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

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Circumcision

There is a dispute regarding how best to summarise the position statements of medical associations in the lead (fuller discussion is at circumcision#Positions of medical associations). The two options considered so far include the following: According to the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010), no professional association of physicians currently recommends routine circumcision. Most medical associations recommend neither universal circumcision nor a prohibition against the practice. Jakew (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gina Rinehart

This is about phrasing the 'Political activities' section of the article where there is a disagreement as detailed in the section just above this. Should describing Monckton as a climate change denier be changed to sceptic? Should we remove mention of Plimer? Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations

​ Should this article as well as IQ and Global Inequality contain the national rankings from the books? Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Osteopathic medicine in the United States

There is currently a dispute over whether or not DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a valid substitution for the term osteopathic physician in this article. Only a few editors have participated in this discussion and to ensure that a comprehensive, representative stance is taken on this issue, more opinions are needed. Objections have included potential for confusion in distinguishing the DO degree from DOs (the holders of this degree), the formality of the term and recognition of the term. Counterarguments have included potential confusion between the terms "osteopathic physician" (U.S. trained) and "osteopath" (foreign trained), the use of the term DO as synonymous with osteopathic physician by the profession's central organizations, medical literature, government pages, and other encyclopedias as well as the fact that the term is clearly defined at the article's start and links out to Wikipedia's Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article. Also, please note that a modification to this proposal has also been offered: to expand DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine instead of the proposed change. Please discuss, a wide variety of opinions is needed and welcomed. It is encouraged that whether or not you agree with the proposed change that you make other suggestions for change instead of simply shooting down ideas. Please make your decision based on evidence, logical arguments, and wikipedia's policies. Thank you. DoctorK88 (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Renewable energy

Which navbox should this page display? Renewable energy Biofuel Biomass Geothermal Hydroelectricity Solar energy Tidal power Wave power Wind power Sustainable energy Renewable energy Anaerobic digestion · Biomass Geothermal · Hydroelectricity Solar · Tidal · Wind Energy conservation Cogeneration · Energy efficiency Geothermal · Green building Microgeneration · Passive Solar Organic Rankine cycle Sustainable transport Biofuel · Electric vehicle Green vehicle · Plug-in hybrid Environment portal Darx9url (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarf planet

This is primarily an NPOV and WEIGHT dispute: Given that sources disagree as to which bodies are known beyond reasonable doubt to be dwarf planets (DPs), what should we do to ensure that, in the words of WP:RSN, "when reliable sources disagree, we document the dispute without taking sides"? There are several articles involved: This page, in the section Official and "nearly certain" dwarf planets: Should the tables be merged from 4 to 2, with coding to distinguish who accepts which bodies as dwarf planets? (Proposed mergers are given above.) Should the wording of the section and table titles be changed? The nav box {{Moons of dwarf planets}}: Should we list all five bodies that Brown, Tancredi, et al. accept as DPs and which have moons, or should we limit the box to the three accepted by the IAU? If five, how should we, or should we, distinguish the two sets? (The three are in the current version; the five are shown here.) The opening sentences of Makemake and Haumea: Is the Sheppard et al. citation enough to treat these "likely" bodies as having an intermediate degree of confidence between the "bonafide" DPs (Eris, Pluto, and Ceres) and the other four "likely" bodies accepted by Brown et al.? Or is IAU acceptance and the majority of astronomers sufficient for us to say they "are" DPs without qualification? The leads of the other four, Sedna, OR10, Orcus, Quaoar: These are accepted as DPs by Brown and others, but have not been addressed (nor accepted) by the IAU and are not generally called DPs by other astronomers. How best to word the leads to be NPOV and consistent with other DP and TNO articles. We are probably closer to agreement here. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.