Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science

Adam Becker

There is a current request from Adam Becker to review the criticism of his book to gauge whether it is balanced for a BLP. This was posted at BLPN but is detailed at his article talkpage.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Alfred Russel Wallace

I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Alfred Russel Wallace

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hanford Site Featured article review

I have nominated Hanford Site for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Conflict Thesis

For years now, wikipedia had an article called Conflict thesis, a drerivative of Relationship between religion and science and Christianity and science. The article doesn't contain anything that isn't already in those articles, and seems to exist to frame the subject of those articls in a very particular, non-neutral way. In fact, the only reason the Conflict thesis article seems to exist is for christian apologists (pretty much the only people who even use the term) to reference it in internet disputes.

By all means, the article should be deleted, but some form of consensus needs to be established first. Unfortunately, the article's talk page is dead, and my past attempt to start a dialogue has been dismissed with zero attempt to even entertain what I have to say. Meanwhile, wikipedia is being used by christian apologists to bspread misinformation. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on a quick skim through the article, it seems to me like there are a variety of reliable sources that discuss the history of the "conflict" thesis (even if only to discredit it), so I think that it passes the notability test. If you think that the article is not neutral enough or contains misinformation, then feel free to improve it.      — Freoh 13:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that the term "conflict thesis" is used exclusively to discredit the notion that there's an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science - a notion that is widely held by sciencitst who are quite honestly the only ones actually qualified to pronounce on this question in a meaningful capacity. Even if there is some sort of consensus among historians that the so called "Conflict Thesis" is "discredited", their consensus has zero bearing on the scientific consensus which is actually based on real, tangible evidence. No scientist worth their money will ever describe the blatant conflict between religion and science as a "thesis", a term that is used very similarly to how creationists claim evolusion is "just a theory".

Improving the article is meaningless because the very premise of this article existing is a POV violation. The conflict between science and religion can be described in the other two articles in detail, which also have glaring problems and are embarassingly one-sided: Christianity and science reads like a fluff piece, listing the many christians who contributed to science, while compltely dismissing the many instances of the church actively impeding sciencitif progress in less than a single paragraph, as the reasoning behind the Conflict Thesis. None of the prominent atheist scholars are given the light of day.

My reason for starting this thread IS to try and start some form of conversation on this topic and hopefully get wikipedia contributors to reach some sort of consensus - that's the first step towards improving any article. But as I stated, my last attempt at trying to start a conversation on the article's own talk page about a year ago has been deleted in bad faith. That's why I came here. 46.97.170.100 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that support this perspective, then feel free to expand the article to make it balanced. Your claim that No scientist worth their money will ever describe the blatant conflict between religion and science as a "thesis" seems fairly exceptional to me, so if you include it, you should probably attribute it rather than stating it in wikivoice. If there is content in the article that is unverified, feel free to remove it. The first step towards improving an article is not always starting a conversation; I think it's often best to be bold and make the changes you want to see. Page renaming is more controversial, so if you would like to rename the page to something like Conflict between science and religion, then find sources that support this change and file a move request.      — Freoh 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the Criticism section of Polyvagal Theory. The discussion is here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism. This discussion needs editors who can take the time to read the approximately 10 academic journal articles that have been cited. The issue is whether 95% of the section represents original research on violation of WP:NOR or not. Reading academic articles to confirm the absence of criticism about a topic is a bit challenging, admittedly, which is why I think members of this project might be well-equipped for the task. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)