Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:52, 29 August 2006 editNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits +Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Caption← Previous edit Revision as of 10:53, 29 August 2006 edit undoNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:


<!--<nowiki>Add new items here at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> <!--<nowiki>Add new items here at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->
*] - A blogger named Ben-Zion, Jaffe for ] has stated that ] is by the anti-war group ]. One editor believes that the per ] (about blogs connect to reliable sources) and ] this information should be included about the image. Another editor has expressed the view that she needs to verify the source of the image herself before such information can be included in the caption. The question needing answering is does a blogger for a respected news organization safe enough to consider as a reliable and verifiable source about such a detail? Please see ] of talk. *] - A blogger named Ben-Zion, Jaffe for ] has stated that ] is by the anti-war group ]. One editor believes that per ] (about blogs connected to reliable sources) and ] this information should be included about the image. Another editor has expressed the view that she needs to verify the source of the image herself before such information can be included in the caption. The question needing answering is does a blogger for a respected news organization safe enough to consider as a reliable and verifiable source about such a detail? Please see ] of talk.
* ] - should a section on "Animal rights and anti-Semitism" make a reference to recent campaigns by animal rights activists to ban kosher slaughter? One editor says this is not an animal rights issue because it has to do with "but to the best way to kill animals for food" however there are numerous sources that assert animal rights activists are involved in these campaigns - see ]. ] 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC) * ] - should a section on "Animal rights and anti-Semitism" make a reference to recent campaigns by animal rights activists to ban kosher slaughter? One editor says this is not an animal rights issue because it has to do with "but to the best way to kill animals for food" however there are numerous sources that assert animal rights activists are involved in these campaigns - see ]. ] 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
* ] - Some editors keep removing sourced material on ]. (The controversy section). Articles on ] and ] do have a "controversy" section. So having this section is not against the policy. The vandalized section already has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue.--] 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC) * ] - Some editors keep removing sourced material on ]. (The controversy section). Articles on ] and ] do have a "controversy" section. So having this section is not against the policy. The vandalized section already has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue.--] 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:53, 29 August 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

