Talk:Rapa Nui

	This Pseudohistory related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Originality

Was this started with a copy from somewhere else? ħuman 02:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't find it on t'internet. If it's there it's been really altered. 03:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I read more, it seem sto have an original "style". Pretty good article, very readable, though needs a bit more RWification. ħuman 03:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no this was not copied from elsewhere, or rather it was copy paste from my netbook - I wrote most of it offline before posting it up. To avoid subconscious plagiarism I prefer to write from memory and go back and cite sources later (it also keeps the flow going). I'm thinking of adding some pictures, but I haven't yet read your rules in that area, so I don't know what I can import or link in and most of my own ones would need scanning.

I was also thinking of adding a bit more detail on the slave raids and epidemics which tend to be downplayed by the "ecocide" theory; but I wasn't sure if that was in your scope the way Von Daniken and the Pseudohistorians are. I was also not sure to what extant one could expand on Mrs Routledge's role, whether her memsahib style facing down native revolts and a German battle fleet was relevant here - I assume not as no one disputes those events. BTW thanks for most of the changes, but is the extra final sentence really necessary? I thought it somewhat detracted from my punchline. WSC (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures: good rule of thumb is that anything at the wikipedia commons thing is safe to upload. Also, this article would be a lot prettier with some so go for it. I appreciate your keeping our mission in mind as you write. On that new last line, I agree, I liked the dry irony of the way you ended it. I thought what that line says, but did not feel the need to type it. ħuman 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: pictures again: we have some pretty good help files on how to upload, copyrights, etc., follow the "help" link in the box below our logo. ħuman 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: if it's on Wikimedia Commons, you don't even have to upload it here. Just use the filename and it'll work here. (Only stuff on Commons!) - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that. WSC (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, check out Help:Images for some advice on adding images. It explains the commons shared repository thing in more detail. You may also want to take a look at Help:Copyright_notices. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Missiony stuff getting buried...

This is beginning to just turn into an article on the history of Rapa Nui. Reasons that keep it "on mission" are getting thinned out more and more as it grows. Can more (any?) attention be paid to what nutters might think or claim? While I find the article interesting, what is here I wouldn't get, say, from a wikipedia article? ħuman 00:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to stick to the rational explanations of things that attract pseudoscience. But that isn't just Von Daniken and the extra terrestrials. It also gets fruitloopery and revisionist atrocity denial from the following claims:

1. They were a primitive people who couldn't have made or moved the statues - there must have been a "more advanced people" from elsewhere
2. The sunken lands
3. Slave raids and diseases? No it was their own fecklessness in cutting down the trees and having too many babies

Do you think I need to explain more about the various pseudo science ideas?

WSC (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice, yes, if you could. Say, for instance, that there is a big section talking about X. If it was preceded by a short, even one sentence paragraph referring to some claim, ideally with a footnote, that the section then goes on to cover "rationally", that would be enough, IMHO. Actually, that would also be a minimum. I find myself reading this and thinking "this is very good and informative... wait, but why is it in an RW article?" In other words, pin down directly who or what we are refuting as an intro to the refutation. ħuman 17:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As Human says, it is a very good article - but some of it does seen quite tangential to RW.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I've now read the CP article warning irrationality lurks here, its a classic example of the airbrush slave raids and epidemics out of the history and blame feckless natives for "overshooting their food supply", and deforestation on statue movement. Any suggestions as to how I make it clear which bits of the article are involved in that. FWI they seem to have avoided the Extra terrestrial, lost continent and South American pseudo-sciences. Though there was one silly edit about the rapture, does CP take that tosh seriously? WSC (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The less CP you can use the better... ħuman 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning to use CP as a source, I've got access to rather better sources than them. But they are claiming things that need rebutting, I thought that was on mission? WSC (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mind you do we distinguish between straight errors in CP articles "The Easter Islanders had arrived from the east through typical Polynesian technology" - east of Rapa nui is South America, but the rest of the article makes very clear that they were Polynesians from so far West they may have been over the dateline. As opposed to the very clear genocide denial later on? WSC (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that if you want to explicitly refute a CP article then you'd be better off doing it in CP space. If CP uses sources which make statements which are mission-relevant - pseudoscience, anti-science, crank ideas, fundamentalism etc - then why not refer to them directly? CP is really only relevant to the world as a source of humour.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I've started Conservapedia:Easter Island, and will come back to this one when I've reread the Jared stuff. WSC (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mission

This is a lovely article but RW isn't an encyclopedia. Move to WSC's userspace perhaps? We could do with an on-mission version that refutes aliensdidit. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Covering genocide and pseudohistory is missional. Carthage (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)