Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smee (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 25 January 2007 (Divisions are appropriate. Too often individuals comment in wrong place.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:27, 25 January 2007 by Smee (talk | contribs) (Divisions are appropriate. Too often individuals comment in wrong place.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

Template:RFCheader

  • Transcendental Meditation: - Should material that is sourced from a peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal be deleted on the basis of WP:FRINGE? 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Nun#Request_for_Comment_2 This is a dispute about whether all the OED definitions -- including "courtesan" -- should be listed on this page. 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Philosophy There are disputes concerning the introduction of this article, especially the role of rationality, the East, and proper sourcing. All sections from this past December onward are relevant. 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Jesus#How_the_topic_should_be_introduced Should the article be focused toward Christianity or should the focus be different (is there a fundamental POV issue)? Seeking input through a straw poll in the discussion page. 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone please comment so I don't have to rfd to get attention20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Zakir Naik Ongoing dispute among pro-Naik and anti-Naik POV-pushers. Article has been multi-tagged for a long time with few secondary reliable sources and is essentially a triumphantly pro-Naik and religiously extremist POV article. Many well-intentioned editors have given and left due to frustration regarding the POV-pushers in this article.05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Person#Request for Comment: persons v. people Changing of 'persons to 'people' and 'personhood' to 'being a person' throughout, making the article all but useless. Emeraude 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Ebionites#Reason for adding totally disputed tag Should the article on Ancient Ebionites include a short, explanatory sentence clearly describing their angelology according to the fullest primary source, Epiphanius' account in Panarion? Or, should this account of their angelology "not be discussed" at all in the article other than the briefest mention, since modern-day "revivalist Ebionite" groups and authors dispute Epiphanius' reliability on this question? 09:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Ebionites#Neutrality Dispute?, Talk:Ebionites#Origen on Ebionites' supposed heresy, and Talk:Ebionites#A way forward to understand the full context of the dispute. Ovadyah 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Template talk:Philosophy navigation Is Ayn Rand a philosopher? This affect many entries on wikipedia and is endlessly debated on many discussion pages. THis may be the first movement towards a general policy on her. 07:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:pseudoreligion: How should the article on pseudoreligion properly cite an essay that includes feminism and "PCism" as pseudoreligions? 13:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Category: