Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| 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) |
| This article's neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Does this warrant a dispute tag on the article? Zippy268 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Talk:Antisemitism in the United States
| I think the article should omit the the lists of individual anti-semitic incidents in order to be more encyclopedic and better fit my understanding of wikipedia standards. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. Other editors seem to disagree with me, and it would be good to have some additional eyes on this. See above discussion under Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it although I think this same critique applies to lists of incidents outside the colleage campuses section. Thanks.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 21:01, 7 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) |
Talk:Ásatrú in the United States
| Basic question: Should this article be renamed "Heathenry in the United States"?
More information: This article is currently titled "Ásatrú in the United States", and is devoted to the subject of Heathenry, a modern Pagan new religious movement, as it exists in the United States. As the GA-rated article on Heathenry makes clear, "Heathenry" is the term which is commonly used (in particular by academics) as a catch-all to cover the entirety of this new religious movement. Other terms, such as "Asatru" and "Odinism", are favoured by some practitioners but are avoided by others, and lack the wider coverage of the term "Heathenry". Given that many of the Heathens in the United States do not use "Asatru" but instead favour "Odinism" or other terms, it seems problematic to have this page titled "Ásatrú in the United States", with "Heathenry in the United States" being a much more inclusive and apposite title. I believe that this should be a fairly un-controversial change and would like to gain consensus in support of it from various otherwise un-involved editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Other articles, generally outside the context of recognized religions, that involve belief systems which have not been factually verified make this clear either in the text of the article (usually in the introductory section) or by referencing articles that make this clear. So far, Christianity (and, I believe, many of its fellow religions) have gotten special treatment in this regard. It is time, in my opinion, for this to end, which would make the Christianity article consistent with the other articles regarding unverified claims. For example, the following articles all make it clear that the views of the adherents, or the beings in questions, have no confirmed factual basis: astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, leprechaun. The first three of these (astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy) state flatly in the introduction section that the claims have no verified factual basis. The latter three of these (troll, fairy, leprechaun) refer, directly or indirectly, to the mythology article which makes clear that the beings have no verified factual basis. This is not the case with this article, which states various claims by adherents, including stating that "Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity," but does not tell the reader that Christians have not backed up these claims with evidence. This article does reference the religion article, but that article does not make clear that the claims of various of the religions are not factually verified, nor, I think should it because not all religions necessarily make claims with no verified factual basis.
The fact that Christianity and some of the other specific religions do not have the same type of disclaimer language, stating that the adherents believe things that they cannot back up with evidence, as is found in the other similar types of articles (astrology, acupuncture, homeopathy, troll, fairy, leprechaun) is misleading and a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia entries, who are not put on notice that the claims and assertions are not backed up with any evidence. There is no reason NOT to put the reader on notice of this when reading this material, and the failure to do so heretofore is, I suspect, an example of bias in favor of Christianity (and its fellow religions). I decided to start with this article, since Christianity is the most popular religion worldwide, but my edit was reverted. |
| Should the honorific-prefix field of the infobox of this article include the prefix "Supreme Vicar of the Croatian Army, including genocidal Ustaše forces" as well as "His Eminence Blessed Dr."? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
Propose amending the first sentence of the third paragraph from:
To:
In other Wikipedia articles such as those on the treatment of Jews, gypsies and black people in WWII Germany, and article would not merely say that these people were "not ... accepted" not least because that would not be true. Wikipedia even present: Category:Rescue of Jews in the Holocaust. People in such circumstances were taken into homes, hidden, protected and certainly accepted. In a similar way it seems to me that Wikipedia goes too far with its unsubstantiated claim that "homosexuality is not socially ... accepted" "in most of the Islamic world". As with all similar issues, it depends on the extent of their prejudice of the people concerned. I will leave a link to this thread at WP:LGBT and WP:Islam and Ping recent contributors to the article: Alexis Ivanov, AstroLynx, BethNaught, Bgwhite, BorgQueen, Chrisdike95, Contaldo80, Deisenbe, DMacks, Dialectric, Erodes43, Flyer22 Reborn, GermanJoe, GorgeCustersSabre, I dream of horses, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Instantpancakes350, JCO312, Jeff5102, Lutipri, Maplestrip, Nematsadat, Nøkkenbuer, Philip Trueman, Rupert loup, Serols, Tadeusz Nowak, Talebhaq, Tymon.r, Winner 42 |
| 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) |
|
||||||||||||||
- ^ Cyril Glassé; Huston Smith (January 2003). The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman Altamira. p. 320. ISBN 978-0-7591-0190-6.
- ^ Morgan, Diane (2009). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-313-36025-1. Retrieved 4 July 2012.
