Wikipedia:Expert Retention/Conflicts involving expert editors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is intended as a brief repository of conflicts involving expert editors (or those who claim to be experts in a recognized field). For each entry, state the article (or topic, if a whole slew of articles are involved), and who the principle involved parties are. It is acceptable to state the viewpoints of parties when known, but please avoid judgmental terms like pseudoscientist, crackpot, crank, POV-pusher, etc. They aren't really helpful; reasonable editors should be able to discern who is pushing what view from the content.
This list should only include disputes which drag on for a while. Don't include vandalism, one-time insertions of dubious information which is reverted, debates which are purely over matters of style or presentation, etc.
Contents |
[edit] Philosophy
The set of pages on Philosophy.
- Talk:Consciousness#Oh_Lord.... Consciousness is understood as a symbiosis (interaction) of Mind and Information.
[edit] Mathematics
[edit] Cantor and set theory
Controversy over Cantor's theory: what exactly have the famous mathematicians said about Georg Cantor's epochal contributions to set theory and our understanding of infinity, and how should the Wikipedia represent the various squabbles over this issue?
[edit] Chemistry
[edit] Uranium Trioxide
Uranium trioxide. One user, neither presenting nor claiming any credentials in chemistry or related disciplines, persisted in attempting to present a novel theory concerning the phase of the aforementioned chemical. Was eventually sanctioned by the ArbCom.
[edit] Physics
[edit] Albert Einstein
The biography on Albert Einstein is a common playground for interesting theories.
It is currently a former FA (demoted October 2006).
[edit] Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
A "theory of everything" by User:Byrgenwulf, now departed from the project. This might not be legitimate material for Wikipeida, but the use of the vaugue Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement label to get rid seems to avoid addressing the important issues properly.
[edit] Redshift
A perennial source of endless dragging-on, Redshift has been caught between strong personalities for a drearily large number of months. An administrator (who in User:Anville's (now departed the project) experience has been admirably level-headed) has recently stated, "Frankly, I'm coming around to the view that ArbCom is going to have to deal with these disputes soon."
In a happier outcome, Redshift achieved FA and appeared as such on the Main Page on December 29, 2006.
