RationalWiki:Duplicate articles

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Shortcuts:
There are 31 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.

Contents


[edit] 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. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (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)

[edit] Merging Pious fraud with Lying for Jesus and possibly also Taqiyya.

These cover the same basic concept, that of lying for your particular abrahamitic monotheism, and indeed a merger that includes Taqiyya appears to me as completely rational from the atheist's perspective, especially considering how these two religions are practically inbred in terms of their origins. The actual concept of these "sacred lies" is, furthermore, inherently similar in both religions, and a full merger might help to combat a recent ignorant trend I've seen of people treating Taqiyya like there's no equivalent in Christianity. When there most certainly is. (Also, regardless of what we do with Taqiyya in terms of merging, it's to me obvious that - if nothing else - PF and LfJ belong together). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Taqiyya seems more typically used to survive in Muslim-unfriendly regions rather than to proselytize, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It does have usage in the same way as Lieing for Jesus. I support the merge. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 14:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Pious fraud & lying for Jesus, fine. Taqiyya is a pretty long article with a lot of Qu'ran quotes which would be rather an odd digression if merged into a general article about pious fraud. I think the pious fraud article should include a short section on taqiyya, summarising it & {{main}}-linking to the taqiyya article which should be a separate page in category:Islam. Also, IMO, the taqiyya article should be expanded include some examples of how Islamophobes (within the Christian right + New Atheism) have cited taqiyya in recent years as a justification for distrusting Muslims, something it currently touches on only briefly. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd merge the first 2 as Weaseloid says above, unless someone can explain why Pious fraud is different from Lying for Jesus; both articles seem similar and both reference the book Liars for Jesus (which could arguably be merged as well if you feel we don't have enough debates). Annquin (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
^. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Flood and the food web and Post flood animal survival

Same topic. FuzzyCatPotato of the Revolting Tadpoles (talk/stalk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Same topic, and I agree. What do you think about merging both of those two into the bigger Great Flood article, specifically here? Seems to duplicate the contents of those articles. We could also toss in Insects and the global flood. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Or, if nothing else, maybe shorten down the sections in the Great Flood article, and migrate all survivability articles into one main articule that includes the two you listed above in the topic name, Plants and the global flood, Insects and the global flood and Aquatic species and the global flood. Then atleast we'd have one big, great survivability-of-life-during-and-after-the-flood article that could reach frontpage. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that, though all of the content is about the Global Flood, it'd be an absolutely massive article to put it all in there. Linking between the multiple articles for distinct flood-related topics is sufficient. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The fact is that the content isn't just all about the Global Flood, it's about the very same issue - the whole ridiculous problem of how various lifeforms could've made it past a divine, global flood for us to still end up like we have today, with land animals and such. And a few of these literally overlap (compare) at several places (compare). And they're all like "Well, the flood would be kind of a problem for life, heh". We don't need to have 5+ parallel articles that semi-restate this in their respective summaries. I'd say these obviously need a merger, and that that merger would NOT be the additive length of all the articles - via rephrasing, restructuring and chopping out the repeat statements, we'd end up with one sanely long, good or decent article. Unlike now, with several repetitive semi-stubs on the exact same topic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
We could call the merged article "Life and the global flood" or what have you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. It would become one motherfuckingly massive article, but I think that is justified.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I could live with a "Life and the global flood" article. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (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?""
Ah.
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. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Cold fusion and Fusion woo

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.

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. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article do you mean?--JorisEnter (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
FW. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (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)

[edit] Conflict thesis and Non-Overlapping Magisteria

Compare the first sentences of the summaries.

  • "The conflict thesis refers to the idea that science and religion are incompatible. It may be considered as either a philosophical or historical issue."
  • "Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a philosophical world view that places religion and science in separate domains of questioning ("magisteria") in order to avoid one contradicting the other."

These are literally on the exact same issue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. You missed the point of one of the two, dunno which. NOMA says "They can't ask the same questions" and conflict thesis says "When they ask the same questions they produce contradictory results implicitly putting them at odds". That is to say these are competing answers to the question of conflict between religious and scientific examination of the world.
By way of analogy, one is saying "My car and your truck have separate parking places marked clearly" and the other is saying "Our parking lines overlap and one of us is gonna have to move." ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you're right - thanks for clarifying that! Still, as NOMA is one of several answers given to the problem of the conflict hypothesis (the philosophical question of the compability between religion and science), I would support merging NOMA into Conflict thesis, and then growing that article into a Silver-or-better article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess so. They certainly both fit into the umbrella of mixing science and religion, and are both considered elements of theology. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in fact, you were right to explain how one is a subcategory of the other. Right now, they exist separately as Bronze-ish articles when they could unify to become Silver or better, and they are currently written in a way where one article doesn't seem overly aware of the other (though NOMA gets a stub mention in the Conflict thesis article). So, two for a merger, then? (Merging NOMA into Conflict thesis). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT MERGE NOMA INTO CONFLICT THEORY, PLEASE. Sorry for the boldcaps, but NOMA is a concept that's thrown around in casual apologetics all the time, and is really really really really important to any atheists who might be interested in the topic. Conflict theory, by comparison is relatively obscure and academic alone. The chances that NOMA is a landing page for outside searches is pretty high, and people are likely to be interested specifically in it and how to counter it as an argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Ikanreed here. For popularity reasons alone, NOMA must survive -- just as Last Thursdayism did. If anything, a merger of conflict thesis into NOMA would make more sense -- since the only reason conflict thesis is notable for our readers is because NOMA exists. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Then, how's the support looking to merge conflict theory into NOMA? The point being that we consolidate a single article of higher quality, one that ties better into the wiki generally. (e.g. right now, the articles are a bit oblivious of each other). I'm for, by the way. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That nets an "Oh alright, why not?" from me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That makes two for merging CF into NOMA, then. Fuzzy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A cursory glance through the sources cited in both articles doesn't suggest that these are synonymous or especially closely related theories. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That's because they are two competing theories that disagree with each other? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So why merge them? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm against merging -- but we often include both the theory and the counter-theory in the same article, to more easily contrast them. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Condom into Birth control

Birth control is already silver, and with the addition of the content currently in the semi-stub Condom article (alongside polish and some new material here and there) Birth control could be on its way to front page glory. The question of overlap regarding the subjects is non-existent, as condoms are literally nothing but a form of birth control. Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Something something not an encyclopedia, something something obvious.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Something something what did you vote for (merge or not)? Also — if you're worried it's getting too encyclopedic — in the process of merging, I plan to add more relevant content. :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I think I just got it. You agree that Condom should be merged into Birth control because we're not a general encyclopedia. Did my brain-smarts do me well? :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
They most certainly did.--JorisEnter (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe this will be a sinful union. Nerd271 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
...and since you're presumably an atheist, and since all atheists wanna do is hate God and revel in sin, you don't support the merger (due to the lack of sinfulness resulting from said merger)...? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Which god are you talking about? There are so many of them. In any case, I think we should let those two move in together. Perhaps Aphrodite or Hera will show up to bless the new couple. Nerd271 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Their blessing, to birth control? And here I was, under the impression that Hera and Aphrodite were likely rubber-refusing dames! (You know, based on their whole fertility-and-kink gimmick...) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure about Hera but Aphrodite practices free-love, does she not? Nerd271 (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess Hera supports birth control whenever Zeus is banging some other god/demigod/nymph/human/whatever.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
"toO LaTE!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Joris Goodpost.gif
@Percy Forgive me, great Zeus! But is that why they call you the father of gods and men alike? Nerd271 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Eh, guys! This has been around since mid-August. I think we have unanimous support for merging. Nerd271 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Let's do it. Condom into Birth control... Does it get any more obviously valid? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Last Thursdayism into Omphalos hypothesis

The LT article clearly belongs as a refutation segment in the OH article. Together, the resulting, grand OH article is easily Silver, with a good shot at future frontpage quality. I could merge the two skillfully. Please let me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't we already have a "yep do it" for this one? In any case please do - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Only if done well. LT and OH are both excellent articles in their depth, ordering, and presentation. (LT is frequently linked as a counterexample to creationism, and presumably draws many visitors.) I fear a merger might make a more scatterbrained article with fewer viewers. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

...Which is why I said "skillfully" (and which means; I agree). If I ever actually get around to attempting the merger (ADHD), I will take care to sandblast any rough edges. Thanks, old timer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
My main objection is that LT gets a lot of visitors and it's very useful to have as a separate in-depth explanation. It might be better as a fun page, with the nonsnarky material moved to the Omphalos page. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum electrodynamics and Quantum chromodynamics into Quantum mechanics

