Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:33, 25 March 2006

• ]

Template:RFCheader

• Talk:Privatization - Is a conference on the Privatization of National Security notable? Is Middlebury College a front for Lyndon LaRouche? 15:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Universal health care - Dispute concerning what information should be included in the sections describing support for universal health care and opposition to universal health care. Which commonly cited reasons for and against universal health care should be listed? 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict - Dispute over how an image caption should describe the Arab-Israeli conflict. Caption may or may not be appropriate depending on Misplaced Pages:Captions, neutrality of content, and sources cited. Arguments include expanding the caption to include reference to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, limiting the caption to describe Israel without mentioning the religious nature of the conflict, and removing the caption altogether and moving the content to the lead section. Three competing versions of the caption may be viewed at Arab-Israeli conflict/temp and an informal poll has started in the section entited "RfC". 10:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:LewRockwell.com - Somewhat related to Tom G. Palmer below, we have an edit war involving factually incorrect material being restored, along with false accusations of vandalism against other users. 22:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Tom G. Palmer – There is a bit of a revert war going on related to the inclusion or exclusion of this link in the article's "External links" section: . Some argue that the tone of the content at the linked page is too informal and too hostile towards Palmer and is therefore unfit for linking from Misplaced Pages. Others argue that since the primary party responsible for that content is Stephan Kinsella, the blog constitutes a notable criticism of Palmer by another individual notable in the same realm of discourse as Palmer. Please advise. 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Category talk:Atlas Shrugged - There are 8 articles talking about various details within one book by Ayn Rand. In any other case, for any other book with similar notability and fame (ie. low), it would be deleted as fancruft. 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:2006 Iraqi beating by British soldiers video User:Striver insists on inserting Al Askari Mosque bombing under related material, making the implicit implication that the latter was also perpetrated by Westerners when no evidence supporting or contradicting that has been given. User is also insisting on inserting a blog quote that (in my view) is soapboxing by proxy. It is not incisive about the event and is editorializing on a grander scale using the event. 18:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Serbophobia Original research, insulting accusation and flame bait. Couple of users are pushing very offensive agenda without any sources or proofs for their claims. They are continually bullying other users and reverting article. 18:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Sweden Democrats — a number of editors, one a member of the party in question, others implacably opposed to it, have been fighting over the article for some time, and refuse to stop. The more editors involved the better, I think, so come one, come all. 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The Swedish article sv:Sverigedemokraterna was a page of much discussion recently and was completely protected for a month. This page appears to suffer the same problems, but hopefully the dispute resolution works better. / Fred-Chess 16:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Annette Lu Whether Li Ao's allegation that the 3-19 shooting incident was intended to kill Annette Lu and her only belongs in the article. 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Catholics for a Free Choice Page editing is dominated by harsh critics. Repeated attempts to highlight secondary issue of rules for excommunication within Catholic Church. Page needs more balance. Several editors simply refuse to cite published sources.01:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Michel Aoun#Massive pro-Aoun bias. Concerns about neutrality, deletion of sourced material, reversion without participation in Talk, and inclusion of images with no copyright licenses.13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Unitary_Executive_theory#Request_for_comment Repost because of continuing dispute and lack of response. In the article Unitary Executive theory, some editors feel the need to dismiss mentioning criticism of the UET because they assert that the presented sources are inadmissible. Can criticism be discussed? 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:MEMRI: This article contains criticism of MEMRI by historian Juan Cole (along with a response from MEMRI) Two editors also want to include criticism of Cole. Another editor feels that criticism of Cole is off topic and should be limited to the Cole article and that some of the edits are a misrepresentation of Cole's position. 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC). Note from another editor: Some brief background on Cole is helpful in putting his remarks into context, especially since although he is a historian and Arabist, his writings on MEMRI are all from his non-academic blog rather than any academic source. Editing on the MEMRI page has been uncollegial and contentious with one editor making very harsh and dismissive comments.
• Talk:Melbourne University student unions: two editors who are litigants named (when not reverted) in the article are constantly reverting and rewording edits they consider critical of themselves (regardless of fact) or not critical enough of the liquidator, with whom they are in dispute. 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Rationale to impeach George W. Bush: Dispute over whether article is POV or not; most of the sources cited in the text link to opinion-based sources. 03:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ken Livingstone: Dispute over how to describe the controversy over Livingstone's invitation to Yusuf al-Qaradawi. 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism) Dispute over the inclusion of the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre, both targets of revisionism, in the article. 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - A dispute over whether the cartoons ought to be displayed on the page. 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Classical liberalism - two opposing versions of a page, competition over the actual usage of the term. 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America - Nice friendly discussion trying to reach NPOV, could really use some more eyes. Some editors feel old version was POV (too Pro-Scouts), some editors feel current version is too POV (Anti-Scouts) and should be reverted.03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Gatekeeper (politics) - Question of notability of term and those using it; verifiability; appropriateness of mirroring a list of allegations made by those using the term. At least one WP editor on the talk page is mentioned on the article page. 01:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:National Lawyers Guild - dispute over how to describe the nature of the organization. 19:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Bagha Jatin; dispute over two versions (other at Bagha Jatin/Temp2). 11:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Barack Obama dispute over whether Obama "identifies" as an African-American and whether the description of his heritage should appear in the intro to the article. - 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• talk:Lousewies van der Laan dispute between two editors about the question whether references for the trivia section are superfluous or not. The dispute is not about contents!! 21:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Republic (dialogue) I also posted this in the RCF in religion and philosophy, but I figure that this article also has to deal with politics. A user continues to insert an inappropriate paragraph (around 10 times by now). The guy seems rather hurt by the fact that everyone else keeps removing it and responds with statements like "Since you rejected a compromise, I'll never surrender". I've laid out my case on the article's discussion page. 02:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks - disagreement over uses of words terrorist and Islamofascist, both highly contentious and contoversial terms. 16:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Militia (United States) - disagreement over how to describe certain source documents and studies.03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Bosnian Genocide - Nonsensical discussion taking place while the article is disputed. If the tag is removed it will escalate into an edit war. 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh - There has been a lot of trouble in coming to consensus over how the introduction should be worded. I think some fresh points of view will hopefully help resolve this. - 18:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Fascism_and_ideology. Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong? Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page].15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir - User:Anonymous editor has repeatedly deleted referenced text on Terrorism in Kashmir. The text deleted can be seen here and on the talk page. The user is biased on this issue as can be seen by reading the talk pages on Kashmir articles. He deleted referenced material on Indian civilians that lost their lives due to terrorists, on the terrorist camps in Kashmir and Pakistan, on terrorist groups and on Hindus and Sikhs displaced from Kashmir due to terrorists. Deletion of referenced material need valid reasons. He deletes all the different changes by claiming that they're pro-India and pov. The editor who added the changes has left the Misplaced Pages project as a consequence. 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Police_state Regarding the article police state there is debate as to what would be contemporary police states. Please have a look and add your comment here to countries substantiating why you think it should or should not be included in the article. Provide reputable sources (International Human Rights organisations, the UN, doctors without borders, et cetera). Don't forget to sign! 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Lindsey German, There is a dispute over the inclution of an image of Lindsey German. Fashion1 refuses to engage in any discusion, they do not respond on the talk page and blank any comments made on their user talk page. Fashion1 makes bad faith claims to be reverting vandalism when deleting the picture.--JK the unwise 12:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Front National (France) - Should a political poster with strong quotes and imagery from the 2002 presidential election be included in the article? 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Politics