RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive6

RationalWiki:History and RationalWiki:Timeline (Merged)

They're both crap. But maybe less crap together? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

*cough* FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No. They are different things. The fact that they may be poorly written/incomplete does not mean that they should be merged. Also, I don't believe that many people watch this page, or the Recent changes, so expecting a reaction a few hours after the proposal is... unrealistic. Unless you want to keep coughing in three hour intervals.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the pages have different setups. However, I don't see why can't just change to one setup versus the other, or why we should keep them separate, when there is no need to have a history and a history timeline.

Usually Gerard stops by to tell me that I should have just merged them, rather than posting here. ^_^ FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

COUGH HACK SPLUTTER. Dunno, the timeline is less inane than the history, I'd merge both to the timeline - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to this merge? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Me, on the grounds that the table of contents in History is totally awesome. Bicycle^wheel 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge deep ecology into hard green (merged)

As explained in the reason I gave when I (apparently erroneously) nominated deep ecology (DE) for deletion, a discussion with a sympathiser of the Næss version of DE led me to suggest that the extremist bits of the DE article where DE proponents recommending forced depopulation and Luddism be merged into hard green. By contrast, the Næss version seems so vague and hedging in its practical recommendations and contains so many escape hatches that it really seems little more than Sunday school environmentalism. For instance, while it aims for depopulation it only recommends voluntary family planning (i.e. a strategy that won't get it anywhere near its stated goal in the foreseeable future). Similarly, the definition of "vital necessities" for human life can apparently be so broad that its recommendations for ecological reforms become indistinguishable from general environmentalism or even mainstream politics - leaving the question what, beyond tagging on some pious intentions and some spiritualist woo à la the Gaia hypothesis, makes DE particularly "deep", or "ecological" for that matter. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Go for it IMO - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's opposed. Do it. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexual attraction with Exhibitionism and voyeurism (not merged)

Is anyone really gonna search for the second one? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they'll search for exhibitionism or voyeurism seperately? Eitherway, neither exhibitionism nor voyeurism is a sexual 'attraction'. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've maybe overdone it on the merge thing, potato pal, I think you should stop actively looking for things to merge. These are loosely related. Ikanreed (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

They have managed to merge Society into Culture. It's too late.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And that when the Society page specifically distinguished itself from the term "culture" through the sentence "A society can (and generally does) contain many cultures [...]" Hmm. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undone that merge.

E&V definitely seem to me to be sexual attractions, in that people are sexually aroused by them. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're starting to pump a dry well with all this merging FCP. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you guys don't understand. Until the entire content of RW has been merged into a monolithic central page, with a web of redirects chanelling all traffic on the site, and an obscenely long 10-column reflist that contains only in-jokes, I shall not rest. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

O_o 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I presume that that face is wide-eyed with awe at the glorious future. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That something arouses people doesn't mean that they're attracted to it. Do you think people want to make love to pornography when they're aroused by it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You give a false parallel - to be sexually attracted to something is not to want to have sex with it, necessarily. For example, some people think lingerie is attractice, but they wouldn't have sex with lingerie. (Probably.) If something is attractive that only means that it causes arousal. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, different example then. Do you think coprophiles finding feces sexually arousing makes them consider it "attractive"? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll buy this point. If so, then what should the article be changed to so that it could allow inclusion of coprophilia etc.? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to start a new article under the title "sexual arousal" and make everything a subsection there, I guess. (Please don't do this.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what should happen instead? (Assuming that any of these philias merit any space on RW:) Should each sexually arousing thing get its own page, or what? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want something for the -philias not found at Sexual attraction, you could start an article on paraphilias and fetishes. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I really don't want more articles on niche sexual arousal topics. That said, if we really need to discuss fetishes like this (I might go for an AFD instead, since I'm uncertain of how this relates to, say, authoritarianism or pseudoscience), I'd rather that they weren't spread across 50 million articles, but in your paraphilia article. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No comments or changes since January. I'm taking down the merge templates. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oil, Smoke & Mirrors and A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash into peak oil (separate)

As I pointed out in the Goat sections of these films' respective entries on AfD, I think that the articles on both films should go into the peak oil article, possibly under a heading about "peak oil talking point/arguments" or something similar. The peak oil article is quite short, and I really don't see much value in separate articles on every "peakalyptic" film out there. If someone cares enough to do a summary of their peaker claims and arguments it would be nice. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No movement since July. Templates removed. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The Saloon bar and the back alley (separate)

They're, like, both for talking while drunk and things. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but judging from the contents of the back alley, it's the place where you post when you're seriously hammered, not just a bit tipsy. I think that stuff is better left where it is... ScepticWombat (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fun:Real Gamers and Gamergate (separate)

It's about ethics in merging you cunt! WalkerWalkerWalker 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It's entirely unclear why you would think this was in any way a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is perhaps a joke. If not, it should be. —Bilorv (smells) 12:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. FuzzyCatPotato of the Canadian Spoons (talk/stalk) 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bible and King James Only (separate)

The second one is talking about the Bible. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So is everything in category:Bible & its subcategories. Want to merge them all into one endless page? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Shove it all into the Annotated Bible Project; that'll work rite? WalkerWalkerWalker 06:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. One is general; the other is specific; they both function better that way.

