion is that it has been reported in a couple of places. I direct them to WP:ONUS, part of a Wikipedia policy. Is this information significant or relevant enough to include? If so, how? ―Mandruss☎ 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)]] Talk:Mohamed Hadid
Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?
No It is not Wikipedia practice to give the current names of every country where someone was born. We don't say "(now Myanmar)" for people born in Burma (Zienia Merton), or "(now the Czech Republic)" or "(now Slovakia)" for those born in Czechoslovakia (David Zeman), or "(now Germany)" for people born in East Germany a.k.a. GDR (Ingrid Auerswald), or "(now Tanzania)" for those born in Tanganyika (Shiraz Sumar), etc., etc. The infobox here is being used as a political football to make a WP:SOAPBOXING point, which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Should the following sentence be added to a new Early Life section?
Vehbi Koç lived in a vineyard estate located in the Keçiören district near Ankara. The property, which was left vacant after the Kasapyan family escaped the Armenian Genocide, was acquired by Koç and became the Vehbi Koç museum in 1944 after a thorough renovation.
Is Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio sufficiently notable in her own right to have a separate article in Wikipedia?
Comments
No - Her notability as a former cheerleader of the Dallas Cowboys is not notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. Her notability emanates solely for being married to Marco Rubio, and as such the article should be merged and redirected there. - Cwobeel(talk) 04:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
To make this simpler and separate it conduct issues in respect of either John or myself, lets put the question: ----SnowdedTALK 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input, since the discussion below, this, this and the related discussion at Talk:Woman indicate that wider input is needed. My commentary below is the older commentary. The RfC concerns whether or not to expand the guideline that was formed via this discussion to cover all topics about large human populations. Some editors also wonder whether the guideline should only focus on lead images. I will alert the WP:Image use policy talk page and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of the snooker player and tournament articles depend on self-published sources. Do they violate WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLOGS? Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
As you can see from the section above, we have a dispute that is getting a little heated concerning the extent to which critical comments about the subject should be covered. The current sticking point seems to be over the content added in this edit. This has since been removed. Opinions and guidance on this would be appreciated. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and turned this poll into a WP:RfC. The WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include regarding Lawrence's ties to the 2014 celebrity photo hack. For more information regarding the dispute, see the discussion above on the article talk page. I will alert the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this poll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Should Susan Block's own blog support her inclusion in this list? Should Ministers solely backed by the NNDB be removed? How reliable is Ashmore's own book whom is used as a source for many on this list? Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:SURNAME, a person should be referred to by her surname in subsequent mentions, and pseudonymous surnames should be used for people who are best known by pseudonyms. According to this guideline, referring to the singer as "XCX" in subsequent uses as a pseudonymous surname may be appropriate, although I can see an argument that "XCX" is not a proper surname. Looking at relevant articles, the styles used are very inconsistent. For example, this article uses "Charli XCX"; Boom Clap uses "XCX"; and Sucker (album) uses "Charli". It may be a good idea to standardize the style across different articles, but which style should be used? sst✈ 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It had been noted that there was some redundancy and maintenance inconsistencies between several longevity related lists including the list this talk page belongs to as well as List of the verified oldest people and others. There is some disagreement with the merger of several of these lists and a suggestion that the discussion be broadened has been proposed. In addition to the thumbs up/thumbs down options on the merger, there may be alternative ways to resolve this discussion that have not yet been considered. aremisasling (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Some users have been removing perfectly sourced content using BLP guidelines as excuse, but that argument is rather invalid. Or is it? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The motives for Berg’s assassination by members of The Order referenced in the body of the article all mention his being Jewish. Should the lede summary also contain the fact his religion was a motive for his killing? N0TABENE (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Is the available sourcing sufficient to justify Jarret Myer having his own Wikipedia article?
Comment: I want editors to be aware that I have a financial conflict of interest, which I disclosed here. I suggested an updated draft for the article in October and asked others to review, since I will not make edits myself due to my COI. Another editor thought the draft was fine, but that the article should be deleted due to lack of notability. Heatherer (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
