| Revision as of 14:48, 3 January 2007 editNightngle (talk | contribs)920 edits →Clinical and medical topics: adding a rfc← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:30, 5 January 2007 edit undoCentrx (talk | contribs)37,287 edits rm RfCs older than 1 monthNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}} | {{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}} | ||
| {{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}} | {{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}} | ||
| ⚫ | <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP for each section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ===Clinical and medical topics=== | ===Clinical and medical topics=== | ||
| *] is a meat substitute made from mycoprotien and egg albumin. In the "Controversy" section of the article, there is a discussion of possible allergic reactions, etc. A Misplaced Pages user has added a negative testimonial quoted on a website (claiming that the product made him/her incontinent of feces in public). A discussion ensued and a request for comment has been made on the ] page under the "Colorful Quote" and "Request for comment" sections, with one user concerned about NPOV and the other user believing that because the quote can be referenced to a website it should be allowed, among other reasons. An objective look at the "Controversy" section and comment would be most helpful. Thank you. 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | *] is a meat substitute made from mycoprotien and egg albumin. In the "Controversy" section of the article, there is a discussion of possible allergic reactions, etc. A Misplaced Pages user has added a negative testimonial quoted on a website (claiming that the product made him/her incontinent of feces in public). A discussion ensued and a request for comment has been made on the ] page under the "Colorful Quote" and "Request for comment" sections, with one user concerned about NPOV and the other user believing that because the quote can be referenced to a website it should be allowed, among other reasons. An objective look at the "Controversy" section and comment would be most helpful. Thank you. 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *] the article goes lengths to tell that ] is not ]. I smell bias from ] peddlers. Can anyone with pharmaceutical knowledge do a POV-check? `'] 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | *] the article goes lengths to tell that ] is not ]. I smell bias from ] peddlers. Can anyone with pharmaceutical knowledge do a POV-check? `'] 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | *] Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] is the last in a long line of discussions over the definition of abortion, focusing on whether it should include the word 'death'. There are several definitions of abortion, most of which (the medical ones) don't use the word, but some do. The article uses the second type, giving the first as sort of an 'afterthought'. The suggestion to give both definitions side by side did not reach a consensus. Oddly, the conclusion form that was that the second definition should be used as the primary one in stead of stating the most used medical definition first. I don't know about the way such things should be resolved, but this seems wrong to me. Note that any new discussions on this are 'archived' the moment they are put on the talk page. 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | *] is the last in a long line of discussions over the definition of abortion, focusing on whether it should include the word 'death'. There are several definitions of abortion, most of which (the medical ones) don't use the word, but some do. The article uses the second type, giving the first as sort of an 'afterthought'. The suggestion to give both definitions side by side did not reach a consensus. Oddly, the conclusion form that was that the second definition should be used as the primary one in stead of stating the most used medical definition first. I don't know about the way such things should be resolved, but this seems wrong to me. Note that any new discussions on this are 'archived' the moment they are put on the talk page. 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
| *] summarizes a long, heated debate about the use of the ] guidelines, specifically the part that says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Some editors feel that it is self-evident and un-controversial that homeopathy belongs in quackery while other editors feel that such a categorization is not self-evident and is highly controversial 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] contains a comparison of the current version of ] with a recent major revision which replaced a lot of what some people had been taking out of it over the past several months, mostly in the "Health considerations" section.] 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Biology and related=== | ===Biology and related=== | ||
| ⚫ | *] Should the title be ''adrenaline'' or ''epinephrine''? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | *] Please comment whether the image of "splenic necrosis" due to bloat has clinical and reader value to a vet or other interested reader. 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] Three descriptors have been proposed - "controversial" (which is inaccurate, since there is no scientific controversy, simply dismissal), "Behe's theory" (which misses the broader context) and "discredited" (which is accurate, but may not be the best choice of words). 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | *] Three descriptors have been proposed - "controversial" (which is inaccurate, since there is no scientific controversy, simply dismissal), "Behe's theory" (which misses the broader context) and "discredited" (which is accurate, but may not be the best choice of words). 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
| *] - This page has undergone regular frequent reversion lately by two editors involved in a dispute about how exactly the name of the article should be applied. 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Any talk about making clear that parts of evolution are theory is summarily archived. You will have to look into the history of the talk page to see it, because of course it's been archived. There is no addressing of the issues. --05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Please contribute comments on the neutrality and relevance of the possibly NPOV statement that a foreskin is similar to wearing a condom. 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *] Please comment whether the image of "splenic necrosis" due to bloat has clinical and reader value to a vet or other interested reader. 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | *] Should the title be ''adrenaline'' or ''epinephrine''? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===Mathematics=== | ===Mathematics=== | ||
| ::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | ::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | ||
| * ] Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or" | * ] Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or" | ||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ===Physical science=== | ===Physical science=== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 31: | ||