I might be amenable to merging KJV and KJV only tho. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 06:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that merging KJV with KJV only is a good idea as the former is simply a subsection of bible translation. Of course empty pages on KJV/KJV only with just redirects to this section is an option, but I do think it's more helpful to keep the dogmatic belief in KJV only as a separate article. It's, I think, the only example of a modern adherence to one specific bible translation and it seems to me to be a different topic than that concerning the different translations of the bible and their respective characteristics (for instance, the KJV's authors didn't see themselves as providing a divinely inspired translation - in contrast to KJV only dogma). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Shit, I gave him actual ideas. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep them all as separate articles. —Bilorv (smells) 12:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The no's have it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people#Mysterious_ways and Problem_of_evil#Mysterious_ways_theodicy (merged)

Please read the contents of these two. These just plainly overlap to an insane degree. I'd suggest either merging them completely into the Problem of evil article, or keeping the list in the Examples-page and moving just the actual theory and analysis to the Problem of evil page. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The first is a popular article, because of the clickbaity title, but ehh if they're substantially duplicated - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No. FuzzyCatPotato of the Ambiguous Lisps (talk/stalk) 16:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that that exact section in the EOGPKP article contains a moral outline of the Problem of Evil and the theological and logical implications to ethics. <- This plainly belongs in the Problem of Evil article. I don't see who the section couldn't be moved into the Problem of Evil article, and having the EOGPKP article instead contain a summary section only with a hatnote to the main article on this - Problem of Evil. I'm going to strike one of my original propositions and state clearly that: we should merge that subsection of EOGPKP into the Problem of Evil article, and keep the two main articles separate as is right now (which is motivated in my view). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression this issue can be resolved by just adding See also: Problem of evil#Mysterious ways theodicy below the first linked section's header. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

While that does sound like an improvement, I'm still going to argue that the subsection of "mysterious ways" belongs only in summary in the EOGPKP article, and in fully in the POE article. Basically, as replied to FCP above. Just my two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The no's have it. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking this over again, I think a merge is in order, which makes the yes's have it. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias, Motive, Nothing To Hide and Ad Hominem (merged)

Considering the success of my proposition to merge the article on Prayer with tons of stubs about prayer (jolly good show on that one, FCP!) I'd also like to suggest the following (non-comprehensive) merger of articles;

1. Appeal to bias
2. Appeal to motive
3. Nothing to hide

...while I feel that these three should absolutely merge into one big article (that more or less contains them all by name), the actual (and not fallacious) logic behind them all is that they're all essentially variants on argumentum ad hominem (since all three of them try to argue that "YOU only hold Y position because YOU Z" and/or "if YOU didn't Y then you wouldn't protest Z", implying that another PERSON would not share the same opinion for that reason alone (of being another person and not you). Aka, ad hominem.

Actually, I'm ambivalent about this. 3 is a policy argument and somewhat unrelated. (What's the relation between privacy and bias?) 1 and 2 are fallacies. I could see 2 merged into 1, but not 3. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're agreeing that Bias and Motive could use a merger, I'm satisfied. But I wanted the other ones brought to the attention of the editors as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The first two are trash & could be deleted IMO. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have merged ATM into ATB. Archived. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory and Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ (separate)

This merger could mean a lot of work as they're both expertly written and pretty long, but they do quite literally overlap in places. Both articles repeat the point about Reductivism vs Triumphalism, and so on. These are some major overlaps, and some major restatements of the same things in two great articles that seem unaware of the existence of the other article. That's a problem. One is ranked Bronze, the other Silver. If merged properly, these could become one hell of a Golden cover article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

