| Revision as of 22:07, 14 March 2007 editTHF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,107 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:00, 21 October 2009 edit undoXqbot (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,325,217 editsm Robot: Fixing double redirect to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture | ||
| (134 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| {{RFCheader|Society, law, and sex}} | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| *] -- Edit-war problem: appropriate? See also ]. 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --] 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --] 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --] 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Dispute whether the should be removed. 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Is appropriate on its own? ].18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] -- Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV? 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] -- Is ] a reliable source or an extremist source? Is this article NPOV? 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Should the ] be merged into ] or should it exist in summary style. 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Should sections on recent scandals and ethnic/sex/diversity issues remain in the main article? Or should they be placed into the subsidiary article on the ] with a summary in the main history section. | |||
| *] - need input on if the article has improved or not. In particular whether it is still unbalanced with respect to ], written in a brochure style or deals with controversies in an inappropriate manner. Thanks in advance. 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]. Dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that all students "have at least average ability". 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]. Edit warring by editors who evidently believe that there really is no such thing as Islamphobia, and the Muslims have only themselves to blame. 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]. One editor isnists on adding long sections of exhaustive detail concerning the performance of the school's sports teams. 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - are recent changes to the article helpful and do they adhere to NPOV? Which of two versions of the article is preferable? 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - This organisation espouses legalisation of sexual relationship between men and boys. A fairly heated argument has developped over whether this article should be added to ]. Further imput welcomed. 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Should each entry in this list be individually sourced? -10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]Improper use of ref tag as platform for making unsupported point. 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] – following removal of a major POV vandal/warrior, the research and usage of neuro-linguistic programming (documented and cited in depth) is felt to be seriously misrepresented by the present article, which still reflects the vandal's viewpoint that it is marginal, little used by credible bodies, and pseudoscience. Because of the damage sustained to the article during its 18 month trolling, help is requested from uninvolved editors to review the information summarized and to help ensure the article fairly reflects the subject and neither unfairly maligns it, nor unfairly exaggerates it. '''' 12:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] — disagreements over relevance and suitability of metrial on men who supposedly fall in love with prostitutes, as well as general concerns about length, detail, and tone of the article. 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Please comment on whether ] should be included in the category of Chinese holidays. 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Please comment on a revision of the first sentence of the article. 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] The article has been nominted twice for deletion both times the outcome was keep. An edit war has taken place in the past with this article and is on the verge of begining again. The aricle is heavily weighted to one POV. 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] An edit war currently exists with large blocks of information removed, including a contested classical reference. However, the article has already achieved "Start-Class" quality rating according to the Attacks abound in other articles, and they've spread here now. So far, users have commented on an "article cleanup" and "nice clean-up" when important sections get removed, threatening the article's quality. Also, edits often revert to poor style, including the passive voice. UPDATED 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] White people edit war on the relation of the term to the literal meaning of white prompted protection. In larger discussion, there is debate about whether (1) to describe white as literally inaccurate; (2) skin pigmentation/melanisation might be a better description; (3) the European historical context and/or Eurocentrism should be specified in the text; (4) whether color metaphors for race is an acceptable link. (5) Relevancy of definition of white in ] 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC); restored as consensus not quite agreed 01:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Disagreement on placement of a section. Controversy surrounds whether article deals with USA specifically or is applicable to other jurisdictions. Comments would be appreciated. 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] claims are being made that is it advertising and spam 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ] Should ] redirect to ] or ]? This is turning into a two-person edit war (one of the parties being myself). I'd like a third-party's opionion on this. (Preferably several third parties.) 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign--> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:00, 21 October 2009
Redirect to: