From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Requests for comment on Religion and philosophy
Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here
- List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about.
- Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page.
- Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~.
- Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.
|
- Talk:Ethic_of_reciprocity#Request_for_Comment:_Golden.2FSilver_Rules_Distinction Do we need to distinguish between Golden Rule and Silver Rule. Disputers disagree whether such a distinction puts religions touting Golden Rule over religions touting Silver Rule.17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead NPOV dispute over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. The current language reflects a prior decision to replace "teleological argument" with the equivalent sentence "argument for the existence of God". Please note confusion over different definitions of "teleological" and "teleological argument" 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Islam and children#Request for comment: Slavery See this edit. [1]. The editor there has said that the source on slavery (Levy) is not referring to children. 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Neocatechumenal Way#Request for comment: Criticism Dispute is over the question whether criticism belongs into an article on the Neocatechumenal Way, a highly controversial religious movement within the Catholic church. 16:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#Smithsonian_controversy Dispute is over word usage (comment vs allege) and relevance of details which may or may not be given undue weight 06:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Cults_and_new_religious_movements_in_literature_and_popular_culture#RFC_Summary - A dispute about the appropriateness of the inclusion of literary works of Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Wilhelm Reich, Ayn Rand, and Fred Newman in this article. 20:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Request_for_Comment:_venganza.org This dispute is about whether venganza.org can be used as a Reliable Source to describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other items related to the parody religion.00:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Template talk:ScientologySeries -- Is an image of a Volcano an appropriate image for the Template:ScientologySeries? 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
- Purgatory A coeditor, User:Jonathan Tweet, has expressed the view that this article is inviolation of NPOV policy on certain grounds. At present, we are the only two editors working on the project and, since we disagree, outside opinion is needed. He has requested support on the talk pages of two other editors (see User talk:Andrew c and User talk:Miguel de Servet) but neither have responded to his requests. He has not produced a complete summary of his objections, so my presentation of the dispute represents only my interpretation of his position. On the user talk pages mentioned, he described my edits to the page such that it has "recently been overhauled to promote the Catholic POV". From what I gather, his position is as follows. He does not think that Gerald O'Collins is a reliable source. He would like a section dedicated to presenting a biblical position on the doctrine (as a matter of "standard format" and "reader interest"). The Greek Orthodox position has been unfairly presented because the differences between it and the Roman Catholic Church are not expressed to his satisfaction. Lastly, He objects to the way another source, a text of A. Harnack, has been used. My position is that his objections have been incorporated into a revised version of the article and as it stands I am unable to discern grounds for POV concerns. My goal is to see the article properly sourced and otherwise in accord with all policies such that it may attain "good article" status, and I would welcome outside criticisms and suggestions for improvement. 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc There is debate elsewhere on the web as to whether this church is a cult. This church is one of the most discussed groups on Factnet.org, a counter-cult message board. The question is whether sources are available to at least mention that there is controversy surrounding the church, or to nominate the article for deletion due to non-notability. 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Jean_Baudrillard Comments requested to establish if modifications/allegations made by user Abou Didee #1 constitute libel against user Europeangraduateschool and the institution European Graduate School #2 violate WP:Point #3 should be kept as part of the current/ active Discussion page or deleted and kept on file as part of the Discussion history. Disputing parties have contributed their perspectives on the Talk page in question and their own user talk pages. 23:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Waldorf education#Request for Comment - need input on if the article has improved or not. In particular whether it is still unbalanced with respect to NPOV, written in a brochure style or deals with controversies in an inappropriate manner. Thanks in advance. 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- talk:Techniques of Knowledge Do descriptions by religious scholars of a certain meditation technique in an article about that meditation technique violate WP:NOT for being an instruction manual? 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)~
- Anatta Debate over whether anatta means no soul or things referring not being the soul. Could use a more balanced article.
- Talk:The God Who Wasn't There Should this be categorised as a "propoganda film"? Controversial certainly but one religious editor keeps reverting two others who disagree. As there a so few of us other input and views are sought. 08:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
