Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfdwolff (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 31 August 2005 (Abrahamic mythology - let's see how this fares). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RFCheader

  • Talk:Abrahamic mythology debate whether the term (or even the concept) are neologisms and inventions for the sake of pushing a point.
  • Talk:Barbara Schwarz debate over article subject's membership in the Church of Scientology, not to mention every other point in the article; three to five people are writing almost every word on the talk page and accusing those who are actually writing the article of attempting to slander its subject; the article's VfD has turned into a flamewar. - 206.114.20.121 18:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Persecution of Asatruers dispute over article title and/or article focus. 09:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief The whole article is one long rant against charasmatic and pentocostal views. The "see also" section is horrendous. There is no criticisms of the criticisms in short. I put some historical information via Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origin, etc to give perspective but the whole article needs to be rewritten and made NPOV. [1] If I am not mistaken charasmatics make up 1/4 of Christendom which is the worlds largest worldview. It is not like charasmatics are some fringe group in Waco pouring gasoline all over themselves. Admins please do something about this mess. ken 00:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
  • Talk:Pat_Robertson#Fatwa Should the term Fatwa apply to all religious killing edicts, including that of Pat Robertson against Hugo Chavèz? 17:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Crucifixion Should the account of blood and water from John 19:34 be included as an example of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible? 20:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:List_of_self-proclaimed_deities#Jesus Should Jesus Christ, be included in the list given the articl's title and stated criteria for inclusion? Should the term "unequivocally made statements about being god" be used a as distinction for inclusion. 21:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Prem Rawat - should the biography part of the article include allegations of heavy drinking? [2] 05:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Suki - Is "SUKI (tm)" a major world religion with hundreds of thousands of followers in Asia? Or is it made up? The dispute takes the form of a long, slow revert war on the Suki disambiguation page, between one anon and several watchers of the page. 21:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Vampire Should the Vampire article contain "vampire fiction" in addition to "vampire folklore and myth?" If so, how should it be included? 02:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • List of self-proclaimed deities (talk) - POV entries controversy, complete with protection, unprotection, and WP:POINT accusations. 16:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:The Bible and history - version A or version 1 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Religion and schizotypy - only 105 words long, but people are claiming that Wikipedia policy forbids a merge during a VfD merely because several Wikipedians agreed to hold a vote to deletion after a discussion to speedily delete it fell through. The editor who wants to merge it against consensus declares "This is a disruptive example of Wikipedia:Gaming the system." to the editors who prevent the merge while the other editors see the attempt to interrupt a VfD in progress that clearly shows deleting is the favored option (not to mention one other's editor's claim that he will recreate it immediately as a redirect after deletion when the VfD finishes) as a blatant disregard for the concept of consensus-building and good faith. 20:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

e*Talk:Mecca — currently the article uses both "Mecca" and "Makkah"; vote on which standard to use. 5 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Bible source text. Should whole bible chapters (particularly the King James Version) be quoted in full in articles, or just a link to external sources, or Wikisource.
  • Talk:Islam#the_poll ongoing controversy about external links policy. 7:00 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Creation_science Dispute regarding criticism of Creation Science in introduction and whether it follows NPOV. 02:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Islamophobia - despite attempts to properly discuss edits, this page has descended into a revert war causing this page to be protected by the admins. 09:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo' (INC) has been engaged in many edit wars and disputes in the last few months in regards to almost every issue, which is stunting the article's growth. The main contributers consist mostly of those who are or at one time been affiliated with the INC. I ask if we can get more third party contributers (perferably those not affiliated with INC or its detractors) who can help alleve the situation? June 30, 2005 01:33 (UTC)
  • Talk:Mysticism Debate over inclusion of a link to God vrs. a link to divinity. Anyone is welcome, regardless of expertise. 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • talk:Qiyamah. POV dispute with users User:freestylefrappe and User:zora. The dispute revolves around two major points: A. the detail freestylefrappe keeps adding is based on an incorrect translation of the quranic verse(s) he cites and moreover is an irrelevant and minute detail that detracts from the main thrust of the article . B. The second point is that Freestylefrappe sees that Ahmadiyya sect views on an topic in islam should be included because they consider themselves muslim; whereas my view is that Muslims by consensus do not consider the Ahmadiyya Muslims at all. It is like someone insisting that manichaean views should be included in a christian religion article.
  • talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge. POV mess. Please help explain NPOV policy and (2) anyone iwth any knowledge of mainstream (rather than fundie) Christianity please help clean up this mess.

Also, mickwest is trying to cover up the fact that ancient Egyptian medicine had much ineffective medicine in it and much dangerous medicine too.

  • Tariq Aziz - one user insists that this rogue must not be identified as Christian. Paul Beardsell 12:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Emerging Church - in need of outside views (style and content somewhat entrenched in unencylopedic form, plus article ownership issues). 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • talk:cult Which version is better? see [3] 16 July 2005
  • Talk:Creation_science, Summary - dispute as to whether it should be stated as fact that "Creation Science is a pseudoscience" or if that characterization is sufficiently in dispute as to be an opinion. 18:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • History of Christianity - dispute as to whether or not Zoroastrianism should be listed as a primary influence...an anonymous user is strongly for that, claiming that the Zoroastrian faith was a key influence on Judaism. 2 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
N.b. this is a widely held view amongst historians and archaeologists concerned with mesopotamia. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
note also Mary Boyce, Zoroastrianism, Routledge, London and New York, 2001 [in the Library of Religion Beliefs and Practices series], p 29: "Zoroastrianism was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body". 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Charles Taze Russell: One user repeatedly stating that he controls the article and reverts attempts by others to add information that doesn't conform with what he views is the official biography. Several have inserted NPOV tags, but he has reverted them. -- 05:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Leviticus 18 is a somewhat informative article, but since nothing links to it and nobody's contributed to it in the longest time, it's largely a waste of space at the moment. Should it be registered on votes for deletion? 128.253.110.167 03:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a vote on something closely related going on here. 18:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy&oldid=22272792"