Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2023 January 9

= January 9 =

Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall
So I have to admit that I am Johndric Valdez who named this "thing" way back in November 2013. Which I have to admit I was still a dumb teenager back then (my bad) with no regard for his actions. So I hope you can understand the kid. Anyway, I regret that now and thought would have just left it to the original discoverers.

But that is not my issue now. My issue is the current state of the article. Rightfully so there are many doubts throughout the subsequent literature if this structure even exists (I honestly think now that it doesn't). So my questions are:


 * How could we possibly change its tone? I want it to be as objective as possible without having some sort of bias to the original paper, which I think the current article has too much. I don't hav the energy to do this.


 * Breaking down the ideas, such as this line: "Typically, the distribution of GRBs in the universe appears in the sets of less than the 2σ distribution, or with less than two GRBs in the point radius system" – what does these words even mean? I have absolutely no clue.


 * Probably some made-up lines, like "However, the clustering contains 19 to 22 GRBs, and spans a length three times longer than the remaining 14 GRBs. Indeed, the clustering crosses over 20 constellations and covers 125 degrees of the sky, or almost 15,000 square degrees in total area, which translates to about 18 to 23 billion light-years (5.5 to 7 gigaparsecs) in length." – which I don't know where it comes from. I have never seen this in the paper, so that. Where did this come from?


 * Methods for discovery, which I think is too technical. I do not understand how it got to there. The K–S test is also quite unclear and may be too difficult to be understood by an average reader. Can someone make this clearer (for someone who knows statistics)?

SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Work on the tone of the article belongs to the article discussion page. The "thing" has similar status to Cold fusion i.e. there is no currently accepted theoretical model that allows it to exist. The article should not state "One possible explanation of this concentration is the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall." because the referenced sources cannot show an explanation. A cautious title for the article will be Gamma sources cluster debate". Philvoids (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You could also try looking for a neutral editor to work on the page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy. PianoDan (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Casually skimming the sources I see that there appears to be evidentially observational support for its existence (for example this 2020 paper and that there are critiques casting doubt). On the whole though, scientifically, the status of its existence appears to be in a far better position than more nebulous things such as cold fusion and magnetic monopoles which do not have any empirical evidence supporting them. Modocc (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Side note, similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which it was recently discovered is a term that was created by a Wikipedia editor in 2006, this may be an example for List of citogenesis incidents. It should be noted that the Dunning-Kruger effect is the commonly accepted name for the concept today in 2023; so it kinda became a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It should be noted that whether or not the Structure ends up actually existing or not, as a purported structure, it does appear the common name has become it's Wikipedia article name, even if the Wikipedia article name came first.  See  and  for some examples.  So, the article name should stay as it is a commonly accepted term.  It should be noted that lots of things that don't exist (but we used to think did) have Wikipedia articles, such as Luminiferous aether and Lamarckism; even if it turns out the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall doesn't exist, we should still use that as the name of the concept, because that is the name in use most commonly to identify the concept.  -- Jayron 32 19:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for Nikolai Vavilov and thousands of other Soviet biologists, Lamarckism did exist in their days, in the extremist form of Lysenkoism, in the same sense in which scientific creationism exists today. --Lambiam 17:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are only two things that are truly infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe.(attribution unknown) -- Jayron 32 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the Dunning-Kruger effect, which it was recently discovered is a term that was created by a Wikipedia editor in 2006 - for whoever cares, that is not in the article itself, but it is described at List_of_citogenesis_incidents. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Unpleasant acrylic fabric
I've got a blanket that's 87% acrylic (the rest is cotton) and found that fabric unpleasant to touch with bare hands for me, especially when running my hand over it - I get sort of a goosebumps on palms and slightly sweaty palms after that (unlike pure cotton which I love). Is this a known phenomenon and why is that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A disadvantage of acrylic yarn compared to cotton, mentioned on a website for crafters, is that especially less expensive acrylic yarns may have a rough, scratchy texture and tend to be stiffer and harsher to the touch. There are suggestions for how to soften stiff and scratchy acrylic yarn on (spam-blacklisted) webpage https://feltmagnet.com/textiles-sewing/Soften-Up-That-Stiff-Scratchy-Acrylic-Yarn, of which option 2 may be applicable to your blanket – although it may be cheaper to just discard it and get another one, than spending "tons and tons of conditioner". --Lambiam 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Negative reactions to tactile stimuli can fit under the broad category of Hyperesthesia or Sensory processing disorders. -- Jayron 32 18:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)