Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to change the lead section. This is the process recommended by DRN to avoid the constant stonewalling on this article. I trimmed it down but still kept the same facts. It's now 40~ ish words less than the one being reverted to and is easier to read in my opinion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Should Swift's lead sentence mention that she is a billionaire, the highest-grossing female touring artist, and has sold 200 million records? Is there an argument for having it in the very first sentence and not in the other paragraphs of the lead? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the infobox indicate Wuhan only without Hong Kong as Coco Lee's birth place? Add threaded replies to the discussion section only, thanks. Vacosea (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Ten years have passed since the last discussion [1]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.
The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)"
The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"
"Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina ..." Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Inventor of the Electric Age, p.13
"the village where Tesla was born, is in the province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia.". O'Neill (1944), page 12
The RfC questions are:
Was Tesla's birthplace a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire
As opposed to the interpretation given by some editors which opinion was that, although nowadays (in 21st century) a part of Croatia, Tesla's birthplace wasn't a part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth (in the 19th century)
Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina"
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled reading through the previous RfC regarding the use of an infobox on this page—I was not aware that infoboxes were considered controversial.
However, given 3 years have passed since that consensus was formed, I would like to see if there was still a consensus against the inclusion of an infobox among the editors of this article.
Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
How should Nina Dobrev's nationality be described in the article's lede paragraph?
Nina Kamenova Dobreva is a Bulgarian and Canadian actress.
Nina Kamenova Dobreva is a Canadian actress.
Nina Kamenova Dobreva is an actress.
This RFC aims to resolve a long-standing debate. Some argue that Dobrev's dual nationality should be mentioned in the lede while others insist that her Bulgarian nationality is not relevant to her acting career. Anthony Whitaker (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Please keep this discussion to changing the hatnotes on the TPE article and not others to prevent this from being closed and moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways as what happened to above. Also, this discussion will only effect the TPE page and not others.
Since the discussion to make Class 360 and class 755 was settled a short while ago (links to 360 and 755 discussion respectively), I think the same needs to be said over here. The hatnote currently says:
before being reverted. I now need to see if I reach an agreement to change it to the proposed hatnote (one that links the former TPE companies directly) from the current one that links to TransPennine Express (disambiguation), like what happened when I tried to make 360 and 755 a redirect to the UK rolling stocks, both were reverted, and both reached an agreement. There was a discussion above but to settle but to no avail. Therefore, I think a request from other users are helpful like in the two other cases. JuniperChill (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Which style of subheading nesting should be used for the lists of people in this article? (The difference is in the last subheading, "Former officials".)
Option #1
== Notable Scientology officials ==
(those presumed current in office go here)
=== Deceased ===
== Former officials ==
Option #2
== Notable Scientology officials ==
(those presumed current in office go here)
=== Deceased ===
=== Former officials ===
Option #3
(Something else, please specify)
Over the last 18 months, the nesting of the list with its subheadings has changed numerous times and has not resolved with talk page discussions, leading to this RfC to try to settle the issue. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC Question: Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?
Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition[1] or faith,[2] "completely accepted" in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[4] who "worked out" the consequences implied by their existence -- legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.[3]
Ref-list and Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1
Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.
Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu
Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option.
While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".
By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.
This is confusing in several different ways:
Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.
I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:
(Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nounsnote (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")
Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:
The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.
However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
In 1967, the Government of New Brunswick abolished county municipal governments. Do counties still exist in New Brunswick despite this abolition? (Note: This question has been significantly reworded for clarity.) G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.
This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).
It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.
Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
George Lenczowski in “Russia and the West in Iran, 1918-1948” (1949) page 160 says the Nazis declared Iranians as Aryans without citation and has been cited himself by many authors repeating this statement, Motadel and Ansari in “Perceptions of Iran” (2013) pages 135 and 145 say they didn’t, that Lenczowski was incorrect, and cite primary source documents, but have not been widely cited by other authors on this particular subject. Which can be considered correct for use in this article and others? See Talk:Germany–Iran relations#Nazis declaring Iranians Aryans/Hitler personally saying so for further discussion. Nosam89 (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Ten years have passed since the last discussion [3]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.
The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)"
The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"
"Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina ..." Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Inventor of the Electric Age, p.13
"the village where Tesla was born, is in the province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia.". O'Neill (1944), page 12
The RfC questions are:
Was Tesla's birthplace a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire
As opposed to the interpretation given by some editors which opinion was that, although nowadays (in 21st century) a part of Croatia, Tesla's birthplace wasn't a part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth (in the 19th century)
Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina"
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Our transcription system for English (H:IPAE) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its diaphonemic transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are phonemic. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? --mach🙈🙉🙊07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option.
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.
Are states at Fermi level equivalent to metallic conduction (and vica versa)?
Sandbh is claiming that they are not equivalent, and that similarly the opposite of having no states at the Fermi level is not equivalent to a non-metal (i.e. insulator/semiconductor etc) which does not conduct electricity, creating an edit war. This is in both Nonmetallic materials and Metals. The sources quoted are Ashcroft and Mermin and Kittel, the relevant chapters as (obviously) the Fermi-Dirac statistics and conduction is more complex than one sentence. It seems that Sandbh considers anything that is a paraphrasing as WP:OR, only direct quotes can be used. Unfortunately Sandbh appears to never have had any training in solid state physics. I am posting the RfC here as it covers more than one page and this is the most obvious place for it, particularly in light of his previous question here. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to change the lead section. This is the process recommended by DRN to avoid the constant stonewalling on this article. I trimmed it down but still kept the same facts. It's now 40~ ish words less than the one being reverted to and is easier to read in my opinion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.
Since the DRN has been closed by the volunteer admin, I'm opening this RfC to have a clear consensus about the matter that was discussed above. Should there be an "end date" for the groups who just don't have an activity this year even though they are still active in the industry?
Should Swift's lead sentence mention that she is a billionaire, the highest-grossing female touring artist, and has sold 200 million records? Is there an argument for having it in the very first sentence and not in the other paragraphs of the lead? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the infobox indicate Wuhan only without Hong Kong as Coco Lee's birth place? Add threaded replies to the discussion section only, thanks. Vacosea (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled reading through the previous RfC regarding the use of an infobox on this page—I was not aware that infoboxes were considered controversial.
However, given 3 years have passed since that consensus was formed, I would like to see if there was still a consensus against the inclusion of an infobox among the editors of this article.
Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The Sun was a broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969. It was a replacement for a similar broadsheet newspaper called the Daily Herald, which it resembled. It was owned by the International Publishing Corporation and the Mirror Group. Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie had nothing to do with it. In 1969, it was replaced by a very different and disimilar tabloid newspaper with the same name, called The Sun, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch. That tabloid newspaper has an entry in WP:RSP located at WP:THESUN. Unfortunately that entry fails to indicate whether it applies to the previous broadsheet newspaper, and the broadsheet newspaper does not appear to have been discussed during previous discussions of "The Sun" at RSN. We need to decide whether the broadsheet newspaper published from 1964 to 1969 is reliable, so that the entry at WP:THESUN can be clarified.
Accordingly this Request for Comment asks:
What is the reliability of the national daily broadsheet newspaper published in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1969 called The Sun?
While browsing through articles on subdivisions of Cologne with the intention of adding translations from German Wikipedia, I noticed that the terms used to translate different levels of subdivision are inconsistent across these pages. The overview article Districts of Cologne translates Stadtbezirk as "(city) district", and Stadtteil very literally as "city part". Articles about individual Stadtbezirke on the other hand, like Lindenthal and Rodenkirchen instead render Stadtbezirk as "borough" and Stadtteil as either "(city) quarter" "city part".
By way of comparison, articles on Berlin, which calls its top-level subdivisions Bezirk and its second-level subdivisions Ortsteil (which meanings do not differ substantially from Stadtbezirk and Stadtteil), uses "borough" for the former and "locality" for the latter.
This is confusing in several different ways:
Readers may take a minute to work out that what some articles call a "borough" is the same thing other articles call a "district".
The literal translation "city part" for Stadtteil sounds vague and doesn't really convey any scale or significance to the reader. It also sounds a bit "awkward" to my mind. The term "locality" used for Ortsteil is less awkward, but no less vague.
The use of "quarter" for Stadtteil is wholly nonsensical as the Stadtteile themselves can be further subdivided informally into German: (Stadt)viertel / Kölsch: Veedel, which literally translates as..."(city) quarter". Berlin articles use "neighbourhood" for such further, informal subdivisions of their Ortsteile.
I would like to propose the following consistent approach for the subdivisions of German cities:
(Stadt)bezirk or other top-level division to be rendered as borough
Stadt-/Ortsteil or other second-level division to be rendered as district
Viertel or other (usually informal) third-level division to be rendered as neighbourhood except in proper nounsnote (e.g. Severinsviertel → "Severin Quarter", Belgisches Viertel → "Belgian Quarter")
Subjectively, as a binative of English and German, this is what seems most intuitively comprehensible/evocative, but there are also objective reasons speaking for it:
The borough-district schema has also been used for translating Stockholm's top-level stadsdelsområden and second-level stadsdelar, the latter even being cognate with Stadtteile.
