Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoscientific metrology

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscientific metrology

Finish a VfD submission from Rktect. No vote, see below for thoughts on the article. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an excellent example of failure to even attempt NPOV. The article title displays a definite POV, and the body displays a different POV. If it were entirely up to me, I would rename the article to something like Historical Metrology, and set out both sides of the debate, being careful to maintain a balance between the sides.

For those just tuning in, the debate is, basically, whether all current systems of weights and measures can be traced directly back to a set of African or Middle Eastern measurements of antiquity. Part of this is whether the source society knew enough about geometry to base their measurements on something as arcane as a degree, one 360th part of a circle. There are reasoned arguments on both sides. Side questions include accuracy of the ancient measurements, which ancient society was the theoretical donor, and a bunch of things I'm leaving out intentionally.

Ken ^{talk|contribs} 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This page Pseudoscientific metrology is full of original research, ie; it consists entirely of opinion and speculation, and is full of phrases like ("seems to have been"). What it has for cites or references do not support that any of its allegations are true.

The article is a polemic against the anti metric movement which is attacked at least three times in the course of a page because it "spurred further activity".

It doesn't say what the activity was, but then goes off on a tangent to allege "many different" unspecified "theories" have a "common theme" and attempts to associate the anti metric movement with the French Acadamie of Sciences, Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche, August Oxé, Livo C. Stecchini, John F. Neal, Alexander Thom and his ideas about a Megalithic yard.

Additionally this article engages in several other unsubstantiated attacks which have no basis in fact and taken as a whole is essentially patent nonsense. Rktect 01:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Woah, woah, woah, are we looking at the same article here? What I see is strongly sourced and very well written. I don't see any real OR problems here; certaintly this seems like an excellent article. Sdedeo 02:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I originally wrote this, and I will thus not cast a vote. I can easily see much room for improvment in POV bias in the wording. It is also a problem, like for other areas of pseudoscience, that the ideas of Stecchini et al has largely been ignored by the scientific community. But the real issue is how Wikipedia should treat claims like:

• The ancient units of measure of Mesopotamia and Egypt (dating from several thousand years BC) are directly defined by the circumference of the Earth.
• All ancient systems of measurement were built on each other, and exact definitions existed that related them
• There exists a Megalithic Yard. It can be directly linked to the Mesopotamian measures

Etc. I guess if this is to be accepted and described as bona fide science then Wikipedia is not what I though it was. -- Egil 03:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Is the Megalithic Yard truly pseudoscience? Or is it just controversial? The article makes it seem "weakly controversial". In physics there is a pretty clear delineation between controversial and pseudoscience, and the wiki articles reflects that in phrases like "widely considered psuedoscience" or "considered controversial" etc. etc. You might want to retitle the article here however. Sdedeo 03:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to something less obviously slanted. There is extensive precedent in WP to document widespread, well-known crankery. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets get the terms straight. Cranks are people who write pages like that, full of opinion and speculation but notably short on real scientific knowledge, references, cites and even specific objections.Rktect 06:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per Ken and Wile E. Heresiarch --Apyule 05:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to BJAODN. freestylefrappe 05:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename & Rewrite The concept itself seems noteable enough Fornadan (t) 09:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Renane & Rewrite. The concept is noteworthy, but the presentation could be better. --Agamemnon2 09:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rename. Needs some work, but seems to a good start. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and merge with metrology as historical context. This material also needs citations; it's not biased if it cites good authority as to why these theories are wrong. --Tysto 14:23, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it 'doesn't' cite good authority as to why these theories are wrong. It speculates, opines and expects you to agree that well obviously they must be wrong without any proof. That is what makes a thing pseudo science in the first place.Rktect 16:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, probably rename, rewrite to NPOV. Interesting and valid topic. Rename to what? I don't like "historical metrology," that's too nonspecific and neutral, i.e. there could be and I expect there is a valid "historical metrology" but this isn't it. This would seem to be closely related to Pyramidology. More so than to metrology, I'd say, but of course that's my own POV showing. Maybe the title could reflect this somehow. (Actually our articles on Pyramidology and Pyramid power seem to be very thin, don't they?) Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • How could you rewrite this to NPOV without deleting everything it says? As an architect I consider measuring, weighing and judging based on the evidence to be the very essence of science

so labeling what people have learned about measurement "pseudoscience" or "pyramidology" seems pretty weird.Rktect

• Keep Dottore So 16:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge The article seems chronologically organized and - imply a causal relationship between the described different "metrologies", with a supposed revival or rediscovery by Mr. Heath. culminating in connecting everything to the Megalithic Yard.