They definitely overlap in some places, but I think they should remain separate. They each examine different answers to the question, "Who was Jesus, anyway?" As an imperfect analogy, it'd be like combining articles on quantum physics and string theory just because they both deal with explaining the same sort of things at a really small scale. I do agree that both are excellent articles and, if they could be effectively combined, would be pretty spectacular. MarmotHead (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the example you use on quantum mechanics and string theory - on a wiki with the scope and intent that RW has, I think those two would probably fit well under the same general category. Regardless though, I think that analogy is needlessly disparate. It's more like an article on the Theory of Evolution and Evidence for the existence of Evolution, or what have you. And don't let the titles fool you that they're just a neat sorting away of the evidence and the theory. They literally repeat the same things to a large extent, and as great as they are, they're hovering around Bronze and Silver, and where they to link internally to each other to any greater extent people would just click back and forth between differently phrased sections on the same things. A unified article is the only way to go, in my view. The result would be outstanding frontpage material. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair point on theory/evidence! The reductive/triumphalism/myth/ahistorical section of the historical existence article would make a logical organization for the larger article, but that looks like a daunting project to merge the two. Count me in favor, then, as long as the job isn't mine to do. MarmotHead (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That makes two votes for a merger, then. The real question is who will undertake this? Something for the community to rally around perhaps. Instead of diverting all their time to raging on talk pages. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I support. I originally moved a lot of the material to the JMT page, to reduce duplication; moving it all into EHEJC would prevent any duplication. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly think that JMT should be merged into EHEJC and not the other way around. JMT sounds like some kind of fringe theory, when it's all really just a very well motivated question of the highly spurious EHEJC. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The Evidence regarding Jesus is a totally different thing from the Jesus myth theory as it generally is defined ie Jesus did not exist as a human being. Also if you really look at the two articles the amount of duplication is minimal with perhaps at best perhaps 10% of the total articles truly overlapping. Finally the EHEJC was criticized for being too long as it was; adding the JMT material would balloon the article and likely result in the JMT material being spun off into a separate article to reduce the bloat...which would defeat the purpose of the merger in the first place. I see no real reason to merge the article other then to conflate evidence issue with the myth theory and these are two very DIFFERENT issues. Poor historical evidence for the Gospel Jesus does NOT defacto support the 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being. myth theory as Resmburg demonstrated in 1909.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that any alleged person or story that lacks evidence and is widespread and/or widely believed is per definition a myth. This all boils down to the historical evidence for Jesus, both the myth theory and the, y'know, article that's titled "the historical evidence for jesus" (paraphrased). And I think you greatly understate the amount of actual overlap there is in those articles, nevermind underestimate the effect on one of the articles of having to "concede" mentions of several points to the other article. It'd be a mess I tells ya. Merger doesn't have to mean bloating - part of a good merger is to also be able to cut off all that excess, if any. And then we end up with a golden front page article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"Myth" per Oxford dictionary is "A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." Note there is nothing about evidence here. In fact, Remsburg talks about historical, philosophical, and poetical myth using David Strauss and John Fiske as his references.

Per Remsburg: A Historical myth is "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical."

"Christopher Columbus sailed West to prove the Earth was round" is historical-poetical myth. The existence of Christopher Columbus is thoroughly documented as his sailing West; it is the "to prove the Earth was round" that is "colored by the light of antiquity" (using antiquity very loosely here)-Columbus sailed West because he thought it would make him lots of money and the Earth being a globe was known to Aristotle...who was the darling of the Church. Dante's Divine Comedy (1320) has a round Earth and there is a fresco from the 13th century that shows Jesus holding the world...which Terry Jones compares to a cricket ball (last time I checked cricket balls were round).

More over as one of the classic mythers stated "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as a human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No, please don't. The evidence article is a goddamn epic already. The Jesus Myth article should be an article branched out from it. There is a lot of material in one that should be in the other though - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No questioning the epicness of these articles, David - though I'm just going to argue that any sceptical weighing for and against evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is for all intents and purposes theory on wether or not Jesus is a myth. And as you say, "there is a lot of material in one that should be in the other though", as in; a lot of material should be merged from one to the other to make them distinct. My guess is that we'll end up with one stub and one good article in that scenario, rather than one badass front page article. I mean, if Drake Equation and Fermi Paradox belong in the SAME article, surely a sceptical discussion of the actual historicity of a person named Jesus christ and another sceptical discussion of the actual historicity of a person named Jesus christ belong together? Also, I respect your point on the relative beauty of the articles as they are. I'm just saying, there's two of them that say the same thing, beautiful or not. Why keep them around as siamese twins when we could merge them into a single He-Man transformed article? Not calling for any rash mergers here. But no matter how we slice it, either one article shifts a ton of its weight on the scales to the other article, or we just merge them into one fantastical creation of rationality and snark. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As the Jesus Myth article notes the label has been used for things other then 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being'. The 1982 and 1995 versions of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J clearly state that the "This view (Christ/Jesus Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

The article clearly states "There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature."

Last time I checked there were reams of evidence that George Washington, Davy Crockett, and Jesse James existed as human beings. The reality is that the term Christ-Jesus myth has been used for so many things that it has effectively lost all meaning...which is the point of the Jesus myth article.

From the article: Christ Myth theory (Historical myth via the narrative is essentially false), ahistorical, or Reductive (Fringe)

"Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit."[47]

"Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered."[48]

There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else.[49]

IMHO this attempted merger is nothing more then a ploy to destroy the problem the very term "Christ-Jesus Myth" has had and reduce it to the inaccurate "Jesus didn't exist as a human being" BS we see. As I said before the main EHEJC was criticized for being too long as it was which is why material was put into already existing articles or "daughtered" out as shown by the links to Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Shroud of Turin, True Cross, Holy Foreskin, Holy Lance, Letters of Pontius Pilate, Ossuary of James, Authorship of the New Testament, and Gospels as history. WHY in the name of sanity try expand an article that had to have all that moved out?!? No, this is clearly a ploy to destroy a well written article and it is NOT going to work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hang on! It's not a ploy to destroy anything. You could fairly argue it might do that in practice, though. I'd disagree, but it's certainly arguable. Look, there's super-good material there. The two articles just appear to overlap. I support merging them, but only if it preserves the really good material that people (mostly you) have included. It's not a ploy, though ... just an opinion.

