RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive8

Alternative medicine and CAM+Integrative medicine+Patent medicine+Western medicine (mixed)
All four pages cover 1: various attempts to rebrand altmed or 2: various critiques of altmed. CAM and Integrative medicine especially seem unnecessary. 19:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Done the necessary bits. 01:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I support this merger. Moar work needed! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. 14:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Weaseloid, currently it looks 4:1. 15:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FCP is a wanker. Pippa (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! Now vote for or against. <_< 15:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just here to restate my support of FCP's suggestion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)Why, when the wanker & his cronies will have it their way anyhow.Pippa (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Cronies". Love it. 15:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to have pleased you, wanker.Pippa (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A busybody and a monkey-spanker, that's our Fuzzy! At the very least, Patent medicine needs its own page. In boxing, "style makes the fight," and patent medicine is a different style, from a different era. Tuppy Glossop (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks that the history of patent medicine, though, provides a background for modern altmed. No? 16:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The merging of patent medicine into alternative medicine (especially when labelled as a "history" section) makes no kind of sense. There's no duplication of content or subject matter. & Even if we accept that patent medicines were a form of alternative medicine (which is really imposing a late twentieth concept rather awkwardly backwards about a century), that still makes them only one type of alternative medicine. Even within the era of patent medicines there were also a variety of other treatments & therapies which could be considered "alternative" (cf. WP:history of alternative medicine). & Unless you're planning to merge our articles on every type of altmed into a single gigantic page (please tell me you're not) there's no reason for merging. 22:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still open to conversion on this, but I currently don't see how patent medicine would not fit into the alternative medicine article quite well. I don't buy this apparent slippery slope argument as it stands - meaning, I don't think these particular mergers would warrant a wave of other mergers. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for merging? 01:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is no way to win my vote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What sort of answer is that? Nobody is running for office in this thread.  It's supposed to be for arguments for or against merging these articles.  If you can't present any rationale for merging them, why would you support it?   03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lame that I have to spell it out for you in this way... FCP has obviously already made a case for this merger with the description provided in his initial post. Various crazy people such as myself, JorisEnter and David Gerard (aside from FCP, obviously) have supported this merger based on the rationale provided by FCP as he raised this issue. Thus, a rationale already exists, and the majority is so far in agreement with it. Now, I don't think you should get so defensive here, Weasel. "Nobody is running for office" - indeed. But what I meant to say was just that while I support this merger, alongside the majority, I'm always ready to be convinced otherwise based on a reasoned argument. You provided such a reasoned argument above, and I was intrigued by it, though it didn't end up changing my mind, and for good reasons which I have provided for you. I'm going to reiterate that I am open to conversion on the assumption that you provide valid arguments with a decent-or-better tone. You're the underdog in this vote, and I just wanted to inform you that I may still switch sides, based on the criteria already given. If you are at all interested in that, of course. If not, then carry on. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The onus is on people wanting to merge to provide a rationale, not bare assertion & appeal to numbers.  I'm yet to see any cogent argument that these two articles constitute, as it says at the top of this page, "a content or subject overlap", nor what need or problem this merge is intended to resolve.  Fuzzy's supposed rationale, applied lazily to four disparate articles (only three of which have actually been attempted as a merge), is "various attempts to rebrand altmed + various critiques of altmed", which makes little sense when applied to things that predate the altmed movement by a century and which are only one specific variety of treatment.  Patent medicine is an article on a distinct subject (as are many others within category:alternative medicine) of a reasonable length for a RW article with potential to be expanded if there's further interest in writing about the subject. There's nothing to be gained by shoehorning it awkwardly into another article.  10:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Weaseloid is right - leave patent medicine separate. Historically, this stuff was not quite what we think of now as "alternative medicine" - proper medicine itself was crappy in its day - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think what Weaseloid and DG said is reasonable. I vote that patent medicine lives. That said, I would still like to recreate the "characteristics" section, even if it's partially on both articles. 11:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And so we come full circle on this vote. I also found in favor of Weasel's updated argument. Thanks for taking the time to write me a reply, Weasel. Leave PM be. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Good, hopefully this is over now. 12:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Eye and The eye is too complex to have evolved and What use is half an eye?
Having 3 pages on evolution of the eye is unnecessary; our point would be stronger if combined. 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. GO for it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I.e., I ay ay eye, not 's eye (ay ay ay). Bongolian (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was certain that was a wiki article on pirate speak. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. 19:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Teh Joris approves. JorisEnter (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, what about Darwin on evolution of the eye? JorisEnter (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge that too. Good catch. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 to all this. This is one of these pages that would be well-worth getting to at least silver status. Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I started some work here: User:Carpetsmoker/Eye; the EvoWiki stuff needs some work IMHO, so might as well do that now instead of copy/pasting. Feel free to edit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Even with Carpet gone, these three need a merger. The duplicate status of the articles seem approved considering the above, so... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Black people and African American
While the African American article includes specifically American history, there's really no reason it can't be included. 16:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I support merging the AA article into the BP article, though not the other way around. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine laws by state and Naturopathy
Thought 1: Seems odd to have wholly separate articles.

