| Revision as of 20:01, 26 October 2006 editJersyko (talk | contribs)14,671 edits added "the only"← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:04, 26 October 2006 edit undoBlack Flag (talk | contribs)523 edits rv; if you rv again, I will reportNext 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>--> | ||
| *]. Are specific claims made in the article "exceptional" per ]? Is it acceptable to link to Southern Poverty Law Center as |
*]. Are specific claims made in the article "exceptional" per ]? Is it acceptable to link to Southern Poverty Law Center as a source in each instance? 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''RESTATED''': With regard to eceptional claims of racism, etc., is it appropriate that the SPLC is the '''sole''' and '''exclusive''' source of criticism against League of the South? Or should ] be the guideline?--] 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *]: proposing to add, in the "See Also" section, a link to ]. This supersedes the request below. 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | *]: proposing to add, in the "See Also" section, a link to ]. This supersedes the request below. 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *]: Should ''all'' sourced information be included, even when it comes from extremist self-published partisan sources, or should the article be written with reference to non-partisan academic sources and scientific studies? 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | *]: Should ''all'' sourced information be included, even when it comes from extremist self-published partisan sources, or should the article be written with reference to non-partisan academic sources and scientific studies? 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:04, 26 October 2006
Shortcut- ]
- Talk:League of the South#Rfc. Are specific claims made in the article "exceptional" per WP:RS? Is it acceptable to link to Southern Poverty Law Center as a source in each instance? 19:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- RESTATED: With regard to eceptional claims of racism, etc., is it appropriate that the SPLC is the sole and exclusive source of criticism against League of the South? Or should WP:RS#Exceptional Claims be the guideline?--Black Flag 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Boy Scout#RFC2: proposing to add, in the "See Also" section, a link to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. This supersedes the request below. 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Healthcare of Cuba: Should all sourced information be included, even when it comes from extremist self-published partisan sources, or should the article be written with reference to non-partisan academic sources and scientific studies? 11:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Boy Scout#RFC: Repeated deletions of any material alluding to exclusion of non-theists from Boy Scouts. 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Volkstaat#Flaws_section: Disagreement about the importance of the Self determination section in terms of whether it should be placed at the top of the article, or lower down. 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:University of Santo Tomas#Lead - whether the University is the oldest university in the Philippines. 09:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Ménage à trois - Whether a drawn, black-and-white image depicting three people engaging in a sex act is an appropriate image for the article. 13:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Pforzheimer House#Recent edits - What Misplaced Pages guidelines or customs govern the "notability" threshold for items within an article? Is a "war" between two dormitories, which was covered in a long article in a campus newspaper, suitable for inclusion in an article whose topic is one of those dormitories? 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:NPA personality theory - There is a discussion about how to rate the importance of this article on the Psychology assessment scale. 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Advocates for Children in Therapy Does this article use irrelevant facts and unverified claims to subtly discredit this organization? Do the citations in this article support the claims they are intended to support? 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans#Factionalization does this recently added subsection adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:RS? 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Kickball#Repeated blatant vandalism Repeated vandalism against a sports league being mentioned in an article about that sport. Removing valid factual content, adding spam, making slanderous comments, using article to promote a business, and worst of all constantly undoing reverts without explanation. Need help. 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Jeff Gannon Should Category:Courtesans and prostitutes be added to an article about a man who advertised himself as a prostitute on the Internet? 17:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)correction by another editor - The advertisement was for an "escort" not a "prostitute". 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Hippie, lack of sources, original research, lack of discussion (and unwillingness to discuss) prior to complete reorganization and removal of content, formatting and structure of lead section, and WP:OWN present issues that need to be solved before article can be submitted to peer review. 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:American people, dispute over name of the article 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)