By the way, "Holy Foreskin"? I'm a little uncomfortable that such a thing exists!!! MarmotHead (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoah, time out buddy. It's certainly no "ploy" (???), and there is certainly no intention to "destroy" anything. Way to make yourself sound like a mouth-foaming psychiatry patient - quite the sudden dip there, from otherwise sounding entirely reasonable. I expect you to regain your composure and not toss around mean-spirited and completely baseless accusations like that. You are literally making proclamations about my intentions in raising this issue. Like really, how old are you if I may ask? Where'd you make the jump from being reasonable to literally implying a conspiracy? Jesus, man. No pun intended. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course there is apparent overlap...in the way a general article on Evolution would overlap an article on Darwinian Evolution. The general Evolution article would touch on things the Darwinian Evolution wouldn't: like Lamarckian Evolution, Fall From Grace Evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution, and various other forms of that simply don't fit into Darwinian's model. Overlap doesn't mean must merge which seems to be the "logic" (if such a word can even be used) for this nonsensical line of thought. As I said in the talk page for the Evidence article Well I combined Positions on Jesus with Triumphalism versus Reductivism to streamline that section as well as added ahistorical to the position matrix (The Jesus myth theory is such a mess [but] this article is NOT the place to try and thrash that mess out)"

Really LOOK at the rang of the Jesus Myth theory:

• Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community. (Effectively Dupuis position)
• The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.[20]
• Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.[21]
• Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.[22][23] (Effectively Volney's position)
• The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.[24]
• Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.[25][26]
• The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[27] Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd.[28] while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.[29]
• Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."[30] A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify as "mythical" here.
• (The Christ myth is) "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.[31] "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" [32]
• "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."[33] There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.
• Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."[34]

If you believe ALL THAT AND ALL THE VARIOUS NUANCES of the current Jesus Myth article can be put into the Evidence article without bloating it and getting daughtered back out there are several people who want to sell you a bridge in New York real cheap...goes to a place called Brooklyn from what I heard. Deny it all you want but it IS a ploy to confound the full range of the Jesus Myth down to the 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being' BS because i have not seen one really GOOD argument other then 'they over lap' and that alone is just NOT going to cut it..--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Viewpoints within CMT

• Dissenting from or skeptical of the orthodox historicity position, but not a historicity denier.

1. Historicity Skeptic, promotes historicity refutation.
2. Supernatural Skeptic, promotes supernatural refutation.
3. The Jesus character of the Gospels was based on the historicity of a surrogate(s).
4. Jesus lived in a remote past prior to Year One.

• Historicity denier

1. Jesus did not exist and no further theory elaborated beyond historicity refutation.
2. Literary character rather than a historical character.
3. Astrotheology-cosmological-pagan cult origin of Christ.
4. Originated as a supernatural heavenly Christ.
5. Gnostic.

Historicity deniers should remain in the distinct CMT article 69.197.181.194 (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Which Jesus did not exist? As the Jesus Myth article points out there is a gray area which mixes the two.

We know from John Frum that people can take up the name of what was originally a supernatural heavenly being so why not for Jesus? Suppose Paul had is vision far earlier then we think (in the late 20s for example) that gave some direction to what was a vague astrotheology-cosmological-pagan cult. Paul's teaching inspired one or more people to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their own variants with some of them getting killed by the locals for their troubles. After Paul dies efforts are made to hammer all these various Jesused into one cohesive person ala Robin Hood. Pretending the CMT is this on-off switch only shows ignorance of how diverse the term is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I'd like to see some more input on this issue from the community before it's decided, but if nothing else - all we really "need" is for the articles to not blatantly repeat eachother and not have hatnoted sections that link in a loop to barely differently worded sections on the exact same thing between the two articles. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said before the overlap is not as much as you seem to think. As the Evidence article states "Just as there is a huge spectrum regarding the historical Jesus there is an equally large one regarding the Jesus myth theory some of which are really reductive historical theories such as is seen with G. A. Mead and John M. Allegro who put Jesus c. 100 BCE or Resmburg who said there was just enough to show Jesus existed as a human being but nothing to verify any of the New Testament account as being history." That is really all there really needs to be in the EVIDENCE article regarding what the Jesus myth theory IS. '

The evidence article is on how rational the evidence for Jesus is and some of the counter arguments as well Throwing in stuff from the 11 some flavors that is the Christ myth theory just muddles things and makes an already insanely long article bloated. The Reductive-Triumphalist stuff is duplicated because it explains why people like Frazer, Mead, and Remsburg who accepted Jesus as a HISTORICAL PERSON were (and are) categorized as "Christ Mythers". Heck, Herbert George Wood in 1934 put Christ Myth as part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure which only makes any degree of sense when the whole Reductive-Triumphalist thing is explained and it at best is perhaps 4 paragraphs long...far too short to merit merging the entire freaking Jesus myth article with the Evidence article.--20:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)BruceGrubb (talk)

Pretending I didn't read the nonsense you wrote above suggesting an evil ploy to destroy or some such conspiracy trash - I do think you make good points. I'm thinking that we should probably trim the areas of overlap, and - as always - encourage a continuous discussion regarding this. Once that is done or reasonably underway, I'm all in favor of removing the duplicate article labels and - as far as I'm considered driving this issue - "close the duplication ticket" for now. I'm doing actual university level bible studies this fall and winter, so I expect I'll have atleast some chance to help you in adding sourced positions from academia. And let me be clear on a side note - with all due respect, I proverbially suggest you shut the fuck up about trying to explain people's own intentions back to them. That's a hopeless endeavour, even if you were to guess correctly (and you were off by cringeworthy amounts), and adds literally nothing to your - otherwise fairly reasonable and well-argued - points. You had me with reasons, and I appreciate your general additions to these articles otherwise. So please, think before you post. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering that by Hector Avalos and Richard Carrier (the second in a PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work) Bible Studies is in need of some serious house cleaning and in its form of 2014 effectively a total joke in terms of the historical method that is like saying you taking "actual university level courses" in magic to the point you got a degree in the thing as Isaac Bonewits did in the 1970s. Just because there are "actual university level courses" for something doesn't mean the field isn't full of crap; one only has to look at the reasoning (if it can be called that) that comes out of Psychology and Psychiatry or the totally insane and inane idiocy that makes up a Business degree to see that. Heck, the "evidence" for Jesus close to the one depicted in the Gospels has long been shown to be a total joke as Remsburg showed in 1909 and Bible studies has done the functional equivalent of pulling its hat over its eyes sticking it fingers in its ears and going "la la la" really loud for over 100 years.

The fact Biblical studies engages in LIES like "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." and misrepresentations like the 5000 Greek manuscript or with the dates of paleographicly dated manuscripts shows it cannot be trusted until it does a full house cleaning. For example, Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is still misrepresented as being c125 CE which comes form ONE work in 1935 and IGNORES every piece of work on paleographic dating that has come after that piece. Heck, it even ignores the issues C H Dodd brought up: "There has been a great deal of controversy about the date to which the composition of the Fourth Gospel is to be assigned. One school of critics has long upheld the view that it was not written until about A.D. 135-140. Unless the experts are very far wrong in their judgement upon the new papyrus, this date becomes obviously impossible." in 1936. Even "The dating of this papyrus to 135-150 has been widely accepted" has been ignored because there is no freaking way c125 is between 135 and 150! And paleographic dating doesn't even have that fine a date range with 50 year range being the best one can hope for an 100 years being a more realistic range...points glossed over or outright ignored.

Over at the Randi forum coined the term Testimonium Flavianum Piltdownium for the joke that is Josephus. Of course the crown jewel of this nonsense has to be Thallus...gads where to begin on that piece of insane nonsense. The way Bible Studies handles Thallus is the smoking gun that shows that it is totally out of touch with how historical research actually works and Carrier rightly calls them on the carpet for being so silly.

By the standards of anthropology and museum science (both of which if have a Masters in) bible studies is a near total joke in how it handles things. Bible Studies does things that even by the late 19th century standards Bruce Trigger of Cambridge provides in his famous book would have gotten the hairy eyeball. With Carrier's PEER REVIEWED SCHOLARLY PUBLISHED work in play we can point to that at to why the field as it currently stands is nonsense... and not worth considering.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't realise that we're in perfect agreement with each other. I don't know what country you're from, but I study in Sweden. We're like 80% atheist, so you can imagine what some random picks out of my course material may look like? And, for the record, these are from the top of my head, and naturally there's much to learn even from bad books, would you have a warning against any of these. That's part of the idea anyways. But yeah, it's not american bible studies I'm talking about, buddy. So you're preaching to the choir. When I said "help", I meant something like - add the two cents from the better of the above tomes, where relevant and desirable, more or less. And I know of everything you cite here already. ...What in the world led you to believe otherwise? And what the heck was that about a "clear ploy" to destroy or something? I'd literally like a reply on that, lol. I mean, we're in the same camp man. My points so far have been about article formatting and structuring - I've nothing to say about the contents of the articles or the ideas they put forth. And you're also right that they should remain separate - although they need a combing through in relation to eachother. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus?

OK, I see a kind of consensus developing towards not combining these articles. In case there's more discussion on the pair of articles, I propose leaving this open for a little while longer.