Thought 2: Actually, it would be really interesting to have an article (maybe Alternative medicine regulation) listed the legality and regulation status of a whole skew of alternative medicines (eg, homeopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy). IE:

Alabama
00:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On Thought 2: That's a good idea. It could certainly be very interesting and could pack a lot of data, e.g.

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Once the list in the former article is more complete/detailed, it'd take up too much size to put in the Naturopathy page. It'd also make the page pretty Amerocentric. If information on other countries were added to the latter page as well, it'd bloat the page even more. On the other hand, I'm amiable to Thought 2 if executed as Cosmikdebris proposes. I'd advocate slightly reducing the size of the coloured buttons though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

My problem with the Cosmikdebris method is that, once you get (say) 10 alt-med methods, it'll get really bloated. 01:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism and Evidence against a recent creation (separate)
The former article isn't very good. All of its evidence would be better presented as an individual argument against creationism, rather than (fallaciously) asserting that an entire field is against creationism because specific applications of that field are against creationism. 01:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure; though I would like the BOSYHTITBIYEC article to stick around as a redirect, as I find the phrasing on point and snarky. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Move it to essay space. 19:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whose essay would it be? 03:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Lower limit on the age of the universe could be merged into EaaRC as well. I suggest keeping BOSYHTITBIYEC, as its purpose differs from that of the other two. JorisEnter (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Lower limit on the age of the universe should probably be comparatively brief section in Evidence against a recent creation with . Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose this boringification idea. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've actually come to appreciate BOSYHTITBIYEC in its own right. Though perhaps better named as "Branches of science contradicted by young Earth creationism"? 15:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, the verbosity is part of the snark. It helps communicate the idea that it's a giant pile of science.  Status quo uber alles.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Left separate. 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A priori and a posteriori (Merged)
Two stubs. . 19:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't ever heard these two not in the same sentence. I say merge.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Merged. 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Breatharianism and Inedia (Separate)
These are basically the same concept. I would recommend copying most of Indedia as a separate section in Breatharianism, then changing Inedia to a redirect. Bongolian (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, breatharianism is a subset of inedia. It'd make sense to merge in the reverse direction.
 * That said, I know there's a lot of pseudoscience from the Muslim community about how fasting is actually good for the body. It might be good for an anchor page, from which all the subtypes can be accessed. (So: Vote against.) 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops. If anything, it would make sense to merge inedia into fasting. 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen Swedish breathtarians who claim that what is in fact sustaining them is a force called "prana", which they consume via sunlight and the air instead of from food. So, that's a real life example of Breatharianism and Inedia overlapping perfectly. Based on that, I'd support a merger of the two, especially if we can find english speaking sources where the two combine that closely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

22:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Europeanism and Euroscepticism (and Europhobia) (separate)
Europhobia is a redirect, so it's in parenthesis, but the point being - these three are all very closely related. Indeed, the exact same topic. They deserve to be in the same article. It would allow us to cover all the perspectives on it better, even include a portion on how InfoWars and others are vehemently against the EU and so on. The merger needs to be done. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Euroscepticism is a political phenomenon within Europe regarding attitudes to European Union membership.  Anti-Europeanism is distrust or hostility towards Europe & European peoples by people in other parts of the world.  07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 07:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why, it's almost as if they're not just criticizing the same political entity, in similar ways, and for shared general reasons - only, doing it from different vantage points relative to one another (from the outside in, respectively, from the inside out)... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, they're not. Again: anti-Europeanism is an attitude towards European countries, cultures & people - not towards the EU as a political entity specifically.  It's common in many former colonies & former enemies of European powers, plus countries sceptical of western culture.  That's a completely different ball game from people in Britain or Greece or Austria who don't want to participate in the EU.  Aside from being something to do with Europe and something to do with xenophobia, there's very little in common between the two things.  23:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought Weasel, I think you're in the right on this one. I vote we disband this particular merge suggestion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Vote against merger. 22:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Same. While they look the same, they're quite different.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Blogroll&RationalWiki:Vlogroll into RationalWiki:Websites and RationalWiki:Webshites
Two reasons. First, the delineation between blog, vlog, "news", and website isn't always clear, and there's no reason to separate the forms of content. Second, RW:Websites and RW:Webshites already have a ton of blogs and vlogs.. 16:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge, on the basis that these lists are very ill-maintained at present and with only two there's some hope - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1+ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. 03:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Geology and Geomorphology (Merged)
The latter is a stub and a subset of geology. 17:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote merge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote separate.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on why? I see no reason whatsoever to keep them separate at this point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Merged. (Sorry Bob.) 21:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Punk, Hardline, and Straight edge (merged)
16:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Feels strange to have 3 pages all on punk. 17:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Stranger still to have more than 1 punk band in the world. MarmotHead (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm way for a merger. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd merge Hardline and Straight edge; the two are quite similar and Hardline isn't very well-known. Punk is a far larger thing, and most of it is totally unrelated to Straight edge. Some things in the punk article could be separate articles, e.g. Riot Grrl (lots of distinct issues there about gender) and Steampunk (which is hilarious inconsistent bollocks but unconnected to punk music); the punk article should maybe focus on more orthodox stuff from 70s punk through 80s hardcore to modern revivalists, plus links to other vaguely-punky movements. Annquin (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm good on merging hardline into straight edge, and maybe adding a brief note on, and link to the article on, straight edge into the punk article. Here's a revised version of the straight edge article that I came up with as a WIP. KevinR1990 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've used your version in straight edge, since there's support. I'll close this, then. 23:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Automobile and Automotive woo
Automotive woo is such a general page that it would easily fit into the automobile article -- especially its "techniques that work" section. The energy catalyzer might deserve its own article, though. 12:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support a merger, but I'd keep the energy catalyzer as part of the same page (not making it separate). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. 02:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Orwellian, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak, Big Brother, and Animal Farm into George Orwell (merged)
Merges especially needed:


