Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Is this section of the article detailing Jared Loughner's reported interest in the film unduly long and in need of shortening?

Comments

  • Yes As it stands, the only source we have in the section that devotes more than three sentences to any connection between the movie and Loughner is a single opinion piece by a partisan commentator trying to connect the movie to the right-wing. I believe a single paragraph with a summary of the allegations about the film's influence on Loughner and Joseph's response is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum

Is A. A. Gill a proper source for
In 2010, critic A. A. Gill wrote that the museum was "a breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul". He stated, "This place doesn't just take on evolution – it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most '-onomies' and all '-ologies', including most theology."[1]

Does this use imply he is an expert on the topic of museums? 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:ISO 8601

Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus

There is considerable discussion in this forum about the inclusion of so-called "minority" opinions. Basically it boils down to, whose citations represent a valid contribution? There has been considerable push back over many months and years to the inclusion of scholarship that falls outside of the one school of thought protected within this article: namely biblical scholarship based almost exclusively on theological historical-criticism. From a broader academic perspective, inclusive of seminal archaeologists, philosophers and different types of biblical scholars, the positions in this article are challenged. Please review to assess and validate the inclusion of other scholarly opinions in this article as found, for example, at Historicity of Jesus#Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.


For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.
  1. ^ GILL, A.A. (2010-02-01). "Roll Over, Charles Darwin!". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 24 January 2010.