Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tokyo Two

Is it original research to make this statement?

"The Tokyo Two are suspects in Japan. They have accused the police of harshly interrogating them. AI has complained about the harsh interrogation methods used by the Japanese police." In the article, the line that corresponds to the third line has been deleted as original research. Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tokyo_Two&diff=368089559&oldid=368087727 Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sharia

I have been trying to fix the sharia article after one user, "Jagged 85" introduced a great deal of questionable material into this and many other articles, check here to see what it used to look like. I think the user in question may now be the subject of a sock puppet investigation. Anyway, I've since then been trying to clean up and improve the spaminated law articles (mostly the Sharia article), with varying degrees of success. Another user, Aquib american muslim has objected to my changes, and has deleted material I wrote which he found "controversial," on grounds that controversial material should not be in the lead. Some time later, after reading Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (lead section) which states that: "The lead should ... define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies," I reinserted this material (fourth paragraph of the Sharia article), and he has again started to redelete, this time claiming that the material is uncited, poorly cited, misleading, misrepresentation of sources, etc. (along with some more comments about how I had perpetrated a "detestable hack job" etc.) I've asked him repeatedly to quote and point out specifically what is wrong with the sources on the talk page, and he has not yet done so, though I specifically used publicly available sources just for this reason, and have addressed his objections as much as was possible on the talk page.

Aquib has also objected to my removing the material found problematic as per the foregoing RFC for Jagged 85; which he believes is "from first-class minds in this area of knowledge."

To put it more succinctly, the issue at hand is whether "controversial" material should be put in the lead, and whether the material is supported by the citations used.

The contested paragraph is the fourth paragraph here as Aqiib has deleted it again,

I'm not really interested in protecting the page or blocking users (including getting myself blocked) but the constant reverts are a distraction.

Jayzames (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Kosovo-note

Discussions regarding the content of this note seem to be unresolvable. (The note is intended as an NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles.) One IP user has strong opinions about the content (e.g. inclusion of information about non-UN member states).
A vote was held on the note's content which indicated an opposition to the IP user's position (although perhaps the vote was closed too soon). Accusations of bias in the vote's questions have since been made.
Was the first vote biased, and is a second vote necessary?
Everything on the talk page from this section onwards is of relevance (a lot to read I'm afraid).

Bazonka (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Americanism

Does it violate neutrality to say that the Nazis were anti-American? TFD (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Those in favor of removal say that the Brady Campaign is an anti-gun group and that including the map constitutes advocacy of the group's position and that it violates WP:NPOV. They argue that the Brady Scorecard shows the opinion of the Brady campaign, while the information from pro-gun sources is factual.

Those in favor of retention say that the map reasonably summarizes the state of gun laws in the states and provides a useful summary that is badly needed in the article. They also argue that the sources in the article are overwhelmingly from pro-gun groups, so inclusion of the Brady source provides balance.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Eton College

Should the reference to the number of Prime Ministers of various countries who have attended Eton (an issue which a previous RfC established to be complex and in need of detail) be placed in the article lede without detail, replicated in the body with detail, or simply placed in the body with detail? 09:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:United States Army Rangers

This RFC is in regard to changing the name of this article from "United States Army Rangers" (plural) to "United States Army Ranger" (singular) in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies on naming conventions (singular).

There are numerous threads with people arguing against including anyone not from the 75th Ranger Regiment in this page (such as graduates from Ranger School)—preferring to restrict it only to those serving or who have served in the 75th Ranger Regiment. Since there is already a page for the 75th Ranger Regiment, there is no need for a second page that is restricted to that topic. However, those who argue that other individuals should be included have not provided any sources that fit the plural title of this article. Changing the name to the singular is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, makes sourcing the inclusion of those outside of the 75th possible (in fact very easy), and allows a lot of duplicate material to be summarized here with links to the 75th article. There are other benefits. The section, Notable Members of the 75th Ranger Regiment or linage units can be changed to "Notable United States Army Rangers" within the expanded scope of this article.

Alternatively, this article could be merged into the 75th Ranger Regiment article and retained as a redirect. There is information on "other" Army Rangers in the article, but it is unsourced. Since no source has been provided for some time, it can be deleted. However, changing the name to singular is more in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and will allow editors more time to obtain reliable sources. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 8

Requesting comment on the inclusion of this map, which tries to create a visual representation of the international reaction to the Gaza flotilla raid. There has been a serious debate on the talk pages of two separate articles and we don't seem to be able to reach a consensus. We would appreciate the input of the community to help us resolve this issue. In addition the this section there are additional discussions here:

• Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Map
• Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_4#Requested_edit_.28please_add_image.29
• Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Temporary_takedown_of_controversial_map

Zuchinni one (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mojave Memorial Cross

There is a dispute over whether the use of the term "vandal" in the article is NPOV or not. (See above for a lengthy discussion that has already taken place.) Seregain (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

How should allegations of genocide against Ceausescu be described? Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians? Should we give equal weight to both? TFD (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bucklin voting

The above RFC covers this section (see initial question) as well as the following 2 sections. These are three related questions about Bucklin's compliance with mathematical criteria desirable for voting systems. Homunq (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation)

Should the article link to the Tea Party movement article or should it link directly to a section there titled "humor"?WP:PIPINGCptnono (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatcom Peace & Justice Center