Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Following on from the "Discussion on deleted edits" on this talk page, there are three outstanding wp:NPOV edits (numbered 1, 9 and 10 under "Discussion on deleted edits") I propose, that thus far I've been unable to get enough local editors to okay. The proposed edits rely on the references that are already cited in the article. I'd be grateful for your comments.
1) From: "It is known for its controversies for producing biased computer hardware ranking charts which unfairly favour Intel and Nvidia hardware, and disapproves of AMD hardware.[1]" to: “Its controversial opinions and perceived biases in its computer hardware rankings against AMD products have drawn criticism in the tech press, which UserBenchmark have rejected.[1][2] References:
Reason for proposed change: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.
“In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index[1] on its website's CPU hardware rankings, drastically affecting the ranking positions of CPUs, which penalized AMD processors.[2]” to: "In July 2019, UserBenchmark updated how it calculates the effective speed index[1] on its website's CPU hardware rankings, which resulted in Intel's i9-9900K CPU taking the top rank from AMD's high core-count Threadripper processors for gaming and desktop use. Some found the timing of the adjustments and the results suspicious. However, UserBenchmark responded that the effective speed indices are subject to frequent tuning and have been made more accurate by the change.[2]” References:
Reason for proposed change: Remove emotive language and accurately reflect the sources cited.
“This resulted in backlash on social media, with some hardware enthusiast boards banning links to the UserBenchmark website.[1]” to: “Some hardware enthusiast boards later banned links to the UserBenchmark website.[1]” References:
Reason for proposed change: to more accurately reflect the timing of the ban and remove the direct attribution of this action to the CPU index update, as per the original citation.
|
| There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[1] about the sourcing and notability of the article on the Roseto Effect. One editor has argued that there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that explicitly discuss the Roseto Effect and therefore the article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. Another editor contends that while the term is not widely used in modern medical literature, the original Roseto studies are historically notable and have been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g., JAMA, AJPH, Chicago Tribune), and that the article has been updated to frame the effect as a historical concept rather than a current medical claim.
The current version includes:
It does not include (but has previously):
Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [2]) appropriately framed and sourced under Wikipedia policy? If not, what changes would you recommend — merging, renaming, restructuring, or something else? All input welcome — thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory?
There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.[1] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ Grossman, Paul (2023). "Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory". Biological Psychology. 180. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108589. PMID 37230290.