User:Bigdan201/notes

Your knee-jerk reaction may be to Keep, since this is a former FA, but hear me out. This passed FA review back in 2008/09, and standards have surely changed since then -- it's worth asking whether this would still pass muster today. Personally, I don't think it would, on multiple counts. NPOV policy states that we should document "majority and significant minority views", but there are none! There is no decipherment with significant scholarly or scientific support. As the article stands, it's a smorgasbord of various attempts over the decades, which are generally either unsuccessful or have made little progress. This brings up FRINGE concerns for the whole topic, since all known research is rather tenuous. It also runs into UNDUE & INDISCRIMINATE concerns to have a lengthy article on half-baked educated guesswork. And if there ever were a successful decipherment with scholarly consensus, the entire article would have to be overhauled to reflect this. Yet another issue, brought up by another editor, is that many passages lack proper CITEs. And so, I'm proposing a remedy that should address all these issues:

Per DUEWEIGHT, NPOV, INDISCRIMINATE, FRINGE & CITE, the article should be deleted, and a new summary of it should be merged under the relevant section on the rongorongo article. I'm willing to write the summary myself, and have copied the decipherment article into my userspace for this purpose (I encourage other interested parties to do the same). It would basically be a rewrite/expansion of the existing summary, where I'd work in early paragraphs, and then list the researchers with a few lines on each.

To disclose any possible CoI, yes I had a content dispute on the article, but this discussion should be considered separately. It was the dispute that led me realize that the whole article is built on a faulty premise, not just parts of it.

Questions/comments welcome.

pinging (insert relevant editors here, kwa, aus, doug w, skyrise, A455bcd9, et al)

-

I wouldn't have an issue with disagreement, if it weren't dishonest and disingenuous. You've repeatedly lied and contradicted yourself, trying to attack my points with anything you can think of, throwing stuff at a wall and hoping it sticks. For example, you went from denying there was any criticism in Esen-Baur, to then wildly exaggerating the criticism that is there. You falsely accused me of BLUDGEONING (and posted misleading stats) when that only applies to excessive arguing for a change on WP, not an irrelevant academic discussion, which it was -- you admitted so when you said that arguing the merits of the theory is "out of place" on this talk page, even though I was just responding to kwami the whole time! Strange that you don't tell kwami to go get published in a scholarly journal, which was more than a little passive-aggressive. You also lied about the Die Zeit article, claiming that it was a rejection of Dietrich when it's obviously not. No one ever said that Dietrich was a "major breakthrough in science", just an intriguing theory and possible progress. And that "Wikipedia is doomed" comment was just an incredibly douchey thing to say, on top of the fact that you're (willfully?) misunderstanding what NOTABILITY means. And it's not just you, kwami has also hurled ridicule and mockery (the rabbits/aliens/atlantis postings), which serves no purpose but trying to provoke me.

So those are some of the reasons why I object, and say you're being disingenuous. I see no valid points against my content, at least none that don't contradict the existing article. Xcalibur (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

- As Esen-Baur admits, it is ultimately up to the experts to complete the peer review process and falsify or validate the hypothesis. She calls for an interdisciplinary approach to rongorongo, and requests notable linguists to weigh in, namely Guy, Sproat, Coe, et al. Such experts have yet to evaluate Dietrich's hypothesis, so it remains unsubstantiated.
 * Criticism