Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Syro-Malabar Church

Is the official name of this article's subject Syro-Malabar Church or Syro-Malabar Major Archepiscopal Church? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the Muhammad article.

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.
• Rodinson, Maxime (2021) [1961]. Muhammad. NYRB Classics. Translated by Carter, Anne. New York Review of Books. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2.

Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

How should the Nakba described?

1. The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
2. The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
3. The Nakba should be described. But neither of the sentences above should be used.
4. The Nakba shouldn't be mentioned.

Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jinn

Should the "Comparative mythology" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the Talk:Jinn#Comparative_mythology, jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. User:Pogenplain suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while User:VenusFeuerFalle sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per WP:BLUESKY.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision

Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute.

Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Atheism

On the order, wording, and framing of the three definitions in the first paragraph of the lede, which currently is:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

It has been stipulated that the middling definition is more commonly found in dictionaries and among the general population and should have primacy, and that the status quo gives the broad definition WP:Undue weight, however the broad definition is supported by a plurality of recent academia and its primacy allows for a natural procession into narrower definitions.

An alternative might be:

Atheism is the absence of or rejection of belief in the existence of a god or gods. In a narrower sense, atheism is the position or belief that there are no deities. (needs to be edited slightly)

Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rafida

Should the following sentence be restored to the lede paragraph of the article on Rafida:

The charge that Shias have rejected the Truth is frequently cited by Sunni extremists to justify their acts of violence against the Shia community.

? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)