| Revision as of 04:31, 25 August 2013 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Removed: Talk:Gary North (economist).← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:30, 25 August 2013 edit undoRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Added: Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews.Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{Philosophy/Nav}} | {{Philosophy/Nav}} | ||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Should this article be about only the single source identified by modern scholarship as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", or should it also deal with the source identified by Jerome as the "Gospel of the Hebrews"? The article in the ''Anchor Bible Dictionary'', arguably perhaps the most highly regarded reference source on the topic of the Bible in general, includes a great deal of information on that source, and I believe that it would be reasonable, and in accord with ], for our article to do so as well. ] (]) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | ''']''' | ||
| {{rfcquote|text= | {{rfcquote|text= | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 25 August 2013
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Should this article be about only the single source identified by modern scholarship as the "Gospel of the Hebrews", or should it also deal with the source identified by Jerome as the "Gospel of the Hebrews"? The article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, arguably perhaps the most highly regarded reference source on the topic of the Bible in general, includes a great deal of information on that source, and I believe that it would be reasonable, and in accord with WP:WEIGHT, for our article to do so as well. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
| The purpose of this RfC is to find out how the article should treat Searle's critique of Derrida. Specifically two separate questions: 1. Do the three long block quotes by Searle give undue weight to Searle's viewpoint, and do they improve the article? 2. Does it make sense to treat the debate separated into a "Derrida's viewpoint" and "Criticism by Searle" - or should the debate be treated as a whole providing both views and showing how they relate to each other. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC) |
| The saying "the eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend" is an aphorism very commonly attributed to the philosopher Henri Bergson, who discussed in many works the role of the mind in limiting what we actually are aware of, even when it's right in front of our eyes. This quote has so caught the popular imagination that a Google search turns up millions of hits. It is proposed to include this quote in the article Subject-object problem, and comments about how to handle this addition would be helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
User:Brews ohare/ontological pluralism
| This article was redirected following a discussion of its content as of 2010. I have rewritten this article in its entirety, but Snowded wishes to delete this new version based upon this prior discussion of a different version entirely. It is my view that reconsideration is in order. If it is to be deleted, let's have the discussion and let's see if the article can be improved still further. Brews ohare (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) |
| I think saying that Jainism is a religious reform movement is POV-pushing. While the evidence for Jainism to have been existed in Indus Valley Civilization and the existence of Rishabha in vedic literature is scanty, it has nevertheless been speculated by a good number of scholars. (Chapple 1993, pp. 6–9) harv error: no target: CITEREFChapple1993 (help)(Sangave 2001, p. 107) harv error: no target: CITEREFSangave2001 (help)(Rankin 2010, p. 44) harv error: no target: CITEREFRankin2010 (help)(Sangave 2001, p. 106) harv error: no target: CITEREFSangave2001 (help) It is known that the origins of Jainism are shrouded in considerable mystery. Scholars now accept that Mahavira, the twenty-fourth tirthankara, was certainly not the founder of Jainism and Parshva, the twenty-third tirthankara was a historical figure.(Glasenapp 1999, p. 24) harv error: no target: CITEREFGlasenapp1999 (help) Considering these, I don't think it would be correct to say that Jainism was a reform movement. It had its independent origins and hardly any book on Jainism says that it was a reformist movement or anything like that. Rahul Jain (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |
| I have created Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathematician 11 as a first report in a series against the WP:SPA editor(s) coming here to disrupt this article with persistent unconstructive edits. In a nutshell, these edits have run afoul of many policies we adhere to on Misplaced Pages, including but not limited to, WP:COPYVIO WP:NPOV WP:OWN WP:OR WP:RS. Because these reasons are so grave, I have opened an RFC on the topic now and I invite newly interested editors to take a fresh look at this article, comment where appropriate, and boldly make their own improvements where they see fit. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
Talk:Genetically modified food controversies
| Mention of the importance of SE is currently absent from the lead yet its significance is detailed in multiple reliable sources. Note that some of the sources that are cited in support of the scientific consensus statement clearly state that SE played a significant role in the development of food safety testing. The bulk of the testing that took place prior to consensus being reached centered on SE. Currently, case by case assessment continues, and other safety testing methods exist, but, historically speaking, and in terms of the science that led to the consensus on GE food safety, SE played a significant role. Ultimately, the consensus statement is not properly contextualized in the lead and there is an unwillingness to address this matter. Semitransgenic talk. 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC) |
Talk:Conceptualization (information science)
| A figure is proposed to illustrate the relation between several terms used in the discussion of Conceptualization (information science). Comments are solicited as to whether it should be included in the article as it is, or whether modifications should be made. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC) |
| Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version) all be used in the article rather than using only the word "humanity"? |
| Requests for comment (All) | |
|---|---|
| Articles (All) |
|
| Non-articles (All) | |
| Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
| For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot. | |