My "count" shows no more than three in favor of combination: RBP who used to feel strongly, me who was persuaded but not passionate, and FCP who fell somewhere between. Then, we have two passionately (ferociously?) against: DG and BG. So, aggregating using a proprietary passion-weighted score, that means separate articles. MarmotHead (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well tallied, Sir! Though I would say that, in the light of the arguments, I've actually changed my position - from one of outright merger, to one merely advocating a combing out of repetitions (no matter how far and few between) and the addition of hatnotes and internally links to better structure the experience of reading the articles. As it looks right now, I'm in favor of removing the duplicate templates. But I'd like more replies here before we do anything. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As DG and I have said merging made no freaking sense as the EHEJC was already insanely long before we started daughtering stuff out. This "no matter how far and few between" combing of repetitions worries me; as I said you are going to get some overlap between the articles simple due the nature of the subject matter but ahistorical is NOT the Jesus Myth as it is generally defined (though it has been used that way). Carrier's hypothetical Herod the Great Jesus (ie killed before 4 BCE) would be ahistorical to all the material we have but would still NOT be Jesus Myth in the 'Jesus started out and remained an celestial being who was eventually plugged into history' definition Carrier is using.

As the Jesus Myth article points out "However, Volney and Dupuis did not agree on what the Christ myth was. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths while Volney allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically." So from nearly the get go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought: There was no human being being behind the New Testament and confused memories of an obscure historical figure were woven into the mythology.

It is that second part that people seem to have problems grasping regarding the Jesus Myth theory. As I said before Reductive-Triumphalist material needs to be in both articles even through it is repetitive as it sets the stage.

More over I really dislike this atheist-mythist connection. There are atheists that accept the evidence for Jesus as valid and religious people who don't ("In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris.") so this nonsensical connection needs to stop.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Goldilocks Zone be merged into Argument from fine tuning and Fermi paradox (merged)

Given it discusses where life could develop (Fermi) and how creationists abuse it (AFFT) seems good for merging. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fermi paradox, Drake Equation, The Great Filter (merged)

I broadly suggest that these above three ought to me merged. Possibly with Astrobiology and/or SETI, into something coverworthy. Suggestions? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree, though not sure what title - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All in Fermi paradox. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But then, how do these relate to astrobiology and SETI? Surely the Astrobiology article deserves to be the one that grows to frontpage quality, as these suggested mergers are all equations and concepts pertaining to the larger "mother ship field" of life in space? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure for now. Though a page specific to the Paradox is useful. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have merged much of the stuff about alternate lifeforms into Astrobiology and much of the stuff about the possibility of talking to ET to the Drake Equation. There's still much duplication. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Poe's Law examples and Poe's Law (not merged)

The in-wiki examples can go to Poe's Law; the offwiki could go to a section on RationalWiki:Webshites. It seems unnecessary to have this long a list; they probably understand it from the examples onpage. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the point of having a list is to make sure people understand a topic, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

They're both longstanding substantial articles serving distinct purposes. No reason to merge. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What's the distinct purposes? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

One is an article about Poe's Law and one is a list of Poe's Law examples. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim "no support" when only one person explicitly supports and one explicitly opposes. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're acting like a child. Clearly, as the person challenging the status quo (that these are separate articles) the onus is on you to persuade the community (or such of it as are interested in either of these pages) which you've failed to do since posting this two months ago. You can't just keep putting the template up repeatedly when nobody else supports the move; that's vexatious editing. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Book of Exodus and Evidence for the Exodus

These articles are really just waiting to be merged. They repeat themselves in portions, despite the Book of Exodus article being a stub (even after my latest addition). Read'em both, realise what's still missing, realise their importance to the mission and how relatively stub they are, and we've got a merger on our hands. My two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Alternately, create a page on the historicity of the Bible and merge EftE into that. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That still splits it up too much in my view, as the RW annotated book of Exodus is the article that just lists stuff at length (as it is supposed to), and thus any general article on the book of exodus basically has to mainly rotate around the historicity of the claims inside. So the division would be problematic. It'd be like having a Noah's Ark article and making a separate article called Plausiblity of Noah's Ark. That 2nd article would eat up 90% of the material for the "main" Noah's Ark article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Mayyybe. Note that "evidence" is a pretty popular article and the book article isn't - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In the scenario that we keep them separate, they still both need a top to bottom rewrite to make sure they don't overlap, and the main Book of Exodus article would have to be rewritten with the perspective that it can outlink to a main "Evidence for..." article. And yet it needs to not be a stub. Look at the article for Book of Genesis, it doesn't have the same problem of splitting the articles. And to keep this realistic (that is to say, not assuming some decent person will just drop in and grow the Book of Exodus article to passable size relative to what is supposed to be its sub-article), I'd say a merger - to make the article structurally uniform with the Book of Genesis article - is the way to go. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Astrobiology and Goldilocks Zone (merged)

Since Weaseloid didn't like the merge:

1. Both discuss topics on the survival of life outside of Earth (Astro in general, Goldilocks in particular to distance from sun)
2. Having the Goldilocks Zone article in the Astrobiology article makes the "Exceptions" section more useful, since it raises problems with a simplistic Goldilocks "life must be photosynthetic" model.
3. Having the Goldilocks Zone be separate makes the Astrobiology article relatively sparse.