Google [1] [2] [3] seems to indicate that proponents of this "science" don't call themselves metrologist, so metrology should be dropped from the name. pseudoscientific is sort-of POV and should be dropped. therefore:

• Remove all unnecesary info and put historical info where it belongs. for instance put The circumference of the Earth under Spherical Earth if found accurate.
• Rewrite extensively
• Merge with Megalithic Yard

especially the introduction is lacking. -- Zanaq 19:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I beg to differ on two accounts:

• Over-use of terms like metrologist and geometer are typical indicators of bs.
• The Megalithic-Yard-believers are just one fraction. There are many others. What about this beauty? So I think merging with MY is not good. I would also hate seeing this stuff merged with metrology. Also, historic meterology is plain misleading. This is pseudoscience, but a more NPOV term can be found, like alternative. I'd rather call a spade a spade, however.

-- Egil 20:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly rename. It is useful to synthesize the various more-or-less heterodox theories positing hidden uniformities in ancient measures. The article could of course use more work, but every article can. I am not sure what a good title would be, though. --Macrakis 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Call a spade a spade. Calling pseudoscience what it is not POV ladened, it's simply being honest. Changing it to Historical or Alternative is misleading. This stuff is what it is: pseudoscience. If we are renaming it, let's at least keep it honest and not wishy-washy.
  • As Egil says, the megalithic yard is just part of the story so we can't move it there. We could, of course, move MY here but I don't think this is a good idea. There is enough content in MY to warrant a seperate article.
  • It is little surprise at all that the nomination for deletion comes from our friend Rktect. Please take no offence, Rktect, I mean no personal attack. I'm sure you fully believe in what you're claiming and think what you're doing is the right thing.
  • For those unfamiliar with what's going on: Rktect has been avidly working on many measurement articles. His contributions generally promote this one-and-the-same-system-throughout-history theory. Before slapping the VfD tag on this article he rewrote it. Have a look at his version of the article. Jimp 24Aug05
    • "Pseudoscientific metrology

Inspired by some of the last few weeks incidents, I've collected various material on Pseudoscientific metrology. I'd appreciate it if you would review it. -- Egil 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC) I've also posted this request: Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Pseudoscientific_attack. -- Egil 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC) A pseudoscientific attack: that's exactly what seems to be happening here. I'll have a look at your page. Splitting Ancient weights and measures article was a good idea. I'd been thinking of doing that myself. Jimp 8Aug05 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimp" copied into the record by Rktect 16:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Thanks Rktect. I'm sure this will be very useful. Jimp 28Aug05

• • • WOW that makes a lot of difference. I'm all for reverting.

Zanaq 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Not necessarily under the same name. There appears to be at least some content worth salvaging. --Mysidia (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Valid topic; it may not be over-endowed with NPOV at present but many of these lost wisdom of the ancients efforts are nonsense, we just need some references added to validate the claims made. adamsan 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Danged good documentation of silliness. ~~ N (t/c) 13:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rktect version reinforces how good it really is. Gene Nygaard 13:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of you seem to be saying that

• yes it has a POV which is anything but scientific,
• yes its mostly unrefrenced speculation and opinion,
• yes its a polemic,
• yes its facts are wrong,
• but what the heck, who cares if this whole page is patent nonsense
• as long as it calls lots of other stuff nonsense too,
• Yes let's keep it.
• This page speculates and loudly voices it opinion that there is a connection between Pseudoscience and Metrology but it certainly doesn't go about proving that according to any scientific method I am aware of Rktect 03:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, is the previous from the last point an indication that you changed your vote? -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"Most of you seem to be saying that" but I have to admit I'm fascinated by the idea that renaming it to something NPOV Like "Facts I didn't Know" and removing the POV content from the page would not leave a single full sentence in that article. All that page evidences right now is how little its author actually knows about the scientific method.Rktect 06:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it, Rename it, Add introduction indicating that the stuff is controversial.
  And, what about creating a Category for Controversial matter ?
  Magnus, 28 August 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.