Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex: 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 23:45, 3 March 2007 editG2bambino (talk | contribs)19,847 edits rv - do not reword my comments← Previous edit Revision as of 23:49, 3 March 2007 edit undoMagonaritus (talk | contribs)248 edits RFC summary on UCC lacked any sense of neutrality, rewritten to be neutralNext 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>-->
*] - Dispute over aritcle content; two editors insist on retaining separate lengthy sections about school's past instead of moving them to dedicated ] article with mention in brief history on main article. Third opinion moderator has been ignored. --] 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC) *] - Dispute over article content. The editors disagree on whether sections on recent Scandals and Ethnic/Gender/Diversity issues should remain in the main article or instead be placed into the subsidiary article on the ] ] 23:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
*] - need input on if the article has improved or not. In particular whether it is still unbalanced with respect to ], written in a brochure style or deals with controversies in an inappropriate manner. Thanks in advance. 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) *] - need input on if the article has improved or not. In particular whether it is still unbalanced with respect to ], written in a brochure style or deals with controversies in an inappropriate manner. Thanks in advance. 17:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
*]. Dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that all students "have at least average ability". 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC) *]. Dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that all students "have at least average ability". 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:49, 3 March 2007

Shortcut
  • ]

Template:RFCheader

  • Talk:Upper Canada College#Request for Comment - Dispute over article content. The editors disagree on whether sections on recent Scandals and Ethnic/Gender/Diversity issues should remain in the main article or instead be placed into the subsidiary article on the History of Upper Canada College Magonaritus 23:49, 3 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:Great Neck South High School. Dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that all students "have at least average ability". 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Islamophobia. Edit warring by editors who evidently believe that there really is no such thing as Islamphobia, and the Muslims have only themselves to blame. 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Stillwater Area High School. One editor isnists on adding long sections of exhaustive detail concerning the performance of the school's sports teams. 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress#Rfc - are recent changes to the article helpful and do they adhere to NPOV? Which of two versions of the article is preferable? 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association#Request for comment - This organisation espouses legalisation of sexual relationship between men and boys. A fairly heated argument has developped over whether this article should be added to Category:LGBT organizations. Further imput welcomed. 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films - Should each entry in this list be individually sourced? -10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Religious_views_on_masturbation#Request_for_commentsImproper use of ref tag as platform for making unsupported point. 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming – following removal of a major POV vandal/warrior, the research and usage of neuro-linguistic programming (documented and cited in depth) is felt to be seriously misrepresented by the present article, which still reflects the vandal's viewpoint that it is marginal, little used by credible bodies, and pseudoscience. Because of the damage sustained to the article during its 18 month trolling, help is requested from uninvolved editors to review the information summarized and to help ensure the article fairly reflects the subject and neither unfairly maligns it, nor unfairly exaggerates it. 12:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Prostitution in Thailand — disagreements over relevance and suitability of metrial on men who supposedly fall in love with prostitutes, as well as general concerns about length, detail, and tone of the article. 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Double_Ten_Day#RfC:_inclusion_as_a_Chinese_holiday - Please comment on whether Double Ten Day should be included in the category of Chinese holidays. 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Race_and_intelligence#RFC_test_case:_the_first_sentence - Please comment on a revision of the first sentence of the article. 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln#Request_for_Comment:_Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln The article has been nominted twice for deletion both times the outcome was keep. An edit war has taken place in the past with this article and is on the verge of begining again. The aricle is heavily weighted to one POV. 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Killed in Action An edit war currently exists with large blocks of information removed, including a contested classical reference. However, the article has already achieved "Start-Class" quality rating according to the Military history Wikiproject. Attacks abound in other articles, and they've spread here now. So far, users have commented on an "article cleanup" and "nice clean-up" when important sections get removed, threatening the article's quality. Also, edits often revert to poor style, including the passive voice. UPDATED 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • White people White people edit war on the relation of the term to the literal meaning of white prompted protection. In larger discussion, there is debate about whether (1) to describe white as literally inaccurate; (2) skin pigmentation/melanisation might be a better description; (3) the European historical context and/or Eurocentrism should be specified in the text; (4) whether color metaphors for race is an acceptable link. (5) Relevancy of definition of white in physics 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC); restored as consensus not quite agreed 01:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Foster_care#Request for Comment Disagreement on placement of a section. Controversy surrounds whether article deals with USA specifically or is applicable to other jurisdictions. Comments would be appreciated. 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Real Social Dynamics claims are being made that is it advertising and spam 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)