Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:15, 30 January 2007

• ]

Template:RFCheader

• Talk:New antisemitism#The British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK A summary of source material has been challenged as inaccurate and misleading. Feedback is requested.18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Request for Comment: Civilian nature of Lebanese death toll figures: A statement in the article's infobox regarding the civilian nature of the death toll has been challenged as being POV. Feedback is appreciated. 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:New antisemitism#Flannery section: A paragraph in the article has been challenged as inaccurate and unreliable. Feedback is requested. 04:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• War of the Pacific: Paragraph that deals with current border dispute between Peru and Chile is constantly being stated in this page, ignoring that this has nothing to do with the war itself but rather with the treaties that defined the frontier between both countries 40 years later. I'm currently in a stalemate with the other user that has repeatedly ignored pleas to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Please help. Messhermit
• Talk:Jerusalem#RfC: Should the facts about Jerusalem being Israel's largest city and capital be moved out of the first sentence of the article and into later on in the first paragraph so that more detail can be added? 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:First World#28 January 2007 content dispute: Which countries are "first world"? 05:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Pottery#Request for comment: Misplaced Pages article on Pottery: Who invented pottery? Europeans or Asians? 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Getae The user Dahn after he attempted to delete a paragraph sourced by Cassius Dio he keeps adding {content} tag to the article invoking WP:OR. I challenged him to argue his decision in the talk page but he didn't. 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Atlantis The user Akhilleus has deleted a large amount of informative content from the article (as well as some less-informative content), including but not limited to the content that was added by HalfOfElement29. Do you support or oppose those deletions? 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Japanese war crimes: one editor says that this quite complex article does not require a "Definitions" section at the top of the article, and has been moving it down the page. Another editor says that the definitions sections should be removed until a new wording is agreed on. As that could take weeks, I believe the present section should stay, as a definition of the subject is essential to any article. Another editor supports the retention of the definitions in its original position, so we have a deadlock. Please help. 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject France#Request for Comment: English vs. French terms department/département and region/région: debate about whether to use English or French terms. Result will affect thousands of pages.--NYArtsnWords 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Magyarization, debate about citations of Seton-Watson, well-known WW1 propaganda writer whose book is used as an academic source by two users. Zello 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:History_of_India#RFC_Renaming_this_article. India refers to the Country India. History_of_South_Asia clearly says that the other name for the subcontinent is Indian Subcontinent, Not India. So why does the India article contain the history of South Asia? This article also links to the Republic of India article, misleading people more. So, Should this article be renamed to History of the Indian subcontinent or South Asia? 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• The Great War I'm wondering if this shouldn't just redirect to World War 1 instead of a diambiguation page for a 19th century Uruguayan civil war, an alternate history novel and a television series. Anyone have an opinion? Cornell Rockey 15:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• The Orient -- Comments are requested on 1) the tone of the article, particularly Perceptions and connotations 2) the appropriateness of the sources used to document various positions in that section. 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• 1999 NATO bombing of Novi Sad‎ - There is a dispute over whether to include NATO sourced material, including stated targets for the city of Novi Sad in article - would like a separate opinion. User:PANONIAN is deleting section on consequences of bombing sourced from BBC, UN report & NATO, calling it trolling. I need a comment on whether the edit constitutes trolling, as I believe it doesn't. I also feel that User:PANONIAN is affected by being too emotionally attached to the subject matter, based on comments in the talk page. Need an independent opnion on that as well.iruka 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I believe that User:iruka is an example of Internet troll and bad faith is evident in his edits. He also presented clear racist attitude and ethnic hate against Serbs and his clear aim is to present that all Serbs are evil and that Serbs cannot be victims of the war (not only in this article, but most of his edits are full of racist prejudices towards Serbs). I myself was an victim of the war, and claims of this user that I was guilty for the suffer that I survived is simply outrage. PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages Naming conventions (identity) - I have started an RfC on the usage of the term Barbarian at wikipedia HERE. - WeniWidiWiki 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:History_of_Pakistan#.28RfC.29Dispute_of_.22what_is_now_Pakistan.22 Certain users keep replacing the term Pakistan with "what is now Pakistan" or "modern Pakistan". There is only one Pakistan and I think its enough to simply say Pakistan. Even though Pakistan is a day older than India, we dont see statements like "What is now India"
  

I would like to point out that the article always referred to Pakistan as Pakistan, however recently an admin was banned, and the protection was lifted off this page. Before this page was protected, User Dangerous-Boy managed to edit the article and replace the terms. --Unre4LITY 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• If Americans KnewThere is an edit war about this organization, which provides information and media analysis about Israel-Palestine. Unverified material is frequently being added as well as external links with unverified statements. As a result, a revert war is in progress. Please take a look at the history of the page, read the versions by MidEastSpecialist and others, and read the comments on the corresponding talk page.18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 and corresponding talk page. Although the article describes well why the legal term occupation is used in (all?) the mainstream Western sources, including encyclopedias, some users still refuse to recognise the neutrality of the title and the article. The consensus has regarded the neutrality OK, given the lack of any reputable sources by the other party; Still, some users continue their 'struggle for neutrality' and add POV tags, resulting in a useless revert war. 14:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• If_Americans_Knew - If Americans Knew is an organization that provides information on Israel-Palestine, conducts statistical studies of media coverage and produces videos, a website, and other materials that attempt, in particular, to provide information not being covered in the mainstream US media. The current entry is accurate. However, I expect this to change soon, as individuals who appear to be strongly pro-Israel continue to insert false statements into the entry for the organization and to add external websites that also contain inaccurate and often highly malicious and defamatory material on If Americans Knew (and often on its founder as well, Alison Weir). The Misplaced Pages community is asked to work on this problem and to ensure that the entry be accurate and complete, and that the external links also be accurate, and relevant. There is much more about this on the If Americans Knew discussion page. I am new to this process and apologize for any mistakes I might make in following procedures - MidEastSpecialist 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• 2002 Gujarat violence Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#RfC- The dispute revolves on the very description of the events leading to the killings of hundreds/thousands of Muslims during a 2002 riot. Conflict on the article revolves around the inclusion of reports by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as reliable sources. The majority of the editors have decided that Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations are 'biased' against the Indians, and therefore the inclusion of their description of the events and its consequences are excluded. The article now reflects the government-issued account of the event. Additionally, the question of whether or not the Indian government's account of the events should be considered the sole accepted account in the introductory paragraphs, particularly considering Amnesty International and The Guardian newspaper both consider the government directly and indirectly complicit in the massacre. Falcon2020 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Template:Countries_and_territories_of_East_Asia- Article have been moved around NUMEROUS times between this title and Template:Countries of East Asia. Also, its talk page does not have the same name as the template's name. Can we get a consensus on this? 09:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Paladin#RfC - Dispute about the inclusion of other uses of the title paladin apart from the "twelve peers of Charlemagne", essentially whether palatinus/paladine/paladin are considered different spellings of one word or merely loosely related concepts. Sources are needed. 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Bath (now Bath, Somerset) Location of the city article, most common usage, also the disambiguation page. Please add comments under Talk:Bath, Somerset#RfC. Has gone through 2 RMs and there is a lot of surrounding discussion. 13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts ((Talk:Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts#RFC)) There is a dispute on the NPOV of this article and whether a NPOV tag is appropriate. 20:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Foie gras (RFC on talk page): One user is insistent upon the presence of the "factual accuracy disputed" template, because he disagrees with the quality of sources in the History section of the article. Numerous published sources are provided that meet the requirements for reliable sources. Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute: "The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references" Should the page include the "factual accuracy disputed" template, or is "NPOV disputed" enough? 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• First Battle of Fallujah has seen a great deal of conflict rising from the fact that the UK Guardian newspaper reported 83 (unnamed) US casualties for the battle, whereas the lists of casualties from the US Department of Defence and 99% of other sources indicate that 25-30 Americans were killed. One editor believes we should list the total as 83 fatalities, while several other editors have comprismised between the 25-30 numbers to nail down 26 confirmed US fatalities, and one other that the media and DoD disagree upon, so list a total of 27 fatalities. Edit-warring is pointless, so RfC would be appreciated. Sherurcij 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:École Polytechnique massacre#Proposed_Edits and Talk:Marc Lépine#Drop_the_Feminist_Hate_Dogma. A variety of disputes, mostly centering around the assertion that both articles are biased against Lepine. Related disputes include the correct name of the event, and whether or not to include Lepine in the list of victims. I entered as an outsider attempting to mediate, but am now somewhat involved, with an admitted bias towards one side of the argument so more input would be useful. Dina 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Protos99 (talk · contribs) keeps adding irrelevant lists in Soviet Empire article. Please help in dispute. `'mikkanarxi 20:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution