Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 6 April 2007

• ]

Template:RFCheader

• 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)
• Talk:Ralph_Nader#Request_for_Comment - a Dispute over whether a given quote is appropriate for the lead of the article. 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Hindu nationalist parties#is tamilcanadian.com a reliable source? — The smaller dispute is whether or not tamilcanadian.com may be used as a reliable source. The larger dispute is whether the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are a Hindu nationalist party. 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports - Is there a POV problem with listing groups referred to as cults in government reports, in the article: List of groups referred to as cults in government reports? 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:Potential_for_Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan- At least three editors involved in a prolonged dispute on WP:NPOV and WP:AD status of the entire article. Help needed!17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche#John_Train_Salon - if a conspiracy theory of LaRouche is described in the article, and it involves prominent living individuals, is this a violation of WP:BLP? 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Request_for_Comment:_Palestinian_indigeneity Despite mutliple, credible sources provided that are in line with criteria elucidated at that page, and with Misplaced Pages policy in general, multiple editors are reverting inclusion of Palestinians into the List of indigenous peoples. Sources provided have included UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples reports that cite Palestinians as participants, and academic sources from comparative DNA studies to sociological studies, both by Israeli authors. The counter-arguments focus around the political bias of the UN and the characterizing of the sources provided as "dubious". Please come check it out. 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress#Rfc - are recent changes to the article helpful and do they adhere to NPOV? Which of two versions of the article is preferable? 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Zombietime is a photoblog by an anonymous male, female, or transgendered person in San Fransisco who fanatically conceals their identity, and even sex. (odd, but that's their right) The hagiography article is largely OR and POV, and is mostly written by someone so enamored with Zombietime that his/her username is Zombiefan. What sourcing it does have largely comes from non-inclusionable blogs. I would edit it but the fact that an editor who I was falsely charged with Wikistalking has edited there. This article needs major work. Bring your pruning shears ;-)- 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• It has become apparant that after a couple of weeks User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong never intend on evaluating my 50 citations they have removed on the Asian American article. Their stated reason for removing them was that they felt I added too many citations in too short a period. Other than there not existing a Misplaced Pages Policy even remotely connected with this reasoning, it doesn't make sense. Are citations no good when they have been added too quickly? Does the slowness in the addition of citations make the citations more credible? User:Ishu claims that s/he will evaluate each citation edit-by-edit to determine if they warrant inclusion in this article which sounds as if s/he believes s/he is the sole self-appointed owner of the article. It has been two weeks and they have not personally evaluated my citations from peer-reviewed sociological sources. Will these citations ever be evaluated? For outside observors, here is the article as it were before the 50 citations were removed. My citations were from credible Asian American sociological books I rented from the library, so they were not removing the citations based on a lack of credibiility. Here is the article as User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong would like it to be which comprises their own opinions on issues. They are flagrantly disregarding the WP:CITE policy with their discussions on the talk page. Many of their discussions boil down to having this article reflect their own opinions on issues without the use of citations. -- 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Democracy article seems to have two editors who have difficulty with discussions of the mechanisms of voting and the mechanisms of representation, specifically with the "majority votes/limited votes" issue and the "voter-representative disconnect" issue. Progress on this issue has been virtually impossible on the Talk:Democracy page. Also, noting no response to the issue of poor article organization raised on the same page. This article requires much more attention and discussion for improvement from the larger Politics Wiki community. -- 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sam Brownback There are only really two main editors at this page for a 2008 US presidential candidate, myself and Getaway. We are having difficulty restructuring the article to seperate bio from senate career, as well as dealing with whether or not Brownback's itslef campaigning should be included on the page. 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Current international crisis with Iran#Debate about the name of the article (following request for comments) - a current event article regarding Iran named initially "Iran international crisis" has been renamed as "Current international dispute with Iran" by some editors, on the ground that naming it International crisis is biased against Iran. Others argue that the Iran situation follows the definition of an International crisis: "a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war." 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Anne Milton - should we give the location of the blog which is referred to in this article. 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~

• Talk:Baron_&_Budd_Script_Memo_controversy. I've created a new article to address concerns of undue weight in the Fred Baron article of a notable event. I've tried to keep it NPOV, but would appreciate a neutral set of eyes to double-check it for NPOV. 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005 POV and accuracy problems created by editor's retaliatory reversion. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.#Reporting bias. Should the March for Life be listed once on the first occurrance and an indication made that it is a regularly occurring annual event, or should each individual occurrance be listed? 08:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution