RationalWiki:Duplicate articles

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, (new)

There are 27 pages marked as duplicates:

Please use this page to highlight any examples you find of duplicate articles or other pages which you believe should be merged. Create a new section for each case, linking to the articles concerned.

Please also put the template {{dup|x}} at the top of each of the duplicate articles, replacing "x" with the name of the article which should be merged into. Doing so shows that the articles have been identified as duplicates and gives a link to here, where editors can discuss merging the articles.

If you have a comment or objection regarding any of the proposed merges below, please add your comment and sign your name with ~~~~.

If a decision is made to merge the articles, please look through both articles and ensure that you copy or incorporate any relevant content from both into the final version. The title that ends up not being used can then be replaced with a redirect to the other. The {{dup}} template should be removed from both articles.

If a decision is made not to merge the articles, the {{dup}} template should be removed from both pages.

Finished discussions should be archived periodically.

Merging Hydroplate theory and Soft-sediment deformation into Flood geology[edit]

I think that both HT and SSD should be merged into FG, as these are inherently two sub-sections of FG. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I kept HT separate. It's not about interpreting current geology but rather about a potential water source for the flood, a la the firmament. Leaving this open, if you disagree. FuzzyCatPotato of the Rhodomontade Pokémons (talk/stalk) 13:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The question is, does HT belong in FG?
The summary of FG says:
"[FG] asserts that the Biblical Great Flood was an actual historical event and attempts to interpret geology in terms which make it consistent with the flood myth."
Allright, so we know what we're looking for.
The summary of HT says:
"Hydroplate theory is a creationist hypothesis that Earth once had huge chambers of water sandwiched between the earth's crust and its mantle. It was invented solely to explain the question "Where did the water for the great flood come from?""
Well... I'm thinking, HT could probably fit in FG as well, as it appears HT is entirely a form of flood geology. Then we'd have something to work towards front page quality, etc. Thoughts? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Methinks it's a bridge too far. Lunar bukkake theory is related to geology -- yet it surely doesn't belong in flood geology, aye? Moreover, our hydroplate page is one of the top Google results. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

👎—вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

👍 ClickerClock (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose merge with HT. I don’t think that creating one huge, sprawling flood geology article will be an improvement over a series of reasonably thorough articles, such as hydroplate “theory” etc. Consider how long the article would get if we merge FG not only with HT, but also with lunar bukake “theory” (proposed below in a separate entry). It might be a good idea, though, to have the FG article act as a sort of “hub” for the others via See also and/or See the main article on this topic. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Cold fusion and Fusion woo[edit]

Read the articles, lots of overlap. The FW article has CF as a subsection, the CF article's hatnote specifically notes that the article deals with the woo surrounding CF. Both articles contain a "Soft woo"/"Probably woo" segment, as well as a "Non-woo" segment. They could and ought to merge. They both deal with fusion woo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, FW deals with all fusion woo that is non-cold. Cold fusion is important enough to have its own article. The fact that both have "soft/prob woo" and "non woo" bits probably means that there's such semi-woo exists both for cold and for non-cold fusion.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that it's extra important that we cover all the fusion crankery into one article, not only because it's got a great shot at front page if we do, but also because we explicitly do not cover actual fusion in any major article, only the woo surrounding fusion (in accordance with the mission statement). Splitting our articles up into "cold fusion" and "fusion woo" drives a wedge right through the middle of the exact same topic - crank claims regarding fusion - in a way that I don't think is necessary. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You've got a point there. If we merge FW and CF into the main NF article under separate headings ("CF" and "Other woo" or something) this might become a nice page.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for hearing me out Joris; It's not that I don't agree with you fully that Cold Fusion is the main fusion crankery. I think that the vision for this merged article is not just "these two articles mashed together". I was essentially thinking of a rewrite wherein we use the name Fusion woo for the title, but the text itself is largely on cold fusion, but with subsections on the fusion woo... et cetera. Something frontpage-y. I mean, come on - we need a fusion woo frontpage article. :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That's also an option. Fusion woo appears to be quite something (given the WP edit wars) so they could probably be merged.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. And it's generally the same pseudoscience nuts that provide the manpower for the entire range of fusion woo claims. Attacking them in a Unified Shit Theory (that is, fusion woo) article isn't a bad idea, if you ask me - along the lines of what I propose here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I wouldn't break it into "cold" and "other", though; the other approaches can't be lumped in together.

