Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This RFC is to determine whether consensus exists for the inclusion of the following two sentences regarding a widely covered hoax that went viral during the 2024 Donald Trump campaign with regard to JD Vance. The hoax (as evidenced by usage of the word "hoax") is clearly false, however, coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography. The text below (as was used prior to removal without any consensus) very clearly states in Wikivoice it is a hoax, and absent consensus for removal, will be the text used in the article. 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
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.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[5] 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]
Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine, as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages.[6]
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition[7] or faith,[8] completely accepted in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[9] 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]
We have a disagreement on the origin of Kuči tribe. Currently, the article states that the tribe is Albanian in origin, but no citations address the claim directly. Current citations are based on language report 2 centuries after creation of the tribe. I tried dispute resolution but editors mentioned didn't want to participate and just ignored it. Should we change origins to mixed? I will provide more info in a reply to this RfC
There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopiaspeak!08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition[10] or faith,[11] completely accepted in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[12] 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]
There is a debate about the appropriateness of the current "Etymology" section. Should the current information be kept or should it be trimmed? cyclopiaspeak!08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition[13] or faith,[14] completely accepted in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[15] 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]
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition[16] or faith,[17] completely accepted in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[18] 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]
Am I Racist? is likely to be a... let's call it... frequently-edited article over the next few weeks. As of right now, its only two citations are from twitchy.com. I've seen a few mentions of it in the archives, but mostly in the context of other media properties its parent company owns. Its page Twitchy calls it a "Twitter aggregator and commentary website". That doesn't sound super reliable to me.
Should a critical summary statement be added to the lead section?
Among the following options for that statement, if it is added, which one is worded best?
Some reported that the film was well received by critics, while others found overall reception to be more divisive.
Some publications such as USA Today reported that the film was positively received by critics, while others like the New York Times determined it to be more divisive.
Reviews of the film differ by source: some say it was divisive amongst critics, while others said it received positive reviews.
The film received positive and divisive reviews according to critics.
Please note: If the consensus supports Question #1, then the statement with the most support from Question #2 will be selected. BarntToust (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading:
"Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult. Janja Lalich, an academic expert on cults and coercion, has stated that in her view, the ICOC has at minimum some of the "hallmarks of a cult". The church has been barred from recruiting students on campuses or has been denied student organization status at numerous universities." TarnishedPathtalk12:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
During the close request for a the previous RFC I suggested that a consensus could be found if the options were narrowed. The two remaining options received the most support.
Should the political position of La France Insoumise be described as:
The issue is whether this graphic should be included, in any one of the sections, "2024 presidential campaign" or "False or misleading statements" or "Promotion of conspiracy theories". 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This RFC is to determine whether consensus exists for the inclusion of the following two sentences regarding a widely covered hoax that went viral during the 2024 Donald Trump campaign with regard to JD Vance. The hoax (as evidenced by usage of the word "hoax") is clearly false, however, coverage of it has been noteworthy, consistent, and it has clearly had an impact on the subject of this biography. The text below (as was used prior to removal without any consensus) very clearly states in Wikivoice it is a hoax, and absent consensus for removal, will be the text used in the article. 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Trump's main photo of "2024 United States presidential election", there were several discussions previously. - example link:
Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7
I'd like to confirm which photos can be used. I've included the top-voted options based on my understanding, but I think limiting it to three additional choices will give us the most efficient results. If a new, better image emerges, we can compare it after this RFC process
For this RFC process, I propose that we only allow users to vote for one best photo for the Infobox Trump's main photo. This will simplify calculations, as it's easier to determine the winner based on a single vote per user.
Official
>Every U.S. elections always using official portrait but not in presidential primaries, for example, in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton's official portrait was used for 2 times although two times were sequence 4 years ago. weakness of this photo: considering that the age is a concern among some voters, the images of relatively recent can minimise that concern. Trump's 2017 portrait doesn't show a drastically different Trump/no change in appearance.
Option1
>the long-standing "smug" image; This can be seen as an unkind and arrogant, but on the other hand, it can be seen as a confident looking
Option2
>it is smiling freindly photo with his face,like Kamala but Trump's expression in the his body is tilted to the left instead of facing the camera.
Option3
>it is smiling freindly photo and suitable camerawork - example: at eye level, face and body facing camera and he is also smiling like Kamala but there's just an impression that makes him look uneasy.
(Above description: I've compiled a summary of some users feedback.) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion took place nearly three years ago, just after I stopped monitoring the page. I would like to re-open the discussion and extend it to other sources that users have attempted to add. Free speech scholar (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading:
"Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult. Janja Lalich, an academic expert on cults and coercion, has stated that in her view, the ICOC has at minimum some of the "hallmarks of a cult". The church has been barred from recruiting students on campuses or has been denied student organization status at numerous universities." TarnishedPathtalk12:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition[21] or faith,[22] completely accepted in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[23] 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]
Should the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) be referred to as a "cult" in the lead with the current attribution?
The version of the article at the time of writing this RfC can be found at Special:PermaLink/1246510854, with the section in the lead reading:
"Former members of the church have alleged that it is a cult. Janja Lalich, an academic expert on cults and coercion, has stated that in her view, the ICOC has at minimum some of the "hallmarks of a cult". The church has been barred from recruiting students on campuses or has been denied student organization status at numerous universities." TarnishedPathtalk12:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition[24] or faith,[25] completely accepted in official Islam;[3]
prominently featured in folklore.[4] It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[26] 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]
The following discussion took place nearly three years ago, just after I stopped monitoring the page. I would like to re-open the discussion and extend it to other sources that users have attempted to add. Free speech scholar (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
^ abcdefghijklmnD.B. MacDonald; H. Massé; P.N. Boratav; K.A. Nizami; P. Voorhoeve (eds.). "Djinn". Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English). Retrieved 27 July 2024. II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined.
^ abcdefgOlomi, Ali A. (2021). "14. Jinn in the Quran". The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. N.Y.: Routledge. p. 149. Retrieved 24 July 2024. The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces.
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.