Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

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

In section "Islam": 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,^[4] but 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]

13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change

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.

Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

This cagegorization [1] - characterizing the event as "Massacres committed by Ukraine" - is challenged. Nowhere in the article it says it "was committed by Ukraine", and no sources are saying so. I disagree with the thesis above Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia#Wrong cat that at some level of abstraction, it was committed by Ukraine but I'm the only one opposing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of genocides

Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming of German municipal subdivisions

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 nouns^note (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 City of Cologne's official web page on its subdivisions alongside this official map of Veedel uses precisely this borough-district-neighbourhood schema while retaining "quarter" for proper nouns (example)
Berlin likewise officially uses "boroughs" for Bezirke and "districts and neighbourhoods" for Ortsteile and their subdivisions
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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Brunswick

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)

Talk:Battle of Shanghai

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.

Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

When data provided by Gaza Health Ministry is mentioned in prose should Gaza Health Ministry have a qualifier such as Hamas-run or Hamas-controlled? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:White Shirts Society

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)

Talk:Mughal dynasty

Per discussions above, these suggestions have made for a new Mughal dynasty lead:

"The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized Turco-Mongol dynasty that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
- Or: "The Mughal dynasty was an Indianized dynasty of Turco-Mongol origin that ruled over the Mughal Empire from 1526 to 1857."
No changes.

Kindly, state the preferred options below. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Germany–Iran relations

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)

Talk:Gaza Health Ministry

Abraham Wyner, a professor of statistics, wrote in The Tablet that the Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures were "faked". There has been a number of discussions disagreeing about what can be included. Four academics who have entries on Wikipedia including two of statistics have dismissed the article but only one has written an analysis and that of only the first argument. Should comments which don't include analysis be included? The latest discussions are at WP:NPOVN#Gaza Health Ministry, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Revisiting Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#One of the worst abuses of statistics I've ever seen, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Wyner summary, Talk:Gaza Health Ministry#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

Ten years have passed since the last discussion [2]. 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"

Trimpops2 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Niedermayer

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)

Talk:Hermann Göring

Which of the following images should serve as the infobox picture for Hermann Göring?

A (Current Image)
B
C
D
E

Emiya1980 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

^ Mark A. Caudill (2006). Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 92. ISBN 9780313084850. Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief.
^ William E. Burns (2022). They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 137. ISBN 9781440878480. Jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.
^ ^a ^b D.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.
^ Olomi, Ali A. (2021). "14. Jinn in the Quran". The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. N.Y.: Routledge. p. [No page number in google books]. Retrieved 24 July 2024. The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces.
^ Coeli Fitzpatrick; Adam Hani Walker, eds. (2014). Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 321. ISBN 9781610691789.

[1] Mark A. Caudill (2006). Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 92. ISBN 9780313084850. Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief.

[2] William E. Burns (2022). They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 137. ISBN 9781440878480. Jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.

[EI-2-English-3] D.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.

[Olomi-prominently-2021-4] Olomi, Ali A. (2021). "14. Jinn in the Quran". The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. N.Y.: Routledge. p. [No page number in google books]. Retrieved 24 July 2024. The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces.

[5] Coeli Fitzpatrick; Adam Hani Walker, eds. (2014). Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 321. ISBN 9781610691789.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

v t e Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)	Biographies (bio) Economy, trade, and companies (econ) History and geography (hist) Language and linguistics (lang) Maths, science, and technology (sci) Media, the arts, and architecture (media) Politics, government, and law (pol) Religion and philosophy (reli) Society, sports, and culture (soc)
Non-articles (All)	Wikipedia style and naming (style) Wikipedia policies and guidelines (policy) WikiProjects and collaborations (proj) Wikipedia technical issues and templates (tech) Wikipedia proposals (prop) Unsorted
Instructions	To add a discussion to this list: 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.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.