Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
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 |
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:
|
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) |
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) |
Do screenshots of software running in console mode violate WP:NOTGUIDE? Huihermit (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
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) |
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.