 * Orwellian into George Orwell


 * Newspeak and Big Brother into Nineteen Eighty-Four

Beyond that, it would make sense to have one discussion of the application (and misapplication) of Orwell's works -- especially by conspiracists and the far right -- rather than trying to parcel it between his books. The misapplication of 1984 is not that different from Animal Farm. 04:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suppose this would work. Now it's just a collection of pages related to Orwell's work.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support this merger. Orwell needs a unified page for these, to cover his legacy better. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. 03:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Racism among libertarians and Libertarianism (merged)
Because libertarianism, despite its faults, isn't inherently racist, although there are racists who espouse it because of its anti-censorship line. This isn't really enough for an article in itself, and needs only to be a section in the main article. Flannan Isle (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree - I think it's substantial enough for an article, and merging them would make it look more like it was making it out to be a mainstay of libertarianism - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote for merging. 4 or so people on the talkpage also support. 23:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep separate. 23:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it's a stupid thing to highlight. There's just not a strong enough connection, as written, to justify an article.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support merging. That makes more people than Weasel and Gerard, at least (not even counting the talkpage support FCP mentions). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could probably be merged into Libertarianism in its own section.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes a clear majority for merging, and enough time has elapsed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. 13:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Isaac Newton and Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (merged)
Since we are not an encyclopedia, there is really no need to discuss Newton's magnum opus in detail. An outline on his own page should do. Nerd (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% in support of a merger. Good catch, Nerd. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. 03:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Same.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am current doing a lot of work on Newton's page. It has been five days since I raised this issue. When can we redirect Principia? Nerd (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're sitting at 4-0 majority, which is probably the highest RW:DUP has ever seen. Go right ahead. 00:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! I learned a new skill today. Hooray! As a consequence of his childhood, Newton craved certainty. This absoluteness will surely satisfy him. In case you guys are worried that because our page for the Principia is a stub, something else must be a stub. I can assure you, there is no problem. Believe me! I do have access to annotated copies of the Principia and plenty of books in which Newton is mentioned prominently. So I can continue to work on God's Newton's page. Nerd (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (merged)
I think it is obvious that we could include a concise discussion of the uncertainty principle in our page for quantum mechanics. Its fundamental importance notwithstanding, there is no need for a separate page since we are not an encyclopedia. Nerd (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% in support of a merger. Good catch, Nerd. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I waver. There's a need to debunk the idea that since Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is correct, consciousness has quantum magic -- and a separate article would be better suited. 03:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Such an article already exists. There is no need to have one single actual principle of quantum mechanics (out of many) be in a separate stub. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reverend Black Percy here. There is really no point for a separate article unless we want an encyclopedic entry, which is not our mission. I think we should just give a concise discussion of the uncertainty principle in our article on quantum mechanics, which is already linked to that on quantum woo. Nerd (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I do wish that we had a full rebuttal of the "quantum means I've got a soul" idea. 00:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of space for that. Perhaps you should provide a discussion in the appropriate article. (Did DC come up with that piece of trash, too?) My niche is to write factual accounts. Other people can add woo and some snark if they wish. Nerd (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, I will redirect Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to quantum mechanics as well. Nerd (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems I have not already stated my support, so here we go.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! Looks like we have unanimous support once again. I have redirected the page. Nerd (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetism and Electric field (merged)
Neither of the pages is particularly great, and they aren't important or relevant enough to need separate pages.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both are currently stubs. Merging, re-writing and expanding them are in order. Editors interested in physics are all encouraged to participate. Nerd (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These should obviously be merged (with Electric field becoming the redirect, imo). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is well-informed. The electromagnetic field is a more fundamental entity. Nerd (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do my best as a natural science geek that only has the math to study the humanities. A natural science cheerleader, one might say. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia recruits people of various levels of expertise, from grade school students to the avid popular science reader to professional scientists, to contribute. I don't see why we cannot do the same. Any help is appreciated. Our audience spectrum should be as broad as possible. Nerd (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been ten days and, once again, we have a unanimous decision to redirect electric field to electromagnetism. I will do that immediately. Nerd (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Thank you to those who have voted. Nerd (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Stormer and Andrew Anglin (merged)
TDS is Anglin's extended blog, with more authors and more readers -- all of whom share the same fundamental viewpoints. Better to have all the shit in one place, then? 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does Anglin have really no political work outside of Daily Stormer?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not enough to merit his own article, I think. 00:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the Anglin cquote would make a *killer* beginning quote for TDS. 00:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. 16:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Assault rifle into Gun (merged)