| *] Is there in Einstein's gravitation any '''attraction between masses''' or is the gravitational force an '''inertial force''' generated by the curvatures of spacetime? 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | *] Is there in Einstein's gravitation any '''attraction between masses''' or is the gravitational force an '''inertial force''' generated by the curvatures of spacetime? 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | *] Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| *] ] wishes to put across certian ideas which will need to be carefully weighed, he has prudently decided to debate on Talk due to ArbCom probation; Ian and ScienceApologist are the only two active here and they do not work well together. More eyes definitely required. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] There is a dispute and edit war of the neutrality of the article and as to whether or not both sides of the issue are being presented well enough within the article. ] 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] We are having a heated dispute in the ] article over a proper definition for ] (specifically whether systems are irreducible and cannot be predicted/described by their constituent parts) and moreover what sort of citations should be required for this article. Please help us resolve these disputes and get the article unprotected. 16:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Is EVP recognized by the scientific community as a legitimate phenomenon, or is it a pseudoscience? Can research by non-peer review publications be claimed as factual? 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Technology and engineering=== | ===Technology and engineering=== | ||
| ⚫ | *] Is it appropriate to mention in the "Criticisms" section that ] has been called "memory eater", and are the existing citations sufficient for verifiability? '''''' shows the disputed content. 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] A list currently without any kind of objective criteria, and almost entirely composed of original research. If a list is with an extremely subjective definition is, in fact, appropriate for Misplaced Pages, how do editors follow ], ] and ]? If an existing page is difficult to reconcile with policy, how should it be handled? 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | *] A list currently without any kind of objective criteria, and almost entirely composed of original research. If a list is with an extremely subjective definition is, in fact, appropriate for Misplaced Pages, how do editors follow ], ] and ]? If an existing page is difficult to reconcile with policy, how should it be handled? 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *] Discussion on what the article should be about: artificial life, or the field of study with the same name. 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | *] Discussion on what the article should be about: artificial life, or the field of study with the same name. 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| *] Article, though well written and interesting, seems rife with original research, unverified claims, and is largely unsourced. Seems as though some insiders sheppard the article, and may even be 100% correct, however there seems to be a ''massive'' amount of synthesis of thought, unreferenced claims, and a wholly unverifiable article. Editors in the past have brought up concerns of factual accuracy as well. Major policy problems: ] ] ]. Comments? /] 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | *] Is it appropriate to mention in the "Criticisms" section that ] has been called "memory eater", and are the existing citations sufficient for verifiability? '''''' shows the disputed content. 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 05:30, 5 January 2007
Shortcut- ]
Clinical and medical topics
- Quorn is a meat substitute made from mycoprotien and egg albumin. In the "Controversy" section of the article, there is a discussion of possible allergic reactions, etc. A Misplaced Pages user has added a negative testimonial quoted on a website (claiming that the product made him/her incontinent of feces in public). A discussion ensued and a request for comment has been made on the Talk:Quorn page under the "Colorful Quote" and "Request for comment" sections, with one user concerned about NPOV and the other user believing that because the quote can be referenced to a website it should be allowed, among other reasons. An objective look at the "Controversy" section and comment would be most helpful. Thank you. 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- SSRI discontinuation syndrome the article goes lengths to tell that discontinuation syndrome is not addiction. I smell bias from Prozac peddlers. Can anyone with pharmaceutical knowledge do a POV-check? `'mikka 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- WT:WEAPON#Article names for firearms Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Abortion/First paragraph#Definition of abortion is the last in a long line of discussions over the definition of abortion, focusing on whether it should include the word 'death'. There are several definitions of abortion, most of which (the medical ones) don't use the word, but some do. The article uses the second type, giving the first as sort of an 'afterthought'. The suggestion to give both definitions side by side did not reach a consensus. Oddly, the conclusion form that was that the second definition should be used as the primary one in stead of stating the most used medical definition first. I don't know about the way such things should be resolved, but this seems wrong to me. Note that any new discussions on this are 'archived' the moment they are put on the talk page. 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Biology and related
- Talk:Epinephrine#The name issue Should the title be adrenaline or epinephrine? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Bloat#Picture Please comment whether the image of "splenic necrosis" due to bloat has clinical and reader value to a vet or other interested reader. 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Irreducible complexity#Discredited Three descriptors have been proposed - "controversial" (which is inaccurate, since there is no scientific controversy, simply dismissal), "Behe's theory" (which misses the broader context) and "discredited" (which is accurate, but may not be the best choice of words). 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Mathematics
- Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics
- Talk:Exclusive disjunction Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or"
Physical science
- Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics
- Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry
- Talk:Gibbs free energy#Gibbs free energy to Gibbs energy move debate Gibbs free energy is the traditional and widely-used name, Gibbs energy is the IUPAC recommendation. RFC cross-posted at WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Physics. 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Nitrogen#Liquid to solid Nitrogen Video I do not want to get into a revert war over a potential health safety issue over a link to a YouTube amateur video - outside opinions are welcomed. 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Non-standard cosmology#Request for Comment: Fixing an error in section "Early GR attempts" Is there in Einstein's gravitation any attraction between masses or is the gravitational force an inertial force generated by the curvatures of spacetime? 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Pressure Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Technology and engineering
- Talk:Windows_Me#Memory_Eater Is it appropriate to mention in the "Criticisms" section that Windows Me has been called "memory eater", and are the existing citations sufficient for verifiability? This diff shows the disputed content. 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:List of supercars#RFC on Suitability of Topic for List, Content A list currently without any kind of objective criteria, and almost entirely composed of original research. If a list is with an extremely subjective definition is, in fact, appropriate for Misplaced Pages, how do editors follow WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability? If an existing page is difficult to reconcile with policy, how should it be handled? 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Artificial_life Discussion on what the article should be about: artificial life, or the field of study with the same name. 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)