The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: Talk:Muhammad - Dear Sir
- In the article-Biography of Prophet Mohamed, particularly in the section: "European and Western views", the article cites how Mohamed was perceived by the learned Europeans of the Middle Ages which was mainly negative. This is essential to give readers a thorough and clear knowledge of the subject. However, I found a judgment in the beginning of this section describing the subsequent negative conceptions about Prophet Mohamed as "remarkably prices". This has two indications:
- the citation-maker is biased because he added his own judgment to the relevant facts.
- the article is unbalanced as it listed firstly positive merits of the subject then listed negative ones with a statement that praises the negative attributes.
- I am a new user of Wikipedia but I think that when we are discussing debatable issues, we have to cite facts and avoid judgments leaving them for readers.
- Thank you for your time
- Fadel Reda —falkifaee (via posting script) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Miraculous Draught of Fish - Should the topic of the miraculous draught of fish be covered in more than one article? Should there be separate articles on each of the two miraculous draught of fish? Should there be a third article that covers the esoteric interpretation of the number 153? Should the original article be deleted? Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Leib Tropper - I have proposed adding the following to the final paragraph:
- The woman whom Tropper was helping to convert has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. Paul Berger, "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox", The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009.
- Two other editors have objected, immediately above -- one with an unfounded conspiracy theory, the other with what in my view is an excessively restrictive reading of BLP. For background: this business started with blog posts, and a discussion at BLPN, here, properly took the view that the blog was unacceptable as a source. However, the story in question has now been picked up in numerous reliable sources, including the NY Post, the Jewish Chronicle, Haaretz, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, etc. I think some editors are having a hard time moving beyond an approach that was initially properly cautious but which has been overtaken by the cascading coverage.
- The particular problem with the current version -- what my proposed addition is meant to remedy -- is that it is couched in terms of allegations, suggesting that nothing has been confirmed. This isn't true: the NY Post story, here, identifies everyone in no uncertain terms. Even so, I don't propose to having Wikipedia asserting that it is all true; I merely want to indicate that the woman in question has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. The main objection above is that this has "no value" -- not exactly a good policy-based argument, given the quality of the sources and the restraint of my sentence. BLP-based caution is one thing, but there is also such a thing as excessive soft-pedalling of a story confirmed by multiple reliable sources.
- Additional sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Any comments appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Ramakrishna - This is Request for Comments from other editors, regarding dispute over emphasis on sexuality, usage of book reviews in this article. I would like to mention that earlier a outside opinion ( archived here ) was sought and subsequently a consensus was reached to avoid overemphasis on sexuality, this being a Biography article and avoid book reviews. However, User:Goethean still believes that "we should be focusing on the serious problems with this article, namely, the suppression of the fact that most scholars of Bengali literature believe that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric", while other editors (including the third opinion) like me believe that overemphasis of sexuality is out of place in the article and there is already a section dedicated to it and also a main article Views on Ramakrishna which discusses several contrasting views in detail. Also I have argued that, several scholars like Peter Heehs, Gayatri Spivak, Alan Rolland, Kelly Ann Raab, Amiya Sen, James Gerald Larson, Somnath Bhattacharyya, John Stratton Hawley, Dr. Jean Openshaw to name a few do not agree with "eccentric sexuality". ( for ex see : Talk:Ramakrishna#Other_quotes )
- Also editors like myself, User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark, User:Ludwigs2 to name a few believe that book reviews are not as reliable as the book itself and the book itself should be used. I have also argued that selectively cherry picking quotes for book reviews ( while ignoring the negative elements ) is prone to give a wrong impression, for ex, see Talk:Ramakrishna#Book_review_RSN_examples, Talk:Ramakrishna#Other_quotes .
- Interested editors can have a look at an example of how confusing inclusion of book reviews can be
-
- |-
- ! style="background-color: #CFC;" | Example
- |-
- | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
- Before the text was :
- In 1995, Kripal argued that argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has suppressed Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta.[122] These views were disputed by Swami Atmajnanananda, who wrote that Jivanavrttanta has been reprinted nine times as of 1995.[123] In 1998, Kripal wrote that he had "overplayed" the suppression of Jivanavrttanta and "the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable."[124]
- In 1997, Malcolm McLean of Otago University[125] argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has "virtually suppressed" Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, which he says "presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna," and that the Movement has "present[ed] a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same..."[126]
- (Note that this part gives a wrong impression that Atmajnanananda's comments do not apply to McLean's and McLean's comments are undisputed, while it is actually not so. Also the book review applies to 1995 ed, the same arguments were altered in 1998. I argue that using book reviews, it can be projected as if the same material is professed by "most scholars of Bengali" as Goethean argues above ( while there is one scholar + book reviews ). for ex : Similar RSN discussion )
- After :
- In 1995 in the first editon of Kali's Child Kripal and in the book review of this edition (1997) by Malcolm McLean of Otago University, both argued that that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has "virtually suppressed" Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, which McLean says "presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna," and that the Movement has "present[ed] a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same...". These views were disputed by Swami Atmajnanananda, who wrote that Jivanavrttanta has been reprinted nine times as of 1995 and the translation of Kathamrita were not "bowlderized" and considered western decorum into consideration. In Kali's Child (2 ed) 1998, Kripal wrote that he had "overplayed" the suppression of Jivanavrttanta and "the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." Amiya Sen wrote that the projection of Ramakrishna as a Vedantin by the Movement is "testified" by "no less than Ramakrishna himself" and the Kathamrita.
- |}
- I would like to request for comments on the following:
- Overemphasis on sexuality in this biography article.
- Usage of book reviews ( especially when more critical reviews exist ).
- --TheMandarin (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:List of new religious movements - Some contributors to the artcle are suggesting that the name of the article be changed to "List of organizations referred to as new religious movements". So as to be completely accurate and to take into account as one editor put it: "Just because a book or a blog or a flier has been written up that calls a group a religion, doesn't make it so. Remember, that labeling a group as another religion has been used throughout history as an attack method." Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:La Luz del Mundo - There is an on-going edit war with regards to the "Controversy" section. One editor removes it, and another puts it back, ad infinitum. I brought the discussion to the talk page, hoping to get some more information about source reliability and possibly some kind of consensus. I removed the section in the article for the duration of the discussion, but it was put back almost immediately. I have no ties to this church nor to any organization criticizing the church. I'm only interested in the reliability of the sources. ... discospinster talk 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Jewish Bolshevism - Does this theory and anti-semitism (a) have its roots in objective reality or (b) is the actual prevalence of Russian Jewish Communists irrelevant. According to the lead, "Jewish Bolshevism... is a pejorative stereotype based on the notion that Jews are the driving force behind the modern Communist movement...." There is disagreement over whether inclusion of the section outlining the names and numbers of Jews in leadership positions and general membership violates neutrality and no original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Second Temple of Jerusalem - Which category is best fitting to describe the archeological location of the Second Temple? --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Manually added requests - This is a human-edited list of requests for comment in this category. To add an entry, go to that page.
To add a discussion to this list: |
