| Revision as of 10:52, 29 August 2006 editNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits +Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Caption← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:01, 26 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,656 edits Removed: Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|]<br>]}} | |||
| {{RFCheader|Religion and philosophy}} | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items here at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| *] - A blogger named Ben-Zion, Jaffe for ] has stated that ] is by the anti-war group ]. One editor believes that the per ] (about blogs connect to reliable sources) and ] this information should be included about the image. Another editor has expressed the view that she needs to verify the source of the image herself before such information can be included in the caption. The question needing answering is does a blogger for a respected news organization safe enough to consider as a reliable and verifiable source about such a detail? Please see ] of talk. | |||
| * ] - should a section on "Animal rights and anti-Semitism" make a reference to recent campaigns by animal rights activists to ban kosher slaughter? One editor says this is not an animal rights issue because it has to do with "but to the best way to kill animals for food" however there are numerous sources that assert animal rights activists are involved in these campaigns - see ]. ] 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - Some editors keep removing sourced material on ]. (The controversy section). Articles on ] and ] do have a "controversy" section. So having this section is not against the policy. The vandalized section already has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue.--] 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - There is a dispute over what a reliable source is. One is a Brazillan Magazine, a very formal looking site, and the other source a national Jewish orgainzation's site. 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Can someone please have a look at this article. I feel its npov , yet the npov tag has been removed twice without discussion (20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| *] - Can articles from outside a denomination be used to verify the denomination's position on Freemasonry? 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :- Rephrasing the question: Can articles from one denomination (one with a definite bias towards Freemasonry) be used to verify another denomination's position on Freemasonry? 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - There is a dispute between two versions of the Roman Catholicism section of this article that has resulted in a revert war between ] and ], and later ] and ]. Danras's version is accused of violating ] and ], but Lima's version is accused of being too abstract.15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Is describing a poll showing anti-Muslim sentiment "original research" (]) in an article about ]? 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Should information on the "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit be put in a separate article, put in a separate section in the PETA article or left as it is without a heading under "Campaigns"? ] 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] disputes about the external link section i.e. 1. about whether one of the websites authored and maintained by the subject of the article should be linked to and related to that 2. whether a website with highly critical allegations about the subject of the article should be linked to. 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - NPOV tag dispute. Article is a completed monthly serial "Mormon collaboration". The collaboration editors refuse to allow a POV tag (by "consensus"). The NPOV dispute is general to the slant of the article, where definitions and blacklists are supplied by apologists, stigmatizing honest criticism of Mormon claims without balance. ] 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Which version of the intro is better: (which Kenosis claims has been ''"consensused"'') or (which is made by an editor who would never try to use ''"consensused"'' in a sentence)? 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Has been replaced by an amalgam of the two versions. -- ] 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - see talk page for dispute over whether or not this article is intended to provoke controversy, and violates NPOV. Principle authors claim that the "Spring Holday" is another name for Easter. Some editors believe the article should be merged with ], others believe it should be expanded to include other springtime holidays than Easter (such as Passover and secular Spring holidays). 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Dispute over intro. A camp if for that '''he established Islam''. Another is for Muslim and non-Muslim view (secular views) to appear at the intro. -- ''] 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| *] - Dispute regarding whether or not "''The Sealed Nectar''", a work of ] collating primary secondary sources, approved and endorsed by the ] and the ], published by Darussalam and others, is a reliable source in relation to Muslim history, more specifically history during the time of Muhammad. 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Two disputes about reliability of sources. 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''''*]''''' - disagreement about NPOV of Spiritual Ebionites section. 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - is ] considered a reputable and reliable source for information on the history of religion? I thought he was just an occult hack. 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - This is a dispute about whether the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template should be at the top of the article, or the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template and whether the Christianity template is most appropriately placed in the Christian views section. To date there has has been external comment and a straw poll. 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]. This is a dispute about whether Goethe was a philosopher (vs. "a great thinker" or "an intellectual"). 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]. Debate over whether one particular source meets the criteria outlined at ]. 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] This list survived several AfDs but several editors voice great concern about its existence. Merging is proposed as one solution. 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(] -- 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| *] Dispute over introduction of a section dealing with reviews from third party sources critical of contemporary critics of Islam. Many critics of Islam have been controversial because of their alleged prejudices or political agendas.Some have been called 'polemic', 'anti-islam', and even 'bigoted'. The views of such criticised persons have been incorporated into the content of the article, often frame as 'fact' by ]'s definition. Disagreement is on whether information that would shed light on such 'criticism of critics' is appropriate in the "Criticism of Islam" article. 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] - disagreement over using the term "people of color" in the context of a special interest retreat given by TNH in March of '04. Discussion of the dispute on ].19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(]) | |||
| *Should "]" be defined the way Heinlein coined it in his book '']'', or should the article focus on a "derived" "counterculture" "slang" version that claims is used by "hippies" and "geeks?" 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] Dispute about adding pertinent material to this article that is already present on other articles. 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - disagreement over whether article is NPOV and how to correct it if it isn't. 14:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ] | |||
| <noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
| {{rfclistintro}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| </noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Should Masha Amini be referred to as Kurdish-Iranian in the first sentence of the lead? | |||
| This has previously been discussed at ], ] and ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{RFC list footer|reli|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | |||
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. | |