👍 Merge!!! 04:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That said, the article is certainly not ready for gold or even silver -- its explanations are too technical and too dense for the average reader, and it covers too few approaches. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article do you mean?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
FW. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
...which is why I recommend a rewrite based on the two existing articles, not a literal mashup of the two. So, that makes three for "merging", then? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally support the rewrite idea. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am replying to a necropost here, but do not support merge. If anyone thinks P&F are some sort of oddity or touchstone in the fusion woo history has to run out and buy Bromberg's book right now. In the meantime, I can assure you this sort of woo has been going on since 1953 (Richter) and shows exactly zero signs of abating (General Fusion). I am removing the merge tags, they've been there for two years with no action taken and they shouldn't be there in the first place. (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge Indohyus with List of transitional forms or possibly Pakicetus and Basilosaurus[edit]

The three species are transitional forms.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some kind of article on whale evolution would be good, especially because, as artiodactyls, they are honorary goats. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 04:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't merge to the big list, but there's a good article that could be written from merging Indohyus, Pakicetus and Basilosaurus. I basically wrote a merge, for the RW blog way back when. I should try to recover that text - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Good post! What David said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Mass immigration and Illegal immigration and Myths and facts about immigration to the United States to Immigration[edit]

The dispersed information would be better if organized into one article. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge!! —ClickerClock (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to merge Mass immigration and Illegal immigration under the simpler title, because neither is particularly comprehensive, but the country-specific entries Myths and facts about immigration to the United States and Britain is full are probably big enough to keep separate, with links from the main immigration article. --Annanoon (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Panspermia With Exogenesis[edit]

Both are stubs, and the two things aren't different enough to require being separate articles. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

agreed, there doesn't seem to be any difference big enough to not merge them.Vorarchivist (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Exogenesis is a more general concept, but panspermia is a nicer word. I guess a merge to exogenesis is logical, which can cover all theories of extraterrestrial origin. --Annanoon (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
After doing more research, the term "panspermia" seems to be used for all version of the theory of extraterrestrial origin of earthly life, whether it's the original meaning (that life/seeds/sperm are all around us in space) or the more modern and scientifically-based version that life comes from somewhere extraterrestrial (without assuming the origins of life are everywhere or space is dotted with seeds). This is particularly true in more recent reporting. As panspermia is a more commonly used term (as well as a more poetic one), this makes a merge to panspermia the more logical option. --Annanoon (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge Infofascism with either Newspeak ,Fascism, or Censorship[edit]

-DiamondDisc1(talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If anything, it should be merged into FUD -- or we should create an article on disinformation including both of the above and a section on "active measures". The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 21:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd merge to/mention in censorship as it's a form of state censorship, but I don't think there's much unique content here to keep. --Annanoon (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an argument with Ben Garrison[edit]

Merge not an argument with Ben GarrisonHamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 01:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. First, the phrase is Stefan Molyneux's and not Garrison's. Second, the phrase has escaped Molyneux's bubble and deserves its own independent debunking. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope. —ClickerClock (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge Neutralization to Denialism[edit]

Neutralism is among the tactics in the overall process of denial. The article on Neutralism is a stub and can be easily be a substantial subsection in "methods" in the Denialism article. Or, we can make an entire section in the Denialism article detailing common denial tactics of criminals, just a suggestion out of the top of my head. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah. —ClickerClock (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Is neutralization even missional? --Annanoon (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd call it periphery missionality. Cognitive errors, while not explicitly part of rationalism, are nonetheless complementary information to it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge Martin Smith with Unite Against Fascism[edit]

Martin Smith is a national officer of UAF.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
A merge would be confusing, especially a merge to UAF, as the sexual assault allegations occurred while he was with the Socialist Workers Party, and still reverberate in SWP/leftist organisational politics.[1] Someone who's been in so many organisations is awkward to handle, so keep separate is simplest, although a merge to the SWP could be considered here. --Annanoon (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge Scientology Volunteer Minister with Scientology[edit]

-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll second that motion. Comrade GC (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Tulpa with Buddhism[edit]

