Talk:Research/Archives/2014

Researcher
I've redirected Researcher here as it was basically just an unsourced WP:DICTDEF with a seemingly haphazard/spammy list of institutions tacked after the def. But there's also Researcher (job title) to consider merging, probably best suited here in a section discussing the professionalization of research (and thus appearance of formal job titles). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've merged it already per WP:BOLD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are researchers scientists?
Are researchers scientists? What do others think? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The lede says this: " There are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, social, business, marketing, practitioner research, etc.". I don't think I could have said it better. In other words, some researchers are scientists, but not all are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, the edit under dispute is this one: . I personally don't think is a good parent for  given the diversity of that category for now - having it as a "see also" works better. The question is a bit misleading, and seems more like a rhetorical question, and could lead to endless disputes. I think the actual question we should answer is, should  be in category . If you look at the current contents, my feeling is, No.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All researchers are NOT scientists. Yes some do scientific research however there are other forms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Forms_of_research). This should not even be a discussion, rather looks like someone is making a POINT. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)