Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:34, 14 August 2006 editTipPt (talk | contribs)2,048 edits →Clinical and medical topics← Previous edit Revision as of 00:26, 15 August 2006 edit undoCri du canard (talk | contribs)339 edits →Clinical and medical topicsNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->
===Clinical and medical topics=== ===Clinical and medical topics===
*]. Is it appropriate for a wikipedia article on orthomolecular medicine to have lengthy technical quotations (including "Over 40% of the population is hetro- or homo-zygous with the thermolabile variant of 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase") from a medical journal that never mentions or endorses orthomolecular medicine, and whose author, ], has never mentioned or endorsed orthomolecular medicine, or is it better to simply note with appropriate citations "Some orthomolecular proponents claim Bruce Ames as one of their own because of research he has done on nutrition, though his articles neither mention nor endorse orthomolecular medicine"? 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
*Foreskin ] is reverted by Jakew without cause to be pro-circ. Please see these repeat reversions without constructive comment, and the content corrections thwarted. *Foreskin ] is reverted by Jakew without cause to be pro-circ. Please see these repeat reversions without constructive comment, and the content corrections thwarted.
*] and ] Is the statement of leading medical societies that these disciplines propound unsubstantiated claims and propose dangerous "cures" relevant, and is the repeated deletion of cited evidence to this effect justification for a POV tag that is also repeatedly being deleted by CAM supporters? *] and ] Is the statement of leading medical societies that these disciplines propound unsubstantiated claims and propose dangerous "cures" relevant, and is the repeated deletion of cited evidence to this effect justification for a POV tag that is also repeatedly being deleted by CAM supporters?

Revision as of 00:26, 15 August 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

Template:RFCheader

Clinical and medical topics

  • Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#RFC_Discussion_on_Bruce_Ames_text. Is it appropriate for a wikipedia article on orthomolecular medicine to have lengthy technical quotations (including "Over 40% of the population is hetro- or homo-zygous with the thermolabile variant of 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase") from a medical journal that never mentions or endorses orthomolecular medicine, and whose author, Bruce Ames, has never mentioned or endorsed orthomolecular medicine, or is it better to simply note with appropriate citations "Some orthomolecular proponents claim Bruce Ames as one of their own because of research he has done on nutrition, though his articles neither mention nor endorse orthomolecular medicine"? 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Foreskin Gliding Action is reverted by Jakew without cause to be pro-circ. Please see these repeat reversions without constructive comment, and the content corrections thwarted.
  • Talk:Orthomolecular medicine and Talk:Megavitamin therapy Is the statement of leading medical societies that these disciplines propound unsubstantiated claims and propose dangerous "cures" relevant, and is the repeated deletion of cited evidence to this effect justification for a POV tag that is also repeatedly being deleted by CAM supporters?
  • Orthomolecular medicine, Megavitamin therapy, Talk:Orthomolecular medicine and Talk:Megavitamin therapy, among others. I am getting carpet bombed by proven POV warriors and "new" editors every other week who cannot or will not read & understand the prior discussions & current mainstream scientific references (i.e. 2005-6 NIH, NAS articles) before launching a jihad of insults and counterfactual blather, billboarding ((totallydisputed)), etc as their "ultimate priority" negative opinion. Is there some more efficient way to deal with unreasonable POV dumping like the Black Knight and various forms Wikilawyering to keep an article continually "blockaded" by uninformed (-able) contentious editors?--69.178.41.55 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    You've a couple of options for situations like this. If it's blatant vandalism and sockpuppetry you're up against, you can request various forms of admin assistance at WP:RAA. If it's merely a POV dispute, a good place to start is the mediation cabal who try to find mutually agreeable compromises; it's good to start there before going to the formal mediation committee or arbitration as it shows you accept that the other editors may well be acting in good faith. If they choose not to participate in informal mediation, it only strengthens your case when going through the official channels.
    The other thing I would highly recommend is getting yourself a WP:Username first. It will make any of the above processes far far easier. --jwanders 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of pseudoscientific theories Is orthomolecular medicine a pseudoscientific theory?
  • Talk:Yoshiaki Omura Dispute for third time re essential Notability of entry or if Notability dependent on related reported event. Need extensive third party 'mediation' as both editors stating (and documenting) that the other is (effectively) not according with WP criteria on a number of very specific (WP criteria) points. Long dispute already, controversial subject.12:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine Needs 3rd party input on a variety of issues, including reliability of sources and accuracy disputes. 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Christopher Gillberg#Request for Comment: Scientific misconduct / credible sources - Christopher Gillberg is a Swedish scientist "accused by some" (but not convicted) of scientific misconduct. How big attention should this get in the article about him? Should he be in category Scientific misconduct? How much attention should it get in the lead section? 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Skull - help needed in reaching consensus about splitting some content into a human skull article 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Diabetes mellitus - dispute whether the intro should be inclusive of a little-known theory on the role of chromium and "glucose tolerance factor" 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Asperger syndrome This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine another edit war, unable to end due to CAM supporters enthusiasm. 06:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Biology and related

