Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 26 June 2012

Mathematics B‑class High‑priority

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Lede

The version reverted to here reads more clearly for the lede. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree...per Stanford University's much clearer -- and vastly more authoritative -- cited article on Bell's Theorem'. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. The original longstanding consensus version is much clearer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The old version of the lead is the consensus version. It has been stable for over 5 years, meaning that many editors have implicitly endorsed it (see WP:CON and WP:BRD). If this were a vote, not only would we have the implicit consensus that already existed, but in addition it is two to one against the new change. FNS, if you want this to be included, then you have to make your case here and convince somebody else that you are right. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed: clearer becuase

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics."

is very direct, the other is more wordy. I just reverted the last change by FormerNukeSubmariner; the prosy comment for an edit summary "two people doth not a 'consensus' make" (WTF?) is meaningless - now it’s 3. I don't have time to keep eyes on WP right now though... F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class mathematics articles
• High-priority mathematics articles
• B-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of High-importance