However, I didn't want to charge ahead and make these changes without first inviting comment to see if there might be any good reasons this isn't already what's used across the board. So...what do other editors think? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 12:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
There is a clear consensus that Labour, the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems should be included in the infobox. Should more parties be included in the infobox, and if so, which?
The main viable options (examples linked) are:
A: Keeping the infobox as it is currently (3x1, LAB CON LDM. format used for elections 1950-2010)
B: Changing the infobox to a 2x2 layout and adding the SNP (format used for 2015, 2019 elections)
C: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein and Reform (format used for 2017 election)
D: Changing the infobox to a 3x2 layout and adding the SNP, Reform and the Greens (excluding NI parties from the Infobox, see first box here)
E: Changing the infobox to a 3x3 layout and adding the SNP, Sinn Fein, Reform, the Greens, Plaid, and the DUP (see earlier edits to this page)
F: Changing the infobox to TILE (format not used for UK elections, but is used for elections e.g. in the Netherlands and Israel)
I believe the previous discussion here was not all that productive (it didn't involve all that much analysis of sources, and there was only I believe 4 or so active editors in the discussion (which is why I've added the RFC template to this discussion)), and that the main argument to remove it was incredibly weak; that argument being, "A majority (or a lot) of sources do not describe the party as neo-fascist." That. does. not. matter. Said sources often describe the party as national conservative and or right-wing populist. These are not mutually exclusive with fascism, infact, right-wing populism is one of the core tenets of fascism. (13, here which links to right-wing populism.) Nor is national conservatism mutually exclusive with fascism, and in fact italian neo-fascist parties (most notably MSI) are listed as also being national conservative here here. Please do not repeat this argument. Sources merely not labelling the party as neo-fascist do not matter, what does matter, however is the sources which outright reject the neo-fascist label. There are plenty of sources that don't describe birds as being dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they aren't. Additionally, sources highlighting the parties roots in fascism are not neccesarily rejecting that they curron ently are, instead it's merely highlighting the historical aspect.A SocialistTrans Girl07:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the first sentence continue to read "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped by the Provisional IRA" or be reverted back to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? 78.147.140.112 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
This RfC is a continuation of the discussion regarding the 2015 UK general election and the question on which parties to include in that page's infobox. For some context, there has been a longstanding debate on whether UKIP - which received a seat and was the third most voted for party - should be listed. Currently, the consensus from the most recent RfC on the topic is to not include UKIP, but the inherent controversial nature of this decision has meant that debates and occasional edit-wars have sprouted up in the years since, with no full resolution in sight.
This RfC is hopefully an attempt to solve this controversy and to provide more clarity to the longstanding 5% rule guideline surrounding election infoboxes.
The main questions to be discussed are:
What criteria, hard or soft, should be met by parties to be included in an infobox? This includes having >5% of the popular vote, earning a parliamentary seat, media noteworthiness, etc. Along with this, are there times that a party meeting some or all of these criteria should not be included in the infobox? If so, why, and when?
Should the 5% rule, or some approximation of it, be applied to parliamentary elections? There have been discussion held on this topic in 2021 and 2023, but no formal consensus on whether it should actually apply in some form, either weakly or strongly, to parliamentary election infoboxes has occurred.
How should the choice between the {{Infobox election}} and {{Infobox legislative election}} templates be made? Should it be contingent on >9 parties meeting all the criteria listed above, or should it be more dependent on local conditions? There are inconsistencies between countries - and even between different elections of the same country - on the infobox style used, so it would be valuable to have this issue more formally clairfied.
RfC Question: Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?
Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition[1] or faith,[2] "completely accepted" in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[4] who "worked out" the consequences implied by their existence -- legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.[3]
Ref-list and Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1
Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.
Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
RfC Question: Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?
Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition[1] or faith,[2] "completely accepted" in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[4] who "worked out" the consequences implied by their existence -- legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.[3]
Ref-list and Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1
Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.
Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu
Which of the following versions should be used in the Food and health section? A is the current version in the article and B is the new version. This is a follow-up RfC. A previous RfC was conducted after a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case. Version B below was preferred over another suggested new version, mainly due to length. In the previous RfC, the current version wasn't given as a specific option.
Do you think that we must remove the claims referring to him as "Oligarch" out of the introduction and place them in the appropriate section within the article? D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?
Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.
Should the infobox indicate Wuhan only without Hong Kong as Coco Lee's birth place? Add threaded replies to the discussion section only, thanks. Vacosea (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?
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.
.jpg)
(b)(2).jpg)
_(b).JPG)