Tulpa is a belief of a branch of Buddhism.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. I parsed Category:Buddhism and noticed that other Buddhism terminologies have their own article. See Maitreya, Qigong, Karma, all of them around as short as this one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 07:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Some of my books on cryptozoology - at least the ones at the weird end of it - posit Tulpas as an "explanation" for various cryptids. This could go into the article... and it also means tulpa isn't a purely Buddhist concept. WilderBicycle 19:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as you incorporate that information, that will be enough for tulpa to have its own page. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The form of tulpa being covered in this article is a western cultural phenomena. One that is mainly just borrowing the term from Buddhism. The cryptid interpretation sounds more like it would come from an older theosophic interpretation of the term. (And it would be woo. For the imagined creature is spiritually projected into the physical world). I can tell you which book originated the term. Though, the whole western thing comes from a two page extract of an old french travel log. "Magic And Mystery In Tibet 1932" Tulpa001 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
By Alexandra David-Néel. I've got that somewhere. Avida Dollarsher again 12:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge Cathy O'Brien with MKULTRA[edit]

Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 21:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope! O'Brien deserves her own article as premium-quality weirdness, going well beyond orthodox MKULTRA theories; the current article could do with expansion to actually explain and debunk her theories. MKULTRA is one of the classics and obviously shouldn't be merged anywhere else. --Annanoon (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge Oy vey and Le Happy Merchant with Alt-right glossary[edit]

CowHouse (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Oy Vey is a separate term. I'm not sure it deserves an article, but neither should it be in the Alt-Right glossary

Merge Hydroplate theory with Lunar bukkake theory[edit]

X4Unknown (talk) 8:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Both are pretty long. How would you merge? (Personally I wouldn't want to lose the title Lunar bukkake theory, but that's not sufficient reason to keep). --Annanoon (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose! These two “theories”, while both concerning the Flood, adress different issue: Hydroplate “theory” is supposed to explain (away) where all the water of the Flood came from, while the lunar bukake “theory” tries to explain (away) the craters on the Moon. This means that there is not much overlapping matter in each of the current articles and I don’t see the point of creating a single, huge article. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose! Both are different Creationist talking points. Why don't we just stitch together all Noahacian Flood articles and nuke the nav while we're at it? --Goatspeed. See what I'm up toCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 07:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge CBD with Cannabis[edit]

Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace We actually have a subsection on it in the main Cannabis article. You think we can easily fit that CBD article into the already-large Cannabinoids subsection? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
CBD doesn't really fit in the Cannabis article. Each entry in the Cannabinoids section is arranged into a short claims and research findings bullet list. The CBD article doesn't compress well into the bullet list format. I vote goat on this. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Waterboarding and Torture[edit]

The section "Does it work?" of the waterboarding article is more general info that belongs under torture. —Kazitor, pending 12:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge!—ClickerClock (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge Buttered cat theory‎ with Murphy's Law[edit]

Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 19:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. A simple merge and redirect should be simple. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
But which way up will it land? --Annanoon (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge CANZUK with White Commonwealth[edit]

These are basically the same idea for the same 4 countries. Bongolian (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, it better to fork from it, as it is a version of the White Commonwealth, eg "see more: CANZUK". However, I wrote out a more substantive article and it is more information about it, there is quite a bit of stuff to put on. which I would put on in due course. As an academic once said, "It is old wine in new bottles". Euromec (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Euromec, there is a lot of information on CANZUK. Perhaps some of the more benign information from its Wikipedia page could be copied over to the article here? Continuing on Euromec's analogy, old wine in new bottles is, to many, new wine. Dihydromonoxide (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Holding therapy vs. Attachment therapy[edit]

The point has been raised about similarity. I'm not sure what I think, and I would love to hear other people's thoughts. Reasons to merge: "Holding therapy" is sometimes also called "attachment therapy." They probably have similar histories. "Holding therapy" could become a subsection of "attachment therapy." Reasons not to merge: Not all attachment therapy is holding therapy. Holding therapy is used in areas (mostly autism I believe) that general attachment therapy isn't typically used for. Some people use holding therapy without ascribing to the general principles of attachment therapy. These are all the reasons that come to my mind at the moment. What do you all think? Should "Holding therapy" become a subsection or remain independent? Why? Luna Rose I'm shy; say hi 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point UK with Charlie Kirk[edit]

Seems like very similar content, while Turning Point UK is a stub. Turning Point USA redirects to Charlie Kirk. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point UK is a spinoff of Turning Point USA. Even wikipedia has them in a single page. They should be merged. Tulpa001 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Police brutality and Draft:Race and police brutality in the United States[edit]

These articles are very similar. Kevs Ping! 06:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

one's still a draft, shouldn't merging be done post draft?Vorarchivist (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)