Talk:Alexander Chizhevsky

edits

Changed the page from a stub to an article. It needs some better formating. Ray Tomes 09:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, everyone who worked on it! I always thought he died in a camp. Glad that's cleared up! Will keep eyes open for other things to add. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Muddle

This article muddles together two very different ideas, one that solar fluctuations affect earth climate, and the other - neo-astrology for lack of a better term - that solar fluctuations are somehow responsible for human behavior. The latter is fringe pseudo-science, and there is no indication that Chizhevsky contributed anything of any significance whatsoever to the former. What's more, citations from places like PNAS are given to imply that he has much broader support in the scientific community than he actually has.

This list is a riot: "space biology, space medicine, cosmic sociology, aerobiology, cosmobiology, geobiology, biometerology and cosmogony" - any scientist looking at that list of non-existent scientific disciplines would laugh his or her ass off. I don't think this article would have the slightest chance of surviving an "AfD" challenge in its current state, as its subject is not notable as anything other than the sort "I'm the world's expert in the science I made up in my own basement" kind of crank. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is in poor shape, and Chizhevsky is not well known to the Western science, that's all. But he clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY. Look at the intro: the Bank of Russia even issued a commemorative coin that honours Chizhevsky. So if you are considering AfD, please revert your mind and don't waste your own and others time. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note that this is the second time since we first ran into each other that self-described new editor User:Goodwinsands has show up on an article I'm editing to disparage the article or me; he should be more careful about that. And this isn't in the least related to the somewhat related other two topics.

Anyway, the article needs work, but not deletion. I see Prof. Suitbert Ertel has commented on that topic, but need to find out where the deleted quote about Chizhevsky came from. Anyway, topic I'm working on currently, so one of couple articles I hope to clean up a bit. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is a pile of mud no matter who's working on it, so don't use embedded links to imply that you're somehow being persecuted. And those familiar with the Soviet Union know that commemorative coins and medals were a dime a dozen. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Better refs and spelling of name

Some excellent references to work from in improving the article. Careful research to make sure they are WP:RS needed: Alexander Tchijevsky in google scholar; Alexander Tchijevsky in books google; Alexander Chizhevsky at books.google. Alexander Chizhevsky at google scholar. Which makes me think we should see which name evokes best references in English and perhaps change it to that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization makes it clear the more common Anglicization should be used, which as I note above is Tschijevsky. So at some point I'll change name of article. [Later note: I did a count of Books google and scholar and Chizhevsky is used far more frequently even in English language publications.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hoax

Far from muddle, I believe this page is part of a hoax, for the same reasons outlined above. The links are all unverifiable or easily fabricated and un authoritative. The text is at times, as noted above, humorous. The page is maintained by a new contributor. Since this hoax has several elements, I recommend keeping the page up and indicTing it is part of a hoax, rather than deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.8 (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take out anything that look like a hoax, but if you see the refs in post above you'll see that he was a notable scientist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking out the more obviously ridiculous aspects, and adding links to explanations of the Russian language and the name of an encyclopedia hardly make this more credible. In fact, it makes it more suspect. Other than a reference to a print edition of an aging edition of a foreign language encyclopedia with no presence online in any language, there is not one credible link here. This article is at best pseudoscientific muck by well meaning new age fans. It is at worst a hoax with an intention to mislead.

Take, for example, the disingenuous links to Wheeler and Dewey. These men never actually commented or were even aware of this Russian's work.

Or take one of the most credible links, to an actual verifiable Web site. The same academic talks about ESP and the influence of Mars on human society. He offers no peer reviewed work, just rants.

Due to rumors and blog posts on the Net, I think this guy deserves an entry -- but it should make clear he is a fringe figure whose work is being appropriated using underhanded, non transparent means like untraceable, inappropriate or bogus references to butress a fringe pseudo scientific theory that human life can be charted in an astrological kind of way. The source of this hoax or fuzzy thinking appears to be here: http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/advisers/

It is easy to imagine some of these stock market formula sellers want to use simplify or mischaracterize or appropriate scientific work that has goe before to legitimize their for-sale systems for beating the stock market. I imagine this is why there is so much resistance to the simple request for one legitimate scientific source in this entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.247.10.84 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If no credible sources can be displayed -- and after years of back and forth none have been -- this should be exposed fir the fringe pseudoscience it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.247.10.84 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First I cleaned up the worst problems and will clean up any issues you have accurately described above, as I repeatedly mentioned in my edit summaries. Now in next few days working on the credible refs, which is more work since there are a number and they have to be sorted through carefully. For example, I take out Wheeler and put in description of Dewey wrote with refs.

I assume by academic you mean Suitbert Ertel? I only more clearly identified the site previously linked. I haven't even gotten around to checking it out yet. But it is only of concern what Ertel writes about Chizhevsky, and he is a Professor emeritus who is allowed to maintain a website by University of Göttingen . Opinions about either scientist from WP:Reliable sources is what matters on wikipedia, not opinions of editors, about whether material is described as fringe or not.

Hoax is too strong a negative description and when made by an anonymous IP who knows so little about Wikipedia they insert their own opinion it is a hoax into the article itself, the tag has little credibility. Please read more about Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines. That the article needs more references is what is relevant, as another editor also noted in removing the Hoax tag. I'm working on it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remove

hoaxes and mistakes.