Should this addition be removed? The addition in question is this diff which was objected to on the basis of WP:TOPIC and repetition of results already stated in a preceding paragraph. Masrialltheway (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances be shortened to PFAS or PFASs when using the acronym as a plural? 71.11.5.2 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the preceding section, I pointed that this article (Glossary of areas of mathematics) is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of things that are sometimes areas of mathematics, and sometimes notin which some entries are areas of mathematics and some are not. So clear inclusion criteria are required. I suggested the following criteria:
For being included an area must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
Being commonly the name of a course in colleges or universities
Being the title of a textbook (research monographies being excluded per WP:OR)
Being explicitly in the scope of a mathematical journal or of a recurrent international mathematical conference (an isolated conference does not warrant the notoriety of the subject).
This article is currently an ENGVAR mess. The Greek word for blood, used as a part of many words in this article, is spelled hem- in American English versus haem- in British English. The article is named according to the American spelling, but in the article the usage is roughly 2:1 in favor of the British. There are 2 options:
Keep the title, replace all "haem-" with "hem-"
Rename the article, replace all "hem-" with "haem-".
(The new Fields medals will be announced next week so it would be nice to get this resolved.) This is about the "reasons" column of the main table on the wiki page. Back in January I tried to start some discussion on this talk page, but it didn't go anywhere. Unfortunately requires some explanation, here are a few relevant (hopefully objective) facts:
at least some of the given laudations on wiki are flatly wrong, which is not surprising since they were written by a few non-expert mathematicians and historians writing a short illustrated history book/pamphlet about the fields medal, and not written by domain experts
these laudations are reproduced on the Fields Medal website (potentially giving an appearance of authoritativeness)
in the years 1958, 1996, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, an official & short citation was announced together with the awarding of the medal, e.g. that Klaus Roth (1958) won "for solving a famous problem of number theory, namely, the determination of the exact exponent in the Thue-Siegel inequality" and that Andrei Okounkov (2006) won "for his contributions bridging probability, representation theory and algebraic geometry"
for every single medalist from 1936 to the present, a domain expert has written (for the occasion of the ICM) a short essay about the medalist's work. Sometimes (depending on the individual taste of the expert) this is about a few particular results they find interesting and sometimes it is an overall appraisal of the medalist's entire body of work. In neither case is it indicated that the commentary therein provides "the reason" for the medal to be awarded. The general rule seems to be only that it is a personal celebration of the medalist on the occasion of their fields medal.
Some of the awardees (e.g. Hironaka, Freedman) did specific results for which it is (informally, to mathematicians) clear that they won the medal. Some other awardees (e.g. Milnor, Grothendieck, Yau) have an entire body of work, many parts of which could be considered Fields-worthy by various people.
The question is how to (systematically or quasi-systematically) resolve this on the page. There are maybe four possible solutions:
Leave the current table as is
replace the non-official laudations with short quotes or summaries from the essays about the medalist's work (such as is presently done for the 1990, 1994, 2002 medalists)
only give the official citations (from 1958, 1998, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018) and leave other entries blank
(later edit, quoting David Eppstein's suggestion below) replace the non-official laudations with "properly-sourced description of the winner's most significant contributions to mathematics, up to the time of the award, without wording it in a way that implies that those contributions were the specific trigger for the award"
I would like the article to have an encyclopedic summary of the findings of all relevant sources. And by "relevant" I of course mean the MEDRS guidelines, namely (A) published in a peer-reviewed journal (B) a meta-analysis (C) recent (five years old or less) and (D) related to the particular claim at hand (effectiveness of Silexan capsules). The article as I found it a few days ago had only a single source, the source was not (A) nor (B) at all, it was 90% not (C) nor (D) either. And of course way the Wikipedia article summarized the source is also pretty much the exact opposite way I would summarize the sources that meet (A) (B) (C) and (D). So I would like the changes I have made to stand as they do now[1], add more details about the findings of these papers (e.g. which symptoms does it treat exactly?), also add other relevant sources like possibly this and this and this.
Are the journals I linked above appropriate for the article? Namely "Scientific Reports", "Brain and Behavior", and "The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry".
Also I would like to input on the journal Phytomedicine. Wikipedia editor Zefr removed the citation to a study in it because of its appearance in the WP:CITEWATCH list. However, Wikipedia editors put the journal on that list simply by tagging the journal's wikipedia article with "Herbalism", so the reasoning as it stands it pretty weak. Would love more input it or at the very least if this article was okay to use.
(Optional). One final note: Assuming that the community at large agrees that a journal is reliable and uses it, and a paper published in the journal meets criteria (A)(B)(C), and (D): what place does a wikipedia editor have to remove it as a citation because they personally disagree with the paper's conclusions or the methodology they used to reach those conclusions? Does removing such sources for those reasons not fall under original research? I ask this because it seems to be a recurring theme during this dispute to prefer drugs.com (where the methodology isn't even stated) and remove recent meta-analyses from peer-reviewed journals.
Thank you everyone that took the time to read this or help with this issue. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.