Talk:Ostrich Egg Globe

Seeming copyright violations
This article appears to have had large parts copied from the book "The Da Vinci Globe" By Stefaan Missinne. See. I'm not sure (yet) how to handle this, but I've already removed some problematic text. Attic Salt (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright
Why are the images marked with a copyright, but when you click the images, they are marked as having the CC BY-SA 4.0 license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.93.74 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV etc
This entire article is based upon one source, Stefaan Missinne. Missinne is described in his publishers page as: "Professor Stefaan Missinne received his PhD from the Economics University in Vienna in 1990. He is Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation and Managing Director of the Ginkgo GmbH." But there is no evidence I can find that he is a professor. As this Linkin site with his name also states "Owner, Ginkgo Projektentwicklungs- und real. GmbH" I found the company's description here and there are other sources describing him as involved in real estate. In addition the Prince Albert Laureate is associated with business development. He has also published in the predatory journal Advances in Historical Studies. In short, he has no academic background in this field. His 'Da Vinci Globe' doesn't seem to have any academic recognition and although when originally publicised in 2012 attracted interest, as you can see here also skepticism and the possibility that Missinne is actually the anonymous globe. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest moving to Ostrich Egg Globe also. But is this version before started working on it enough to say unsalvageably corrupted WP:G12, or make that argument at Afd? fiveby (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If somebody wants to revert my attempt at "fixing" the article, so that it can be deleted, I'd be okay with that. Attic Salt (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * on my talk page User:Davidguam says "Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ?" Doug Weller  talk 16:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think an explanation of the WP:SELFPUB, WP:IS, WP:COI, and WP:COPYRIGHT on the users talk page is the first step. Will give it a shot and see if he responds.fiveby (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We would need a copyright release directly from the copyright holder. Is the author aware that he would be giving copyright permission not just for use on Wikipedia, but also for the content to be shared freely by the public? –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doug Weller for this comment. BTW, John Hessler told me that the Washington Post reporter (somewhat) 'distorted' his comment, toneing it down. Missine has no standing whatsoever in the community. The reason is simple: good scientific practice is based on the assumption that a theory cannot be proved, only falsified. Missine simply does the reverse by piling ever more contrived 'evidence' to prove his theory (LdV) and ignores simple basically logic facts which falsify his theory.
 * Kaygee4 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I would also support a move to Ostrich Egg Globe. This is how the Da Vinci Globe source describes it; I've found several instances where Ostrich egg was changed to Da Vinci when it was copy-pasted over. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The evidence for an ancient date of the so-called Ostrich Egg Globe is spurious. In contrast to bone which consist mostly of collagen (see wiki bone) which decays over time, avian egg shells cannot change density with age because they consist of 96% minerals and only 4-5% of organic glue. The obvious error of the so-called regression analysis showing 1.40 g/cc means an egg 500 years old is very simple: Density is defined as weight/volume. 5 of the 8 historic specimen entering the regression are carved. This means that material has been removed, making them lighter. In his analysis, Missine calculated the volume from dimensions, remaining unchanged over time. Therefore, weight/volume decreased. Hence, the hypothesis that density change can help determining age is invalid. On the contrary, the low weigth/volume ratio of 1.40 g/cc compared to 2.5 g/cc for ostrich egg shells is proof that his artefact is NOT made of ostrich egg shells. This is not rocket science but simple reasoning. In 2015 we compared CT-scans of a guaranteed >300 years old Ostrich Egg with impeccable pedigree with a modern egg and found no change in density. Confirming the obvious is not readily published so this investigation was never published. Kaygee4 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have made a few edits to the article (and another related article) to tone-down the certainty regarding the date of the globe. Pakbelang (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg

Title of Professor is something Austrian school teachers have
Yes, he has been given the professional title of Professor. A title that schoolteachers have. He's got the title but he isn't "a" professor as we know it, and by adding this to his name his publishers are creating the illusion that he is a university professor. Which given the publishers isn't surprising. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Davidguam has been blocked for a year
Obviously not by me as I'm involved. Of course he may appeal. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting the replacement of "Ostrich egg globe" with "Da Vinci Globe
Thanks for spotting this. And I can now see a Google preview of the book, and its obvious that Davidguam decided to make a major change when he copied passages from the book. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A review by Wouter Bracke
He's head of Collections at the Royal Library of Belgium. The review is here. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected Bracke's last name in the header: He is Wouter Bracke, per the review given by Doug. Bracke's publications (according to Researchgate) are here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)