| Revision as of 02:01, 11 August 2008 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 editsm Update, 17 current discussions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:43, 5 September 2008 edit undoHarej (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,255 edits redirect | ||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| '''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:''' | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> image may reflect out of date or racist science | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Is this article too long and should it follow a "For vs. Against" outline for clarity? | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Are there sufficient reliable, secondary sources to warrant calling Thomas Hobbes a classical republican? | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Are eye witness accounts from a controversial work, ], considered reliable sources | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Is Taxila Ancient India or Ancient Pakistan | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> back and forth edits on historic importance of current and future events, appropriateness of naming businesses, and notability of a weekly sale. Arguments for and against are listed in the section above and ] | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Request help with whether comments constitute weasel words. | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Whether it is good or bad proses to use the word "attacks" to define "attack" and whether or not it is original research to use a wikipedia-created title in the introductory sentence rather than the terminology used by respected reliable sources such as CNN, CBC, CBS, and the BBC. | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> dispute as to whether money can consist of material with intrinsic value without a certifying authority, or whether it requires a "trusted" certifying authority (also reported to RFChist) | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> User is alleging article is corporate vanity | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Editors cannot verify citations for controversial sentences | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Several issues over formatting and maintenance tags have cropped up over the last month. Editors have been unable to reach consensus. Some uncivility may be impeding discussion. The outstanding issues are 1. justification for maintenance tags, 2. non-standard placement of maintenance tags, 3. non-standard spacing, 4. civility on the Talk page. | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> Do events named "massacres" that do not involve the deaths of humans belong in this list? | |||
| * <strong>]</strong> dispute regarding amusement park's status as an integrated establishment during an era of racial segregation | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{{hide_instructions}}}|yes| |{{RFC tagging instructions|RFChist}} }} | |||
| <noinclude>''For more information, see ]''</noinclude> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:43, 5 September 2008
Redirect to: