Wikipedia talk:Current disputes over articles

I propose this page for discussion of "destructive" activities that rise above the level of deleting whole pages or inserting "joe is kewl" into articles at random.

For example, we might say:

• Lir is calling Christopher Columbus a slavetrader and reverting (all, most?) other contributors' changes.

I think it's better to call such a dispute an edit war than to use such a provocative term as vandalism. --Ed Poor

COuld be a good idea. Might keep traffic down on the mailing list too! -- Tarquin

What kind of doublethink allows people to think that "edit war" is a less provocative term than "vandalism"? War is worse than vandalism, and both are destructive acts. There's no way to destroy anything on Wikipedia, other than good will, and this page does a better job of destroying good will than any contention over a single topic ever will. --The Cunctator

--- What is an Edit War? Ilyanep

Islam page verses Christianity page and no Christian page

I hope I put this in the right place; I've been trying to find an appropriate place to ask this question and discuss my view. I have posted some remarks on the Talk pages.

I am a very offended and upset Christian. I went to the Christian page and got "redirected" to a Christianity page that is filled with practically a debate on what Christianity is. There are comments galore from apparently non Christians on the page. I then went to the Islam page and there's a generic practically glowing idealistic definition of the religion of Islam.

Why is there this difference? It would seem to me that a definition of a religion should be just that. If on the Islam definition page someone is allowed to present a glowing, undebated,idealistic version and definition of the religion, why isn't the same courtesy being extended to the Christianity page"?

try copying this to Talk:Christianity --Jiang

I do not see anything anti-Christian in the Christianity page, but since I am not a Christian I admit I may be insensitive. But I have no idea how to respond to your comment, unless you can point (preferaby on the Christianity talk page) to some specific sentences or pasages and explain to this general reader in what way they are inaccurate or inflamatory. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Sanacja

So, what happens now? Andy Mabbett 17:45, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

See Wikipedia talk:Conflict resolution for a possible way to better handle user and article disputes. --mav 19:03, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment has been created. I would therefore like to start the process of slowly depreciating this page by directly new dispute requests to RfC. If there are no objections I'll leave such a note at the top of this page. The policy statements may be eventually ported over as well. --mav

[Removed incorrectly formed request - UtherSRG 17:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)]

Deprecating the page

Based on the discussion above, as well as at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution, this page is now considered deprecated. It will be converted into a redirect to RfC in one week, unless significant objections are registered on this talk page before then. --Michael Snow 00:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)