Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Electronic cigarette

Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

In the lead should we use "biomedical and health information" or "biomedical information"?

Biomedical and health

  • Support MEDRS's goal is that "information is accurate and reflects current knowledge". Biomedical covers health, and this clarifies for the reader. CFCF 💌 📧 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Possible phrasings required to support the inclusion of a clause surrounding country of origin are multiple and we have so far no consensus on what to use. For this reason I have listed the following versions as possible:
(Note: other wording is also possible, feel free to add o the end of this list)
  1. Clarification
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin or conclusions except when they explicitly impact the quality of the source.
  2. Omission of the addition
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.
  3. Link to extended discussion
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin[1] or conclusions.
  4. Alternate clarification
    Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions. However, you should consider these factors if reliable sources have specifically linked them to systematic problems in the medical literature.
  5. Another alternate clarification
    Where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries it may impact the quality of the source. (Without including <ref></ref> tags.)

References

  1. ^ see closing comments at here.
  • Support 1 or 2 - Oppose 3 Adding the link will result in noone reading the content and the entire sentence losing its meaning with new time-consuming debates blossoming. My reading, and I think the only sensible one is that the RfC overwhelmingly supported not including the statement on the basis that is was a hypothetical situation that had never occurred. CFCF 💌 📧 11:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

I propose a small change of the first sentence of section "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories". The change is "have in the past used" ---> "regularly attempt to use". -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette

RFC: Are these sources the same?

There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.[1] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.[2].

The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.

Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:OpenIndiana

Do screenshots of software running in console mode violate WP:NOTGUIDE? Huihermit (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic violence

This RfC concerns this Scientific American text; the source is here. See the section (which this section is a part of) above for further detail. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, click on Talk:Domestic violence#Domestic violence affects both genders and children for such detail. One argument is that "the conclusion that domestic violence disproportionately affects women is widely supported, far more supported than any notion that domestic violence disproportionately affects men, means that the statement that 'rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women' is the minority viewpoint/aspect. [...] The rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women statement is problematic because of the way it [i]s presented and because of the sourcing; the text [i]s presented in the article as though it is some review that found that matter to be the case, when it is actually an article commenting on Straus's analyses." Domestic violence disproportionately affecting women is not simply about the physical evidence, and female domestic violence victims undderreporting their victimization is very prevalent. If the Scientific American content is to stay, its format should be changed, per the WP:Due weight policy; we should not be giving false balance to these matters. Ideally, we should also be using better sources for health content, per WP:MEDRS. The other argument is that "many studies indicate that women are guilty of more aggression and other forms of DV like verbal/psychological/emotional violence. Domestic violence is not just the physical! The article needs to be balanced. Removing other significant reliable sources which provide a different perspective is not the answer [...] Domestic violence affects all of these groups, not equally perhaps but the article needs to reflect what the reliable sources say. [...] most secondary sources indicate that women are more affected by physical violence. But then again all of the secondary sources also state that there is a huge level of under-reporting of domestic violence to police and authorities by men. [..] So, common sense would tell us that if this was the case and men are very resistant to report domestic violence for a plethora of reasons, perhaps current statistics are an inaccurate reflection of how DV affects one group more so than another? Or how different forms of domestic violence affects. Also statistics vary widely between different countries and can change significantly."

Below are good-quality or high-quality sources reporting that domestic violence disproportionately affects women; some of them include commentary on men as victims of domestic violence. Also see the #Discussion section below, for sources that focus on women as perpetrators of domestic violence.

I will alert the WikiProjects associated with this talk page to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change denial

Should climate change skepticism, and similar redirects, point to this article (support), or to Global warming controversy (oppose)? This article was updated toward the beginning of this year to include extended coverage about "climate change skepticism", but efforts to change the redirects so that content can be easily found were reverted. Reasons for the change and revert can be found at Talk:Global warming skepticism, Talk:Climate change skeptic, and Talk:Climate change skepticism.   — Jess· Δ 16:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of custom Android firmware

This article was substantially trimmed (by an editor single-handedly, I believe) to remove every entry that didn't seem to have a corresponding Wikipedia article. The editor also added comments and talk-page warnings forbidding the addition of new entries that didn't have a corresponding Wikipedia article. I believe the former list was encyclopedic and not overly long, and that several entries didn't necessarily fail notability criteria any more than the current ones even though they lacked an article, and that it should be reinstated.

Should the strict warnings about only including Android distributions with a Wikipedia articles be removed, and (at least the more prominent9 entries be reinstated? LjL (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.