| Revision as of 01:18, 20 May 2007 editRobert Horning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,619 edits Adding First Vision as something which should be reviewed.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:01, 26 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,664 edits Removed: Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude> | |||
| {{shortcut|]<br>]}} | |||
| {{rfclistintro}} | |||
| {{RFCheader|Religion and philosophy}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| <!-- Add new items here at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign --> | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] Dispute over the POV of the article and a formally proclaimed edit war in progress, with numerous reverts and other editorial actions losing even minor edit changes like spelling fixes as fallout of the content dispute. Mainly I'm seeking somebody to review the POV of the article and the edit history...although be forewarned that the POV issues are incredibly contentious at the moment. Even beyond the edits of one individual claiming ownership of the article, there are other points of controversy that involve multiple editors and philosophical camps. --] 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *] Dispute over addition of a quote from ] on Terrorism. --] 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Should Masha Amini be referred to as Kurdish-Iranian in the first sentence of the lead? | |||
| *] YET AGAIN one individual trying to control the discussion works against previously established consensus. Violates 3RR regularly. Was finally warned about 3RR by an admin. We hdid not reported him as we are vets of edit wars and try to stay to ourselves but... we really need some fresh support.11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]- This is a request for involvement. The article is very unconventional and needs some good editors to give it an overhaul. It concerns a philosophy/practice/cult. -08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *One editor has proposed merging ] into ]. The former is in this editor's opinion (1) a ] and (2) too narrow in scope for an independent article. Should it be redacted to the salient points and integrated with the section on Calvin's thought? The other editor (also sole author of the former article) thinks that the two should remain distinct even now and that one can't express someone else's a view without such quotations. What do you think? (More discussion ].) 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] interconnected with ] has a long-term dispute over "dynastic succession" between {{User|Klezmer}} and {{User|ChosidFrumBirth}} that has spilled over into an extensive exchange at ]. Some cool-headed outside input would help, but be prepared for a very esoteric subject relating to ]. 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Should an individual who provided only editorial assistance (helping to edit the original textual content), but who provided none of the original textual content itself, be named by Misplaced Pages as an author or writer of ACIM due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the initial "channeling" of ACIM? ''This debate has been resolved.''-22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] and ] - There has been an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not it is reasonable to describe and or/categorize Bob Dylan as a Christian convert. 23:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Is the phrase "despite this" a POV push and OR? Or is it warranted by the context and other sources?18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This has previously been discussed at ], ] and ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *] There is a dispute on the best use of primary sources. Would like comments from wikipedians, ideally from people who are disinterested with regard to the ]. An ancillary point regarding the use of primary sources is the inherant POV they sometimes bring (e.g., the article becomes an extension of the controversy instead of a description of the controversy) or that the article sometimes leans toward attempting to decide the controversy. NOTE: ''Controversy'', as used in this RFC, is the topic of the article, and not a description of the dispute.07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{RFC list footer|reli|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | |||
| *] and ] on the proposed merge. ] 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Is it possible to find a '''single NPOV term''' to refer to the organism/child from conception to birth or miscarriage or abortion? Please make suggestions as to what this '''one''' term can be.16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ] Major problems with ] throughout the article. Assertions are being made based on primary sources. No consenus on how to fix this situation. 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]. Should the article contain information on the history and current criticism of this organisation? ] 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] We can't agree over the addition of two external links. ] 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] Are recently-added "mythology" categories pushing a certain POV / opinion about the Biblical subject, or are all the people and groups who disagree that it is mythological just "insignificant" and "incorrect"? 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] If a group mentions interactions it has had with one specific governmental agency in one sentence, and then in the next sentence mentions other, different interactions it has had with "state authorities", is it justifiable to assume that the "state authorities" mentioned in the second sentence must include the specific agency named in the first sentence? Is it justifiable for an editor to assert that the governmental agency named in the first sentence is a "Secret Service" without providing any reference for that assertion? -- 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] long dispute/edit war about reliable souces for criticism of the Indian writer who claims that Christianity and Islam orginated from Hinduism, and that the Taj Mahal was once a Hindu temple. ] 05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC) | |||
| *] Do we need to distinguish between Golden Rule and Silver Rule. Disputers disagree whether such a distinction puts religions touting Golden Rule over religions touting Silver Rule.17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] NPOV dispute over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. The current language reflects a prior decision to replace "]" with the equivalent sentence "argument for the existence of God". Please note confusion over different definitions of "teleological" and "teleological argument" 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign --> | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 08:01, 26 December 2024
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should Masha Amini be referred to as Kurdish-Iranian in the first sentence of the lead?
This has previously been discussed at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini/Archive 1#"Kurdish-Iranian" at Mahsa Amini, Talk:Mahsa Amini/Archive 1#Mahsa Amini was a Kurdish-Iranian and Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Kurdish-Iranian. TarnishedPath 02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Requests for comment (All) | |
|---|---|
| Articles (All) |
|
| Non-articles (All) | |
| Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
| For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot. | |