Template:RFCheader

  • New anti-Semitism - A blogger named Ben-Zion, Jaffe for The Jerusalem Post has stated that this image is by the anti-war group A.N.S.W.E.R.. One editor believes that per WP:RS (about blogs connected to reliable sources) and WP:V this information should be included about the image. Another editor has expressed the view that she needs to verify the source of the image herself before such information can be included in the caption. The question needing answering is does a blogger for a respected news organization safe enough to consider as a reliable and verifiable source about such a detail? Please see this section of talk.
  • Animal rights - should a section on "Animal rights and anti-Semitism" make a reference to recent campaigns by animal rights activists to ban kosher slaughter? One editor says this is not an animal rights issue because it has to do with "but to the best way to kill animals for food" however there are numerous sources that assert animal rights activists are involved in these campaigns - see Talk:Animal rights. Farnsworth J 02:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Robert Spencer - Some editors keep removing sourced material on Robert Spencer. (The controversy section). Articles on Bernard Lewis and Edward Said do have a "controversy" section. So having this section is not against the policy. The vandalized section already has POV tag, so there is no NPOV issue.--Reza1 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of Brazilian Jews - There is a dispute over what a reliable source is. One is a Brazillan Magazine, a very formal looking site, and the other source a national Jewish orgainzation's site. 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Children_of_God Can someone please have a look at this article. I feel its npov , yet the npov tag has been removed twice without discussion (20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Talk:Christianity and Freemasonry - Can articles from outside a denomination be used to verify the denomination's position on Freemasonry? 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rephrasing the question: Can articles from one denomination (one with a definite bias towards Freemasonry) be used to verify another denomination's position on Freemasonry? 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Salvation#Request_for_Comment:_Roman_Catholicism_Section - There is a dispute between two versions of the Roman Catholicism section of this article that has resulted in a revert war between Danras and Lima, and later Danras and Antelucan. Danras's version is accused of violating NPOV and No Original Research, but Lima's version is accused of being too abstract.15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Islamophobia - Is describing a poll showing anti-Muslim sentiment "original research" (WP:OR) in an article about Islamophobia? 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Should information on the "Holocaust on your Plate" exhibit be put in a separate article, put in a separate section in the PETA article or left as it is without a heading under "Campaigns"? Farnsworth J. 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • talk:Robert Priddy disputes about the external link section i.e. 1. about whether one of the websites authored and maintained by the subject of the article should be linked to and related to that 2. whether a website with highly critical allegations about the subject of the article should be linked to. 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • anti-Mormonism - NPOV tag dispute. Article is a completed monthly serial "Mormon collaboration". The collaboration editors refuse to allow a POV tag (by "consensus"). The NPOV dispute is general to the slant of the article, where definitions and blacklists are supplied by apologists, stigmatizing honest criticism of Mormon claims without balance. Anon166 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Religion - Which version of the intro is better: Kenosis version (which Kenosis claims has been "consensused") or Xosa version (which is made by an editor who would never try to use "consensused" in a sentence)? 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Has been replaced by an amalgam of the two versions. -- Jeff3000 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Spring Holiday - see talk page for dispute over whether or not this article is intended to provoke controversy, and violates NPOV. Principle authors claim that the "Spring Holday" is another name for Easter. Some editors believe the article should be merged with Easter, others believe it should be expanded to include other springtime holidays than Easter (such as Passover and secular Spring holidays). 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Muhammad - Dispute over intro. A camp if for that 'he established Islam. Another is for Muslim and non-Muslim view (secular views) to appear at the intro. -- Szvest 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Battle of Mu'tah - Dispute regarding whether or not "The Sealed Nectar", a work of sira collating primary secondary sources, approved and endorsed by the Muslim World League and the Islamic University of Madinah, published by Darussalam and others, is a reliable source in relation to Muslim history, more specifically history during the time of Muhammad. 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry - Two disputes about reliability of sources. 16:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

*Talk:Ebionites#Spiritual Ebionites - disagreement about NPOV of Spiritual Ebionites section. 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Talk:Hermetism - is Manly P. Hall considered a reputable and reliable source for information on the history of religion? I thought he was just an occult hack. 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Jesus - This is a dispute about whether the {{Jesus}} template should be at the top of the article, or the {{Christianity}} template and whether the Christianity template is most appropriately placed in the Christian views section. To date there has has been external comment and a straw poll. 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers. This is a dispute about whether Goethe was a philosopher (vs. "a great thinker" or "an intellectual"). 07:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Mami Wata. Debate over whether one particular source meets the criteria outlined at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of groups referred to as cults This list survived several AfDs but several editors voice great concern about its existence. Merging is proposed as one solution. 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
(Comment offered -- 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Talk:Criticism_of_Islam Dispute over introduction of a section dealing with reviews from third party sources critical of contemporary critics of Islam. Many critics of Islam have been controversial because of their alleged prejudices or political agendas.Some have been called 'polemic', 'anti-islam', and even 'bigoted'. The views of such criticised persons have been incorporated into the content of the article, often frame as 'fact' by WP:NPOV's definition. Disagreement is on whether information that would shed light on such 'criticism of critics' is appropriate in the "Criticism of Islam" article. 19:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nhat Hanh - disagreement over using the term "people of color" in the context of a special interest retreat given by TNH in March of '04. Discussion of the dispute on Talk:Nhat Hanh.19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
(Comment offered)
  • Should "grok" be defined the way Heinlein coined it in his book Stranger in a Strange Land, or should the article focus on a "derived" "counterculture" "slang" version that Saxifrage claims is used by "hippies" and "geeks?" 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Disengagement_from_religion Dispute about adding pertinent material to this article that is already present on other articles. 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn - disagreement over whether article is NPOV and how to correct it if it isn't. 14:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Categories: