| Revision as of 17:24, 22 April 2007 editMiaers (talk | contribs)2,915 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:47, 23 April 2007 edit undoTipPt (talk | contribs)2,048 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{RFCheader|Society, law, and sex}} | {{RFCheader|Society, law, and sex}} | ||
| <!--<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>--> | ||
| *] Four editors work together to make Circumcision pro-circ for religious and personal reasons. It's a huge mess. Please consider an alternative (sandbox proposal).] 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-Violation of NPOV, no promoting and no Academic boosterism. ] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | *]-Violation of NPOV, no promoting and no Academic boosterism. ] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *] Does "Dulbecco's Law" merit mention on the article for scientific misconduct? Is it notable enough? Should notability even be considered, or is it only a factor in determining whether a separate article should be established? 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | *] Does "Dulbecco's Law" merit mention on the article for scientific misconduct? Is it notable enough? Should notability even be considered, or is it only a factor in determining whether a separate article should be established? 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:47, 23 April 2007
Shortcut- ]
- Talk:Circumcision#Waste_time_just_to_find_agreement_violated.2C_or_pick_a_better_version Four editors work together to make Circumcision pro-circ for religious and personal reasons. It's a huge mess. Please consider an alternative (sandbox proposal).TipPt 17:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:University of Wisconsin#Request for Comment: University of Wisconsin redirect-Violation of NPOV, no promoting and no Academic boosterism. Miaers 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Scientific misconduct Does "Dulbecco's Law" merit mention on the article for scientific misconduct? Is it notable enough? Should notability even be considered, or is it only a factor in determining whether a separate article should be established? 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#Leaders_of_ACT_not_Licensed: Is it appropriate to say the leaders of this organizations are not licensed mental health practitioners? Do the the citations support this claim? Does this information unbalance the neutrality of this article? 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- ] Article on a (former?) ethnic/racial group in South Africa incorporating text from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica includes some loaded and/or outdated terminology. Please help to update the article with non-offensive and current terminology. 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Circumcision#Draft passage on forced circumcisions: Should information about forced circumcisions be added to the article? 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence Is it necessary to cite actual judicial decisions and precedent when citing topics in this article? 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Request_for_Comments:_Length.2C_Neutrality.2C_Attribution Does the article have appropriate length, neutrality and attribution? 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Racism by country#Iran II - Is concluding that discrimination based on ethnicity is a kind of racism original research? Are the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights reliable sources? There may be more ... 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)