| Revision as of 22:00, 10 April 2007 editTHF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,107 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:01, 10 April 2007 edit undoTHF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,107 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{RFCheader|Politics}} | {{RFCheader|Politics}} | ||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
| *] ] says that ''"The lead should ... briefly describing notable controversies, if there are any."'' deleted all mention of notable controversies from the lead paragraph, leaving only laudatory remarks. Should the lead paragraph comply with ] and ]? 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | *] -- ] says that ''"The lead should ... briefly describing notable controversies, if there are any."'' deleted all mention of notable controversies from the lead paragraph, leaving only laudatory remarks. Should the lead paragraph comply with ] and ]? 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *] ] forbids as ] the synthesis of cited sources to reach a conclusion not expressly stated in those sources. An editor believes the New York Times analysis recounted in the article is incorrect and has added cited original research purporting to refute the New York Times, though none of those cites mention the New York Times article. Do these edits comply with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | *] -- ] forbids as ] the synthesis of cited sources to reach a conclusion not expressly stated in those sources. An editor believes the New York Times analysis recounted in the article is incorrect and has added cited original research purporting to refute the New York Times, though none of those cites mention the New York Times article. Do these edits comply with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *] Should we have an external link to a critical obituary? 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | *] Should we have an external link to a critical obituary? 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *] There is a dispute about whether or not the infobox should contain a flag16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | *] There is a dispute about whether or not the infobox should contain a flag16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:01, 10 April 2007
Shortcut- ]
- Talk:An Inconvenient Truth#Lead_section_NPOV -- WP:Lead section says that "The lead should ... briefly describing notable controversies, if there are any." This edit deleted all mention of notable controversies from the lead paragraph, leaving only laudatory remarks. Should the lead paragraph comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Lead section? 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth#New_York_Times_article -- WP:SYN forbids as original research the synthesis of cited sources to reach a conclusion not expressly stated in those sources. An editor believes the New York Times analysis recounted in the article is incorrect and has added cited original research purporting to refute the New York Times, though none of those cites mention the New York Times article. Do these edits comply with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:David Ervine Should we have an external link to a critical obituary? 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Northern_Ireland#Request_for_Comment:Infobox There is a dispute about whether or not the infobox should contain a flag16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:David Cameron#Tim Rathbone: Should a mention of David Cameron's three months working for Tim Rathbone in 1985 be part of the lead section? 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:List of historical national capitals Whether or not to include national flags in teh article, and if so, whether those flags should represent the present nation that city resides in, or the historical nation the city was capital of. 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: ABC claim Primary question: Is this reliable secondary source making the charactarization or drawing the conclusion that "the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage", or is it an interview/book review that only reports the charactarizations of other parties? Secondary question: If the conclusion is being drawn or charactarization made, can that conclusion be appropriately attributed to ABC News, when authorship of the source is not disclosed (no byline), or is an additional reliable secondary source required to make that attribution? - 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Zombietime#Ref_.232_is_OR Is claiming that the Santa Cruz Sentinal article is referring to Zombie's (only) photo of an antisemetic sign Original Research ? Is claiming that a copyrighted but unsourced pic on an antisemtic conference site, which might be Zombie's, as being Zombie's pic Original Research? (see discussion) 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Timeline of United States diplomatic history Should this article have inline citations and footnotes or are they not applicable to the article? An editor thinks they are not applicable to the article. Does the US National Archive meet WP:V and WP:RS? Should the article detail the United States embargo against Cuba and similar episodes, or is that POV? 07:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:National_Union_of_General_Workers#Request_for_Comment_-_Use_of_anonymous_sources_in_reliable_publications This is a dispute about the inclusion of an anonymous article published by a reliable magazine, which is critical of the Union 06:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:American Enterprise Institute#POV problem Is AEI's rebuttal to accusations made by the Guardian fairly characterized? 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation and Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#The way forward - What's the best way to avoid WP:SYN problems? Is it appropriate for two editors to remove tags from an article when there is a lack of consensus? 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle#Poor Grammar - What's the best NPOV way to handle the lead about a controversial documentary concerning contentious scientific topics? 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#New_Title_part_Deux_-_Request_for_Comment Want to remove POV terms in the title to stop debates over how to frame the article. PRevents edit wars and POV forks and other problems. 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Christian_right#The_term_.22Christian_Right.22 -- How much weight to give to those who claim the term itself is perjorative; and there is a disagreement over what consitutes Original Research, and what is needed in terms of cites.15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Black_supremacy#RFC:_Kwame_Kilpatrick_quote -- Does Kwame Kilpatrick's statement on the eternal need for affirmative action belong in an article about black supremacy? 11:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Israel Shahak#"Defamatory slanders" -- Should a section on "Use by Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers" be included in the article? Is undue weight given in the article to criticisms of Shahak? 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Nazism#Request_for_Comment:_Nazism.2C_Fascism.2C_Socialism.2C_Collectivism -- Are National Socialism, Nazism, and Fascism forms of "collectivism" and thus related to all forms of socialism? This dispute has gone on for over two years. 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Rebuttable Presumption -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Conclusive Presumption -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Presumption of innocence -- Should it be consolidated with articles on other kinds of presumption? --Jon Roland 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:1996 United States campaign finance controversy -- Dispute regarding whether info offering historical context in an FA should remain. 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Constitution -- Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV? 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is this new and amended article appropriate? Note, a non-neutral RFC, admiteed by third party at the time, was filed last year by a disruptive editor which resulted in merge yet the current version is not identical and has new sources. Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program#RFC 2007 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)