| Revision as of 21:29, 11 August 2005 editGirolamo Savonarola (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers60,983 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:21, 1 November 2005 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits merge with religion section, because of 80%-90% overlap | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #redirect ] | |||
| {{RFCheader|Philosophy}} | |||
| *] - debate about whether or not to change naming standard en masse. We're starting to wrap things up (I hope) and would like a few more people to weigh in on some final issues. --] 21:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Revert war about changes to introductory paragraph. Edits by anonymous user involve unnecessary archiving of very recent and relevant material and editing of the comments of other users; repeated reversion and referring to the comments of others as "obscurantist" and "vandalism" . See also ] 21:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] NPOV complaint about deletion of links which criticize atheism. | |||
| *] - I feel there is a severe lack of observation of ] and ] in this article. Content comes mainly from a few websites which I consider ]. Particularly, one editor is of the opinion that normal Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines should not apply to this article. ] 23:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] — there has for some time been a battle between editors who wish to state dates for Shankara that are accepted by most scholarly authorities (religious, philosophical, and historical), and those who wish to give more weight to the very different view of a set of religious institutions connected with Shankara. 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *]. There is a ''']''' to move the page to ]. Should the page retain its current location (which is more in line with common use) or should "]" be a disambiguation page between the different uses, which may be fairer? 12:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This question is not written from a NPOV, because it assumes there ''are'' different uses (that are noteworthy in an encyclopedia) of the term "]", which is a point in contention. --] 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] Should the article include the neologism "Inverted Ad Hominem"? There is concern that the term itself has very rare usage and its meaning is not self-evident. It was invented several months ago by the same person who inserted it into the Misplaced Pages article. He claims that recognition of the fallacy supports its own inclusion. 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 11:21, 1 November 2005
Redirect to: