RationalWiki:Duplicate articles/Archive9

War on Science and Antiscience (merged)

They aren't exact duplicates, but attacking science (for political reasons) is a subcategory of attacking science (for any reason). WOS includes sections that would fit almost verbatim into AS about [1] perpetrators (to "proponents"), [2] methods (to "tactics"), and [3] consequences (to "impact"). Putting content into the AS article might actually bring it up to silver -- right now, it's barely bronze. There is a negative here: "war on science" is a more popular term than "antiscience". oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as someone who just expanded the War on Science, and who has a certain, say, experience with this subject, I dread what might come out at the end. Are you committed to keep the information content, or do you want to lose certain content in the process again? ~ Aneris ✻ 13:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure your additions will be given social justice in the brave new article. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Antiscience isn't a very good article - it's rambling notes on the topic of "antiscience". I'd merge to War on Science - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DG. Nerd271 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge what can be used from Antiscience into War on Science. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

White genocide and White extinction scenario and South African genocide conspiracy (merged)

What more needs be said? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WG and WES are clearly articles that need and should be merged. I'd support merging SAGC into the united WG-WES article as well. Heck, we'd have a real front pager on our hands if this was done right, boys and girls! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Merged. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging Alt-right into White Supremacy (separate)

Let's be honest, the alt-right is just white supremacy veiled under a different name. It's a euphemism. If one thinks the two aren't the same, one must agree there's a huge overlap. —€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 23:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a separate subculture. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it's a mallard in particular - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You illustrated there's a significant overlap. Because the topics have a significant overlap and both articles are stubs, why not merge the two?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 00:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

what the. Neither of those is anything resembling a "stub". Both are substantial standalone articles. What on earth do we gain from merging them beyond you trying to make an ideological point? - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm with David on this. The argument is like suggesting that we merge Islam, Christianity, Judaism et cetera into Religion — because they're all religions. I mean, yes, they are — but at some point, one has to pursue the intrinsic value of sorting into separate articles. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Or like merging Liberalism, Conservatism & Centrism into the same article... Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Folk devil and Moral panic (merged)

Former is a stub that serves only to explain the latter. FuzzyCatPotato of the Enormous Beaks (talk/stalk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge FD into MP. Keep FD as a redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Civilian terror trial and Terrorism

Former is a stub that serves only to explain the latter. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge CTT into T. Keep CTT as a redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Evil and Morality

"Evil" is a terribly written page that has ONE PARAGRAPH about "Evil"; the rest talks about the Problem of Evil and can go there, if it's worth going anywhere at all. The remainder might serve at morality. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge E into M. Keep E as a redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Objective morality and Morality (Merged)

Former is a stub that serves only to explain the latter. No references whatsoever; rather poor reasoning too, IMO. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge OM into M. Keep OM as a redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Could we also merge Moral relativism? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Merge MR into M as well, keeping MR as redirect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging Deity into God (Merged)

Never mind the fact that the words are synonyms and we also use them to mean the exact same thing in the respective articles... compare the summary text of the two articles. They say the same thing, though God says it better. I propose we merge what is merge-worthy into God and then make Deity a redirect to God. As it is a synonym and nothing else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

They're not exactly synonyms: what about Goddesses? I'm sure a way to merge them can be found, as it makes sense to have one page on divine beings of whatever gender, but don't forget the lady-gods. Annquin (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, I didn't even know we had an article on Goddesses! Add that article to the above merger in question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I think that "God, "Deity" and "Godess" should redirect to a merged version of "God" and "Deity". I think that "Gods", "Deities" and "Godesses" should redirect to a novel article based on the current "Godesses" article, which could be called List of gods and godesses. Since, y'know, it's useful to show how many Gods and Godesses humanity has invented, and since the current "Godess" article is just a list article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

May I just point you to Fun:Gods Christians don't believe in. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Merged. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging Hyperbaric oxygen therapy and Oxygen therapy (Separate)

These articles cover two sides of a very thin coin, and repeat the same points. Merge. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a merge; there's very little duplication. Oxygen therapy covers a wide range of different therapies, many of which could be expanded, and a rewrite wouldn't hurt to indicate the wide range; while Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is more than a stub itself. Annquin (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I find the similarities outstanding (like hyperbaric oxygen therapy isn't a form of oxygen therapy?). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Kept separate on a 2:1 vote. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Caucus and Primary election (Merged)