Sincerest apologies for not waiting a week before His Highness did deign to read this page. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you have a poor understanding of what a duplicate article is and a fixation with merging articles on any flimsy pretext. The Goldilocks Zone is not synonymous with astrobiology & not everything that can be said about it relates to astrobiology. The astrobiology article isn't sparse: it's 2,000 words with 16 footnotes. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick, insult my intelligence, it's a completely valid debate tactic.

What about the Goldilocks zone isn't related to astrobiology? That creationists fixate on it? That, too, is part of astrobiology. That water forms in it? We only care about water as it relates to astrobiology.

The portion of the astrobiology article on where life is most commonly thought to develop is sparse; it only discusses rocky planets and carbon. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with FCP on this one. I vote for merge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes it 2 to 1. May I merge, Weaseloid? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again; as far as the votes are tallied right now, I'm with you on the merge, FCP. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Merged. Leaving unarchived for awhile, in case Weaseloid disagrees. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem of evil and Evil is the absence of God (separate)

All content on EITAOG is better suited at POE or Atheist professor myth. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that, having just read through the POE article (which is in need of a general rewrite), I get the impression that these two articles should probably stay separate. The EITAOG article seems complete in itself and also appears to do a good job of detailing both the fact that the story is a hoax and the faulty logic behind the argument. Though in a scenario where it can be written into a rewritten POE article; maybe. But right now, I'm as of yet unconvinced of the utility of this proposed merger. Though let me say it's always better to raise the issue and call for a discussion and a vote, than not to do so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Though let me amend what I just wrote by adding: I very much support the merger of APM and EITAOG. That merger needs to happen. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge plan: all but section "Einstein" goto POE as subsection under "responses"; "Einstein" goesto APM.

Minus section "Einstein", I think EITAOG lacks anything that would make it distinct from POE. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Against. This is a bad idea. Keep them separate. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:41, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Why? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Against - these are completely different ideas - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Against - What on earth would be the idea of folding APM into either of the two other articles (or vice versa)? APM is an urban legend/straw man/stereotype used by fundies whose imagination and fact-checking abilities are circumscribed to an extent that their faith isn't. The PoE is a "golden oldie" head-scratcher for those insisting on their deity being omnipotent & -benevolent, whereas EItAoG is simply a (in my eyes rather shoddy) definition of evil. Sure EItAoG can be used as part of a PoE argument and as such could, in principle, be moved there, but I think that it works to have EItAoG in a separate article as it's such a well-known escape hatch that it merits a special mention. The APM, by contrast, is simply a word-by-mouth story used as a silly device by lazy apologists preaching to the choir and doesn't contain any of the (more or less) philosophical/theological dilemmas raised by the two other topics.

So, EItAoG could be moved to its entry in PoE, though I don't really see the necessity; but APM should definitely not be merged with either (at least in my opinion). ScepticWombat (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mmm. I'll buy "such a well-known escape hatch that it merits a special mention". (APM wasn't being merged.) Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 13:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream media and Liberal media (separate)

Both of these discuss media bias and can be merged into one more comprehensive article (and it might be worth it to write up an expanded bit on Second-option bias and add it to this article). Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

IF merged with some actual elbow grease, I support that idea. But I don't inherently support a hypothetical rough copypaste adventure where one article goes away and the other gets split personality disorder. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No, these are separate subjects and articles of reasonable length. If there's any duplication of content that should be sorted out, but at a glance I can't see any. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Formal fallacy and Non sequitur (separate)

Both are about when something does not logically follow. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A formal fallacy is a type of fallacy, a non sequitur is a specific fallacy. 0/10 worst duplicate articles entry ever. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{really confused by the existence of cutlery} 23:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but aren't all formal fallacies non sequitur? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See what I said above. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:04, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

So is your face. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When you try to think, does it hurt? :P Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What about the two articles do you think is distinct? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Abductive reasoning is also included under formal fallacies, but it's not non sequitur. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Uh, abductive reasoning? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what I said. In abductive reasoning the premises don't guarantee the conclusion, but said conclusion is not non sequitur in the sense of irrelevant/unrelated towards the preceding.142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

It just seems that it's not necessarily fallacious, if it has some measure of success? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deductive reasoning requires the conclusion to necessarily follow from the premises. When this isn't the case, that's called a formal fallacy. Abductive reasoning as well as inductive reasoning are formally fallacious (at least when they're used in a deductive argument). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

But only when you're trying to use the product of abductive reasoning deductively. Regardless: Why wouldn't non sequitur apply? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

*cough* oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Global warming, Global warming denialism, Effects of global warming, The global warming wager (merged)

The main article contains almost no unique content from the other two; moving content to global warming has the positive of not making it sound like we're ignoring the counter-opinion right off the bat. And given that part of global warming denialism is denying its effects or claiming that it has positive effects, merging those two seems essential. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This will take some work to stitch together into a single coherent article, but I support the idea. (The last article seems not very good as a standalone in any case.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