Neither of the two pages is particularly good, and we probably don't need an entire page on the AR.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An on-mission article about assault rifles, their place within gun culture, gun crime & the gun control debate is feasible. The current version is instead devoted wholly to guncruft & pedantry around the definition of the term, something that's a common feature (& derailing tactic) in debates about assault weapon ownership, but doesn't serve any of our missions.  Cutting & pasting it from one page to another doesn't fix this.  It either needs a complete rewrite or deletion.  14:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy shit that's good. 18:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Assault_rifle. 18:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Core meltdown and Nuclear power (merged)
The nuclear power article lacks a detailed section on why core meltdowns are unlikely -- and the core meltdown article is limited to stay small. 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say fuse them and make a shiny new p article. Nerd271 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Haah! Good pun. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Same.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I saport Marge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Merging Loaded question with Presupposition (separate)
I would argue that these are close enough to each other to warrant a merge. Both use the literal example "Have you stopped beating your wife?" to demonstrate that the implicit assumption in either a yes or a no reply becomes either "No, I haven't yet stopped beating my wife" or "Yes, I have since stopped beating my wife". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Presupposition should redirect to circular reasoning, since that's what a presupposition is & it can be presented in statements as well as questions. I don't think there's much (if anything) to merge as the presupposition page doesn't really include anything that isn't already covered within either circular reasoning or loaded questions.  12:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Presuppositions are not limited to loaded questions.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bourgeois and Ruling class
Aren't these the same concept? Marx's idea of a "Capitalist class" that ruled over the working class is mentioned on the ruling class page but it also recognizes several other types of ruling classes. It would seem to be more useful to make Bourgeois a section on the ruling class.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone rather well read on Marxism; it's true that these ought to be merged. The class struggle of today, according to Marx, takes place between the bourgeois and the proletariat — with the crucial point that no other "third" potential ruling class will be appearing on the horizon to battle whoever wins between the proletariat and the bourgeois. Further, Oxford's Communism: A Very Short Introduction terms the bourgeois as "Bourgeois (the ruling class)". Icon Books' Marx: A Graphic Guide does the same. Merge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the bourgeois article is largely a rambling exercise in dictionary pedantry, little of value would be lost if it were deleted.
 * PS. Why is this at the top of the page & not the bottom? 23:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not anymore (thanks for pointing it out, though!). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Weasel. Nuke the bourgeois. 00:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with nuking the bourgeois article. What I disagree with is the scenario where we even have a "bourgeois" article, which is then kept separate from the "ruling class" article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK "bourgeois" is essentially the Marxist version of "ruling class" so the former can probably be dumped into the latter.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The question then becomes — do we nuke the current Bourgeois article, or do we merge it into Ruling class? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With a neutron bomb, so we can seize the means of production afterwards. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. 00:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Christofascism and Islamofascism into Theocracy
CF and IF are unlikely to grow substantially. Also, it's important to underscore to readers that "islamofascism" isn't unique to Islam or middle eastern culture contra western culture, but shares strong traits with things like dominionism. Further, the Theocracy article needs to be improved, and can be improved - it already has a section on criticisms of theocratic rule. Where these two thecratic models would fit in very well, etc. All 3 articles are in need of a pruning and some text polish anyhow, etc. All this is achieved with a merger and Theocracy is brought to Silver or higher. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. 22:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Also oppose those cheeky merge nominations nobody ever sees. I am not the Ombud's man 22:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is why AFD and DUP should be one page. 22:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Merged. 22:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Merging Empirical reality into Reality
Empirical reality has been has been just a stub since 2007 and is not clearly differentiated from reality. Bongolian (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Super duper agree to a merge of ER into R. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why empirical reality should continue to exist. As for the merge discussion, is there any content to merge? I would support either merge or delete. I guess non-empirical reality might be (1) Berkeleian idealism, which nobody except geriatric philosophy professors holds, (2) brain in a vat stoner babble which we're all thoroughly bored with, and (3) Platonic forms, which I think we've agreed don't actually exist (mathematical Platonists aside, and funny animals they are). But none of this is sufficient reason to have separate articles on reality and what is overwhelmingly likely to be the nature of reality. Do your worst. Annquin (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. 18:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I count 4 votes for, 0 votes against. Go for it, somebody! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Merged. 13:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism and Evidence against a recent creation (merged)
This thread is a duplicate.

Every time I see someone link to Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism, it feels like a missed chance to have them see Evidence against a recent creation. BOSYHTITBIYEC is far less informative, well-cited, well-presented, or persuasive than EARC -- but it's linked as often. Merging to EARC might put the better foot forward, so to speak. 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Kind of difficult to say. 'Branches lists all the different branches of science that contradict YEC in one way or another, whereas Evidence supplies the (f)actual evidence against YEC. The former page mostly exists to show how much of modern science contradicts YEC (aka everything), I guess. But can be argued that they should be merged, and Branches is indeed in urgent need of references and general attention.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually think that the BOSYHTITBIYEC article (lol) should be merged into the EAARC article, and become a sub-section of it. In a sense, the brances of science you have to ignore is a form of evidence against a recent creation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Merged. 21:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)