The caucus page is a stub and it could easily fit into the primary election page. I know that they are different but both of these election methods deal with nominating a party presidential candidate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 20:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The talk page for the article does point out that caucus does have a different meaning outside of the US. Not sure if that alone makes it worth expanding though. Reading through the primary election page, it does look like the American definition of "caucus" is thoroughly explained. --A Gloomy Axe (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The United States Congress, or any parliament, Rotary Club, Elks Club, Student Parliament, etc etc etc mets in "caucus"; a "primary caucus", or entry level precinct caucus into an official party's proceedings (in the US) is where the term "primary election" evolved from cause some party members didn's want to spend hours on end discussing voting matters; they wanted to vote and go home. So yes, the caucus article should remain and be expanded. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 23:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Merged. Nothing of interest on the caucus page. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Noah's ark, Bringing the animals to the ark, Caring for the animals in Noah's ark and Number of each "kind" on Noah's Ark (Merged)

In a nutshell, I believe that BTATTA and CFTAINA should most certainly be merged into the main Noah's Ark article. The NOEKONA article is, I suppose, a bit more spurious as it could be seen as more of a "theological" article, but I still think it belongs with the main article. Via doing this, we could avoid re-stating similar things as is done across several Ark articles right now, while also growing our main Noah's Ark article to full scale front page quality, rivaling the scope of the Global Flood article which we all hold so dear. My two cents, chaps. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The current article on Noah's Ark kind of sucks - it's not really worthy of silver IMO. Merging these articles should help to flesh it out a bit, as well as getting rid of all those other articles that more or less overlap.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Noah's Ark article deserves to grow and flourish to frontpage quality. This is the way to do it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And, just for the record, I think the article on Noah's Ark sightings could probably be merged in as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It'd make a really huge article, but maybe a good one. Alternately, they could just go to something like Animals and Noah's Ark. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

MERGE!!ClickerClock (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Merged. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 05:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary detention, Extraordinary rendition, Extrajudicial execution (merged)

Crappily sourced articles on related topic: violent/coercive government action outside of the court system. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not exactly a snappy article title. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Extrajudicial punishment"? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Better. But detention, torture & execution aren't necessarily about "punishment" per se, especially when talking about terrorism, counter-terrorism, political prisoners, etc. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but they come pretty close (in the case of political prisoners it's essentially "punishment" for not agreeing with whoever happens to be in charge, for example).--JorisEnter (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so much. It's more about crushing dissent, removing those who pose a threat to the regime & maintaining a climate of fear. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Afraid I don't know a better term -- pretty sure this one is widely used for this purpose? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge Arbitrary detention with Extraordinary rendition? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll still support an Extrajudicial punishment article. It doesn't quite fit, but these three articles are disgraces. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Should probably also grab Lynch_mob. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Created Extrajudicial punishment. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Psychology and Humanistic psychology (separate)

The latter is unsourced, but appears sane. It might be useful as a brief "history of psychology" section. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Charles Hapgood and Crust displacement (merged)

Former promotes the latter. Former is negligible without the latter. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If the resulting merged article will be better than either one is currently? Go for it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Merged to crust displacement. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Defamation of religion and Blasphemy

It appears to me that the DoR article could be merged into the main Blasphemy article, after which we set DoR as a redirect to said Blasphemy article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that there is actually legitimate usage of the former term also, I'd rather expound more on that. WalkerWalkerWalker 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If we merge, we need to make clear that there is a distinction between the terms, and how the term was both used for and against religious freedom. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd still argue that there's plenty of ceiling room to make these two disparate terms fit perfectly under the roof of one article. And, at the current time, I'm clearly under the impression that we're having to split our efforts between two articles needlessly as long as these articles aren't merged. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm still for merge, so. Go ahead. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems related, but not quite the same. I see no objection in keeping both pages. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

So we're at 2 for merger and 2 against, as it stands. You have to appreciate the stub nature of the DoR article, and also the fact that the laws against DoR are literally referred to as "blasphemy laws" by the credible media, even at the level of UN legislatory debates. I'm asking you to reconsider; and the idea, for the record, is to give both articles a write-through. Not to just mash them together like two action figures. Would be cool if we could make this merger happen. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

These two still need a merger, in my view. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge DoR into blasphemy.--JorisEnter (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey now, a majority vote in support of merging! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

They're not necessarily the same.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How so, old timer? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Merged to blasphemy. (The vote above was stalemated for over a year. I think the DOR section in blasphemy helps explain what blasphemy is not and helps explain modern jargon for blasphemy.) If people disagree, please provide some reasons. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Jews and bad Jews and Evil Jew

First title doesn't appear to be a common phrase and is wrapped up in the stereotype presented by the second. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd support merging this, along with antisemitism. Christopher (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a separate vote above, on merging Evil Jew with Antisemitism. You gotta vote there too, then. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)