9-11 conspiracy theories and 9-11 (merged)

As mentioned before, "I see no need to keep 9/11 separate; the page is pretty short, and bringing it here would let us contrast reality with fiction." αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Should be merged, particularly given the former is gold and some real-life info will make it even goldier. Then we can move it to the latter's title - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve (merged)

They're never relevant separately, except in the context of original sin, which we already have a page on. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Those are distinct articles + a fork page linking to both. There is no problem or source of confusion here. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Take Adam#Navel and Eve#Biblical_Myth as examples of clear overlap. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I support merging the separate articles into the main Adam and Eve article (expanding/improving it in the process). This type of unnecessary division appears to be clear-cut bureucracy to me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I count two for and one against? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably better in a single page, IMHO. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Three for and one against, then. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Race and racialism

First line, race:

The term race refers to the scientifically-obsolete idea that it is possible to divide humanity into clear, well-defined groups based on a haphazard variety of traits, most commonly in terms of physical characteristics having to do with skin color.

First line, racialism:

Racialism is the pseudo-scientific view that humans can be pigeon-holed into relatively discrete, large (continental) groups of populations, or that human populations are substantially different from each other in some measure to support biological classification below the species level.

Merge all content from race into racialism, then make race into a disambiguation linking to racism, racialism, and racial pride. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

How about no. The concept of race is much older & broader than racialism, & most of the contexts where the word race is linked in articles wouldn't be appropriate linking to a page about racialism. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Merge all content from race into racialism, then make race into a disambiguation linking to racism, racialism, and racial pride." Currently, the article on race does almost nothing to explain race, but instead talks about racism and racialism. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy's right about the content - race is almost entirely about scientific racism. If they're conceptually different, we need to work out what race is for - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

These need a merger. Race is a pseudoscientific concept that does not exist and never has. Talking about ethnicity and such is one thing - race is a fake construct of the highest pseudoscientific degree. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Association fallacy and Nutpicking (Separate)

ScepticWombat suggested it. Nutpicking is just the intersection of cherry picking and the association fallacy, and can be merged as such. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ScepticWombat can speak for himself. You're the one who keeps bringing these things here. It's getting disturbing. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck off. Talk about the merge, instead of how you think I think. It's getting disturbing. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Pro: Association fallacy is well-known and widely used, while nutpicking is a neologism and comparatively obscure. The association fallacy article already has several sections on specific variants of the fallacy and nutpicking would simply be yet another one of these.

Contra: Association fallacy is getting a bit long and could simply have a headline + redirect to nutpicking to keep it from ballooning any further. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge Nutpicking into Association fallacy, because it totally is - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge cdesign proponentists into creationists, because they totally are. Merge physics into science, because it totally is... you grasp where I'm headed, yes? WalkerWalkerWalker 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm with FCP and Gerard on this one - merge. Also Weaseloid, it's not like there aren't a lot of arguable duplicates on this site worthwhile examining closer and voting on - sounds pretty dramatic to be "disturbed" by that fact. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the case that we merge, don't forget to include the Weak-Man Fallacy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Very few of the recent nominations represent a genuine duplication or content fork. These are somewhat related concepts, not synonymous, and are separate pages of a decent length. Is there really any useful purpose served in having fewer longer pages? I see that the association fallacy page also lists non sequitur, affirming the consequent, Galileo gambit, red-baiting, green-baiting, etc. as related concepts. Are these all eventually going to be merged into one massive page?

Meanwhile the term nutpicking does get at least some usage within the skeptical/political blogosphere and is a term where RW scores highly in search engine results. It's on subjects like this where RW can be a go-to source, something that will never happen with anything as broad and well trodden as association fallacies. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: RW does well on other merged terms, eg, (jaqing off), because of how Google works. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Weaseloid Just to entertain your point here (which, if described correctly, isn't bad per se); wouldn't redirects garner the same detection in Google searches? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I doubt it. If other sites have entries on nutpicking or articles with nutpicking in the title while we only have a page that mentions it in passing, that's likely to affect search engine rankings. This on the one hand weighed against what? What actual problem is our longstanding article on nutpicking ostensibly presenting? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It could be, but it doesn't seem true for, eg. jaqing off, racial realism, and compare wedge document and wedge strategy (first three I could think of).

I think the idea is that nutpicking is purely a subset of association fallacy, while all the other related concepts involve bringing some other political ideology in (like anti-communism or anti-environmentalism). FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Nutpicking" is a very specific and commonly used type of association fallacy, just like ad cellarium or Blaming the victim are specific and commonly used types of ad hominem. I support a separate page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Separate. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Autism and pseudoscience and Autism (Separate)

The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge like a California driver. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merged. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Animal rights and Animal welfare (Merged)

Not exactly the same thing, but the difference is subtle. IMHO both concepts would be best served in a single page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I raise my paw for a merge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merged. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)