| Revision as of 19:35, 31 May 2007 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits Islamophobia← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:01, 29 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,301 edits Removed: Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini. | ||
| 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 --> | |||
| {{RFC list footer|reli|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | |||
| *]: A long-standing dispute over whether a paper by Jehanzeb Hasan, a research assistant at California State University, can be used as a source. Hasan's paper provides a rejoinder to criticism of Islamophobia (i.e. he is arguing that Islamophobia does exist). His paper is used as the basis for , which some editors have been removing for months because they say he is not a ''reliable'' source, because he is not a ''notable'' source. Other editors argue that he needs only to be a reliable source, not a notable one. Comments please to ]. 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] A Neutral Point of View dispute regarding an example of an argument pattern for use on ]. A listing at third opinion has not cleared the matter up. 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] We have some material. Dispute is over "Should this be added to the article and if so, where?"- The involved users have discussed it there but the issue is remained unsolved.08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| *] Dispute over addition of a quote from ] on Terrorism. --] 10:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] 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. Help also needed around keepin ] out of the article. -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) | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| <!--Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign --> | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 03:01, 29 December 2024
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| 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. | |