Abortion

  • Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph - There appears to be a conflict between content based on reliable sources vs. content that survives a contentious bipartisan debate that may or may not have sources. The result has been a lot of reversion, endless arguments over the definitions of basic terms, and allegations of sectional biases. More sources and neutral, outsider commentary welecome. 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics

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:Tired light -- To use a quote, or our own description? 01:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunications and digital technology

  • Talk:Search_engine_optimization#Confusing_phrase.2FPageRank Disagreement over whether lengthy discussion of the nuances of the PageRank number that appears in the Google Toolbar vs. the actual PageRank number belongs in the Search engine optimization article. Relevant edit: --20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Diff#Diff_links This started with a discussion between me and an anonymous editor about what links should be included in the external links section of the Diff article, then I proposed this infobox. The anonymous user is questoning my motives because my software is listed in the infobox. -Barry- 23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Amiga virtual machine Deadlock about article Amiga virtual machine. Article was redirected after public discussion to Motorola 68k which is unrelated. Sure we couldn't edit 68k and add infos in it about Amiga virtual machines because we will commit false if we redirect to an article some topics that are unrelated. It is not fair for all wkipedia readers. Two editors (see Talk) were so kind not to answer my objections to resolve privately this dispute. Seems they do not want any friendly resolution, but only the article to disappear. But article was well written and describes not a neologism but a new category (see its history to verify it all). I ask community for some comments about reverting the article and give it back visibility to public. --Raffaele Megabyte 08:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Programming language Argument over whether to include numerous fact tags. Editor is refusing to discuss and threatening to revert on sight. 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Technology and engineering

  • Talk:Telectronics#Request for Comment - A slow moving edit war has been raging for entirely too long (months) here regarding the true history of the Australian company Telectronics, which was a pioneer in the pacemaker industry. The primary disputants are one of the top two guys at the company and the son of the now deceased other top guy. The dispute involves what role these two played in the early years of the company and the timeline of the corporate history. It has progressed to the point of legal threats, defamation, and personal attacks and needs serious attention.12:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Flashlight - A relatively minor dispute over whether or not to include the text "occasionally offline" after an external link, unfortunately resulting in a slow-moving edit war and no actual progress on the article. Outside opinions may help to end this cycle. 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Honda S2000 - A dispute over the length and content of the Criticism section (especially when considered in relation to the length, tone and level of detail of the rest of the article and WP:NPOV#Undue weight) has resulted in multiple reverts, with seemingly no resolution possible between editors either side of the fence. The dispute centres around this version of the article versus this version. 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

  • Talk:Juris Doctor. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding whether the JD is a "doctorate" degree. However, the resolution of this necessarily affects the articles for ALL "professional doctorate" degrees; including, but not limited to, the MD, DDS, etc. (see Doctorate for a complete list). 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Mnemonic#RfC:_How_should_WP:V.2C_WP:NOR.2C_and_WP:CITE_be_applied_to_unsourced_examples_of_first-letter_mnemonics.3F. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "Kinky People Can Often Find Good Sex match those Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species, and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Water fluoridation. Is this version of the article violative of the NPOV#undue weight policy, and, if so, is this version preferable? 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Asperger syndrome This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Categories: