Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
|The issue isn't one of Creation Science but one of neutrality, where the language in the article that declares that:|
is not NPOV because it asserts a thesis that life comes about through an "up from the muck" process only, which is vastly overreaching and overstated, and categorically rules out "down from the stars" theories. Rowan claims science is agnostic, then the POV here is that science and the article should remain agnostic and not atheistic.
(An editor Apokryltaros (labelled as Mr Fink) claimed the right of closing the above discussion, which was improper in my view. He also removed my comment from his talk page.) -Inowen (nlfte) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
|:Was "Science as a compendium of revelations from God "|
There is an idea of science as being exclusively a revelation from nature, but the idea of science as being the revelations of God has some history in philosophy, and in the religionist's accommodating usage of "philosophy" and "science" (note similarity in meaning) as fitting in a Holy perspective. For example, claims and references to claims like "[in] the prolegomena to Aristotle’s Physica, [Girolamo] Zanchi makes the case that philosophy ultimately comes to man by divine revelation".
Some might read that as philsophy and not science, but the connection between science and philosophy is deep, and of late is perhaps misconveyed as distant, such that philosophy connotes soft and unrigourous research which includes the possibility of God, while "science" has become a code word for 'atheistic research only.' I suggested at WP:VP/I that we have articles which ask questions, but first perhaps a single article on the "Big questions" is required. One of the big questions we know by heart and mind is "is there a God?" From that basis, treatment of God as a possibility can be asked as a question, and then the treatment of God as an object for scientific proof. Dear science, can there be
|Should the following text be added to a "Promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe discourse" sub-section?:|
|Has the author violated WP protocols?|
I have been accused of violating WP protocols in this and other articles. I replaced an accurate article, violating WP: NPOV, NOR, SYN:NOR, UNDUE, OWN. I welcome the opportunity to show why these charges are mistaken. All of the elements of my case appear in the “Instrumentalism” lede, which now replaces my article in order to restore the status quo anti which I replaced in 2014.
The present lede defines instrumentalism as an “interpretation” or “theory” that “scientific theory is merely a tool” of prediction that says nothing about unobservable reality. It claims this proposition was introduced by Duhem in 1906, and is the prevailing theory-of-theory in physics today. It then states that instrumentalism is a form of anti-realism—the “demise” of which is claimed in the historical discussion that follows. Thus INSTRUMENTALISM IS BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD—a paradox stated as a fact. This characterization of instrumentalism in the original and present article is inaccurate, which explains my decision to replace.TBR-qed (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
|Although a request for citation has been present since May 2017, there have been no citations added to support the claims that Mr James Karat "invented" STP. STP is a well known concept and not an invention created by a single person. It is simply the automation of business processes. There is no mention of what role Mr Karat played in the automation of the process - it appears he was working on an automation project anyway, so is it actually the case that he was the "jobber" and not a business process architect, system architect, system developer or any person who could have claim to "inventing" a concept. It appears that the entries have been made by Mr Karat himself and not someone independent. In fact in April 2016 the Edit History shows Graeme Austin commenting "Origination of phrase is in fact in dispute. James Karat may have been the first but I was deeply involved in STP in the early 90s in London and he is not known to me."|
Should references to Mr Karat be removed?
|Should the following section be included in the article:|
Previous related RfC closed 19 March 2017 is here Talk:Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15/Archive_1#Request_for_comment:_add_three_instances_of_criminal_useSpringee (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
|There has been much debate about this image (of a lotus seed pod) at the Trypophobia article. So far, the debate has produced a 2013 RfC, a 2015 Village pump (policy) discussion, a 2015 RfC here at this talk page, and now this one. The first RfC closed as no consensus to remove the image, the second discussion did not have an official close, but more editors leaned toward excluding the image (and other phobia images in phobia articles), and the final RfC closed as consensus for including the image. The discussions have concerned whether or not including the image is beneficial to readers, and whether or not it causes unnecessary harm to our readers. One view has been that the image is educational because demonstrating what induces trypophobia is not easy since a simple explanation of "a fear of holes" or "irregular patterns or clusters of small holes, or bumps" does not suffice. People with trypophobia can look at holes or irregular patterns and not have a reaction. Rather, the condition is about certain patterns, and in particular images that present high-contrast energy at low and midrange spatial frequencies. Lotus seed pod imagery is commonly noted as imagery that induces trypophobia and is used by researchers to test for trypophobia. Another view is that the image is irrelevant, decorative, or not needed, and that, even if it is educational, it causes unnecessary harm to our readers; this is seen, for example, here and here. WP:NOTCENSORED has been cited in past discussions. Some have felt that removing the image based on the possibility that it might harm readers, especially if the condition is not real or an actual phobia, is censoring. Others have stated that this is not a matter of WP:NOTCENSORED; it's a matter of whether we really need the image for the topic and whether we want to risk causing our readers harm. The imagery won't harm those without trypophobia, but it will harm those with it (they are the ones most likely to visit this article) and, with more research on the topic having been done since past discussions, researchers are are clear that it exists and does induce negative psychological or autonomic nervous system responses.|
As a compromise, editors have suggested collapsing the image (although collapsing it has been noted as something that would cause accessibility issues), or moving the image far down the page. So should we remove the image? Retain the image in the lead, but collapse it? Or move it lower? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
|I have started a request for comment to determine the proper title for this article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)|
|Should Google+'s reported data exposure be included or excluded from this list? FallingGravity 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)|
|In a disease article, how can we include treatments such as those in the following list of examples:|
This RfC is about building a consensus on a way to present such treatments in the present article. Wikipedians are invited to join in, including those from non-medical fields.This RfC is the logical follow up of the discussion that appears just before on Talk:Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus. Riffstilde (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
|Which of the following should be the opening paragraph of the Sci-Hub article?|
Option 1 (from revision 864273518):
Option 2 (from revision 864287916):
Option 3 (current version):