Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Train (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 9 September 2005 (added Terri Schiavo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RFCheader

Terri Schiavo

Sections of this article are currently in dispute, and more editors are needed to form a consensus. This will not be easy and will take editors who are willing to do a lot of reading, as a couple of our more loquacious editors are in disagreement. One of the major points of contention is the wording of a section of the article dealing with legal actions taken by the parents of the article's subject against her husband. 02:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Partible Paternity

I believe polyandry to be related to partible paternity, but am not sure if the article I've written is wikipedia suitable. I've posted a message on Talk:Polyandry If there is anyone able to advise me, I'd be grateful 20:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)~

User:dtasripin and User:Wikipatrickwiki

I'm Daniel Tasripin. I have gotten into a problem with User:Wikipatrickwiki over Eliot Spitzer. A week ago, I used Talk:Eliot Spitzer to bring up a few issues I had with the inclusion of the blog "Spitzer Watch" and listed them, asking for people to comment during the week to get a consensus. With one person commenting agreeing that we should substitute materials discussed on Spitzer Watch rather than the blog itself, I went and deleted the link to Spitzer Watch and substituted a link to a blog of the American Enterprise Institute.

A few days later, the author of the Spitzer Watch blog got himself a Wikipedia login, and took it upon himself to put back the link to the blog. That would be fine by me, but I have to take exception to his inclusion of a personal attack on me on his blog, that he linked to in Talk:Eliot Spitzer. It says, and I quote verbatim:

"It seems that this self-appointed editor of Spitzer critics was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer at a 2003 anti-war demonstration. (I have no idea if he is guilty but I would propose that one is at least a little extreme to put himself in a situation to be charged with assualting a police officer and that isn't some minor "nuissance charge" like disturbing the peace.)"

Without posting the details of how this is totally inaccurate, I resent the dragging of my name through the mud over this person's (fairly minor) beef with an edit. I am requesting moderation, if only to get this person to please just desist with the ad hominem attacks. --Daniel 09:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Universitas 21 - on whether the {{twoversions}} tag should stay. See the edit summaries. — 13:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality is a discussion about whether or when it's appropriate to categorize people by their gender, ethnicity and/or sexual preferences. 07:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Misandry: edits comparing feminist skepticism of misandry to Holocaust denial, listing Hilary Clinton on this page unsourced, etc., misleading edit comments made in history
  • Talk:Lateral mark: I do not rember the rules, but the difference between A and B seems strange to me. Can somebody who knows river and nautical signal rules take a look? AnyFile 14:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gwen Araujo revert war about whether her murderers detected "that Gwen was in fact a pre-operative transsexual woman" or "that Gwen had male genitalia". For "discussion" see edit summaries
  • Talk:Otherkin - would a mention of clinical lycanthropy in otherkin be encyclopedic?
  • Talk:Bill Oddie can someone be a native of two different places? 07:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:The William Penn Society. Anon editor insists on assuming control of article on minor California college student society, demands inclusion of a list of non-notable alumni, and is holding a "meeting" with a motion to ban an editor. Other opinions and advice on Wikipedia standards and procedures welcome.
  • Talk:Public school (UK) — dispute over whether "quad" should be included in Public school (UK)#Public school language. 17:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Infantilism, Talk:ABDL, and Talk:Sissy baby. I'm moving these here from Peer review as the editor who placed them there was not aware of the "near feature quality" angle. He says he wanted more eyes on contentious changes and the inclusion of information about a faith based group. 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Cricket#Why_is_the_sport_here_and_not_the_insect.3F discusses whether the Cricket article should be about the sport of cricket (sport) or the disambiguation page cricket (disambiguation) 22:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Bareback and Talk:Barebacking -- an ongoing dispute about the specific meaning of the term: does it refer primarily to unprotected anal sex among gay men, or can it refer to any type of unprotected intercourse among people of any gender? 21:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Anarcho-capitalism — One editor making multiple reverts of lead line in article and seems unwilling to accept any compromise 21:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Racialism Longstanding dispute over two different versions. 02:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Homosexuality - The "Kinsey Reports" proclaim that 10% of people are homosexual, a study whose methodology is reguarded by certain people as highly flawed, although certain later studies have shown broad agreement. Should the article mention this study in the intro? -- 06:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people - vote on proposed changes to policy for inclusion in list
  • Apartheid/Talk:Apartheid - Whether or not to make special mention of "diaspora Jews" in a one-sentence summary of the history of European colonization of South Africa and the genesis of apartheid.
  • Talk:Religion and schizotypy - I tried to write something fair, brief and accurate, another user believes my work to be nonesical, to put it mildly, plus he said so with a good deal less then a civil tounge, if anone would like to either comment or spruce up the article, feel free. Ketrovin 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk:Polygamy#Polygamy#Christians & seculars - geographically separated discusses Christian polygamy and whether the current section Polygamy#Christians_.26_seculars_-_geographically_separated is NPOV, and whether Christian polygamists include Mormon polygamists. 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#RfC: It is stated in entry that a group (SPLC) accuses the subject group (Mises Institute) of being "Neo-confederate". How many non-Mises people should we quote with disparaging comments about the SPLC? Any? 02:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Intellectual property: Regarding a cited article opposing intellectual property and copyrights, one user wants to note that the article bears a copyright notice. The author of the printed article believes the comment is trivial and intended to make a non-neutral criticism of or point about the author/publisher. Is it NPOV to note this fact? -- 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Yiff I've seen for months and likely years people have been adding images to the Yiff article and User:ContiE utterly controls the article and will not let any image appear in the article. In the past I've seen him say they are not yiffy enough. I tried one and he refused to explain why he took it down, shouting insults online at me ranging from "troll" (as cited in Internet troll trolls like to troll by calling others this troll as an insult) to "has no idea what yiff is". I kept trying to communicate with him, asking him to be civilized and he refuses to answer why. He shot insults and then asked me questions of a personal nature. After all that he refuses to discuss merrits of what would make an image good or bad for the yiff article. Simply, I don't care what images are there, but I think the article needs a few images. You can try google image search with "safe search" OFF and look for "yiff" and then for "yiffy." I post this here in hopes that other people will look at it and maybe get an image through the tight control another person holds over the article. I know my justification turned into a rant, but I am making myself clear that I need help. I want other people to edit the article for me that way I don't have to have all my hard work forever undone. Be warned, ContiE will put any images listed in Yiff for deletion so please be prepared for some hard work to keep them from being deleted. ... I hope "Society" is the right section (the law makes me worry it's not). 21:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society,_law,_and_sex&oldid=22883424"