Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy

• Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses YET AGAIN one individual trying to control the discussion works against previously established consensus. Violates 3RR regularly. Was finally warned about 3RR by an admin. We hdid not reported him as we are vets of edit wars and try to stay to ourselves but... we really need some fresh support.11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sahaj Marg- This is a request for involvement. The article is very unconventional and needs some good editors to give it an overhaul. It concerns a philosophy/practice/cult. -08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• One editor has proposed merging John Calvin's view of Scripture into John Calvin#Calvin's thought. The former is in this editor's opinion (1) a quotefarm and (2) too narrow in scope for an independent article. Should it be redacted to the salient points and integrated with the section on Calvin's thought? The other editor (also sole author of the former article) thinks that the two should remain distinct even now and that one can't express someone else's a view without such quotations. What do you think? (More discussion here.) 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty) interconnected with Talk:Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov) has a long-term dispute over "dynastic succession" between Klezmer (talk · contribs) and ChosidFrumBirth (talk · contribs) that has spilled over into an extensive exchange at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Mezhbizh (Hasidic dynasty). Some cool-headed outside input would help, but be prepared for a very esoteric subject relating to Hasidic Judaism. 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_Comment:_Regarding_the_best_definition_of_the_word:_'authorship'_to_determine_author(s)_of_ACIM Should an individual who provided only editorial assistance (helping to edit the original textual content), but who provided none of the original textual content itself, be named by Wikipedia as an author or writer of ACIM due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the initial "channeling" of ACIM? This debate has been resolved.-22:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of converts to Christianity#Request for Comment and Talk:Bob Dylan#Request for comment - There has been an ongoing discussion regarding whether or not it is reasonable to describe and or/categorize Bob Dylan as a Christian convert. 23:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ramana Maharshi Is the phrase "despite this" a POV push and OR? Or is it warranted by the context and other sources?18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• On the use of primary sources in a socio-political article whose topic is literally a controversy There is a dispute on the best use of primary sources. Would like comments from wikipedians, ideally from people who are disinterested with regard to the creation-evolution controversy. An ancillary point regarding the use of primary sources is the inherant POV they sometimes bring (e.g., the article becomes an extension of the controversy instead of a description of the controversy) or that the article sometimes leans toward attempting to decide the controversy. NOTE: Controversy, as used in this RFC, is the topic of the article, and not a description of the dispute.07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Taijitu and Talk:Yin and yang on the proposed merge. VanTucky 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Abortion_debate#Call_for_nuetral_terminology Is it possible to find a single NPOV term to refer to the organism/child from conception to birth or miscarriage or abortion? Please make suggestions as to what this one term can be.16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of United States Presidential religious affiliations#RFC - WP:SYNT issues Major problems with WP:SYNT throughout the article. Assertions are being made based on primary sources. No consenus on how to fix this situation. 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:The Revival Fellowship#Request_for_comment. Should the article contain information on the history and current criticism of this organisation? Natgoo 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Universal Life Church We can't agree over the addition of two external links. GreenJoe 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Noah's Ark Are recently-added "mythology" categories pushing a certain POV / opinion about the Biblical subject, or are all the people and groups who disagree that it is mythological just "insignificant" and "incorrect"? 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Free Zone (Scientology)#Request for comment: Verfassungsschutz If a group mentions interactions it has had with one specific governmental agency in one sentence, and then in the next sentence mentions other, different interactions it has had with "state authorities", is it justifiable to assume that the "state authorities" mentioned in the second sentence must include the specific agency named in the first sentence? Is it justifiable for an editor to assert that the governmental agency named in the first sentence is a "Secret Service" without providing any reference for that assertion? -- 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Purushottam Nagesh Oak long dispute/edit war about reliable souces for criticism of the Indian writer who claims that Christianity and Islam orginated from Hinduism, and that the Taj Mahal was once a Hindu temple. Paul B 05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
• Talk:Ethic_of_reciprocity#Request_for_Comment:_Golden.2FSilver_Rules_Distinction Do we need to distinguish between Golden Rule and Silver Rule. Disputers disagree whether such a distinction puts religions touting Golden Rule over religions touting Silver Rule.17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Intelligent design#Request for comment: lead NPOV dispute over first part of first sentence "Intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God,". Disputers charge that the article's lead sentence asserts, as a matter of fact, that the identity of intelligent designer is God, whereas this point is disputed as ID itself does not define who the designer is. The current language reflects a prior decision to replace "teleological argument" with the equivalent sentence "argument for the existence of God". Please note confusion over different definitions of "teleological" and "teleological argument" 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)