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

Shortcut: WP:RFC/MATH or WP:RFC/SCI or WP:RFC/TECH

Requests for comment on Mathematics, natural science, and technology Please help out by providing comment on another dispute listed here

List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about.
Provide a link to the relevant section on the article's talk page.
Sign entries with the date only, by using five tildes: ~~~~~.
Do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page.

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)

Talk:Homeopathy#Wikipedia guidelines re categorization summarizes a long, heated debate about the use of the Categorization 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)
Talk:Depleted uranium#Comparison of the two versions contains a comparison of the current version of Depleted uranium 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.LossIsNotMore 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish Van#Request for comment - 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)
Talk:Evolution#Request_for_comment_November_22_2006 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)
Talk:Gliding action 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)

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

Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Talk:Pressure Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Wolf effect User:Iantresman 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. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Global_warming#Controversy_Section 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. The machine512 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Emergence#RfC We are having a heated dispute in the Emergence article over a proper definition for Emergence (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)
Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon 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)

Talk:Video_game_crash_of_1983#Serious_Problems 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: WP:OR WP:RS WP:VERIFY. Comments? /Blaxthos 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)