Neither QED nor QCD is particularly large, interesting, or likely to be expanded. We are not an encyclopedia, and we don't need articles on things that WP can explain way better than us.--JorisEnter (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We should merge than all into a grand unified article. Nerd271 (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree as well. QED and QCD are great examples of overly specific encyclopedic topics that are not missional outside of sourced, contextual coverage in articles like quantum woo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Gotcha argument into Escape hatch

They're the exact same thing. Merging them will allow for one unified — substantially better — article that mentions both terms. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, even though you can yell "gotcha" when playing the escape hatch they're quite different. My interpretation is that an escape hatch is defensive response intended to avoid the burden of proof, but a "gotcha" argument is an offensive argument intended to back your opponent into defending an untenable position.
Claims of "gotcha" journalism can easily be their own escape hatch, but not all escape hatches are a reaction to "gotcha" arguments. I think it's important to recognise that a lot of criticism of "gotcha" journalism is a lazy attempt at building a persecution narrative, whereas the escape hatch in general is usually a more explicit abuse of Pyrrhonism. MVHVTMV (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Jew and Antisemitism

I'd actually suggest merging to Evil Jew; there's no need to specify anti-Jewish racism, but there is a need to specify Jewish caricatures. (Sidenote: If we moved the Islamaphobia article to whatever the Muslim equivalent to Black brute is, then we'd complete the trifecta.) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm with the Weaseloid on this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Apologies, Internetting too late:
1: Merge antisemitism and Evil Jew.
2: There's no need to specify anti-Jewish racism (antisemitism), because we don't specify other categories of racism (antiblack, antiHispanic, etc.), but we do specify other categories of racist caricatures (black brute, etc.). Thus, we should focus on the racist caricature instead of the racism proper.
3: If we moved Islamaphobia to the antiMuslim caricature (whatever that might be), we would have the modero, n racist trifecta: Black Brute, Evil Jew, Jihadi John. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Antisemitism & Islamophobia are phenomena that need our attention, regardless of whether they resolve as a single stereotype (which they don't). ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
These are bad ideas and we should not do this - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Merging microevolution and macroevolution into novel article "Micro- and macroevolution"

The distinctions between these two terms are only made by Creationists. Science sees "macroevolution" as the accumulation of "microevolutionary changes" over sufficient timespans. The terms are in use only by creationists, who mean to imply that "microevolution is indeed proven, BUT since the cosmos is young, there hasn't been time for macroevolution to occur". Regardless, the articles re-state the same things almost verbatim. Let's merge them, please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Call it Microevolution and macroevolution and yep, +1 - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. The two don't really have any "independent" meaning, and refuting one of them means refuting either (kind of like a priori and a posteriori).--JorisEnter (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Hapgood and Crust displacement

Former promotes the latter. Former is negligible without the latter. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, 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)

[edit] Dog whistle politics and Code word

Code word is the definition; dog whistle politics is the application. DWP has useful description and examples that would help out CW. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I support a merger, but into which one? I actually think dog whistle is the more useful term; I think we should merge CW into DW (and drop the word "Politics"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Code word appears to be more common: [1][2] and trends. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Bird evolution with Bird and Neornithes and Neornithine 'Big Bang' and Paleornithology

The pages are mostly EvoWiki stubs. Together, they could present a very interesting synthesis of modern research on bird evolution, up to about 2000-2010 or so. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just do it - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Smash that mf-ing merge button (and don't forget, we're not an encyclopedia Th hug.gif). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology and Humanistic psychology

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

[edit] 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. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Duplicate_articles
rationalwiki.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-22
84608
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:H3WH4XCZVBZUAGQ6QKGBQOCY6IYOSM5E
<urn:uuid:32f1ce28-8720-416d-b84c-fa3ac70a552c>
2017-05-30T13:01:41Z
69.164.223.61
text/html
sha1:U2FSRBCSWD7M22DJGG4HZHJGDAAW5F53
<urn:uuid:c1ffccaf-cd46-4cab-bf02-9ef707483b3a>
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Duplicate_articles
length
response
<urn:uuid:82b59095-caa0-47e0-8629-4a9959ba3733>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-185-224-210.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-22
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf