Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific myth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soroboro (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 23 February 2013 (→Scientific myth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scientific myth

Scientific myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely intelligible OR filled essay article, sourced mainly to non reliable sources such as blogs and other essays Jac16888 Talk 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Science Myth
  2. The Social Reality of Scientific Myth, Science and Social Change
  3. Metaphor and Myth in Science and Religion
  4. The Psychoanalysis Of Science: The Role Of Metaphor, Paraprax, Lacunae And Myth

The topic seems to be structuralist and so is likely to be difficult and fractious. But this just puts it in with other fuzzy topic areas like philosophy and sociology and so it goes... Warden (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a very big difference between an article which is imperfect and an article like this which is virtually unintelligible. Perhaps a decent article could be written on this topic, but having this mess as a starting point would be more of a hindrance than a help - any editor wanting to write about this would just be put off by the daunting task of having to deal with the content already there--Jac16888 Talk 17:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easier to rewrite an existing article, than start from scratch. Why is no one to me it does not start, having English sources? Now there is an anchor. Remove and no one will start. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. As it currently stands the article is so bad that any attempting at improving it would be extremely difficult. After many years of working with badly translated articles that somebody will create and then leave for somebody else to fix I can assure you that nobody does - it is just too much work (hence the 400+ similarly poor articles found at Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, a huge backlog which you're just adding to). Much better for the project overall to allow someone to start again from scratch--Jac16888 Talk 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll look after 5 years as you create this article. especially since no one would think to look well-done made ​​a version in Russian Wikipedia. To quote my favorite expression: I always thought that "supporters of quality" - those who are trying finish writing the Wikipedia article to the quality of the level, but not those who removes all articles, except quality. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry but I have no idea what you just said. Please understand that I mean no offence when I say this, but English is obviously not your native language and that you would be better off contributing to the Russian language Wikipedia where your edits would have actual value--Jac16888 Talk 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No problem. The English Wikipedia is a project of translators? Quote original Мне всегда казалось, что "качественники" - это те, кто пытается дополнить статьи Википедии до качественного уровня, а не те кто удаляет все статьи, кроме качественных. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate to say that you have written a new article replacing the old one - would I be correct in assuming that you used absolutely none of the previous content, and also that you would most likely not have done so were it not for this AFD. And it seems to me the article now is little more than article about Urban legends--Jac16888 Talk 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my version was the academic sources, and quite strong. It could be better to fix the style. I can go to the Russian in the discussion? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your version is retained in the edit history. Your sources might go into the Further Reading section but I can't vouch for them myself. While we're debating the very existence of the topic, it seems prudent to minimise the Russian language content as few AFD regulars will be able to understand it. I retained the interwiki link to the Russian version of the article. When I click on that then Google offers me a translation which seems useful in suggesting further ideas for development. I am pleased to see that Newton appears in that version too as this indicates that we're on the same track. Warden (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article now, although interesting, is not about what I (at least) would expect the expression "scientific myth" to mean. I'm not sure if what we have here is a notable topic. It is certainly not under the correct title. BigJim707 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mythology (which "myth" redirects to) says: "In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form, although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story." I expected this article to be about how the scientific explanation of the Universe serves as a myth for modern people. BigJim707 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that "myth" is being used here in the very broad sense of any traditional story. There is precedent; Mythbusters study urban and scientific myths that rarely have any religious connotations. A folklorist may declare this folklore rather than myth. But it really depends on the sources for the article--do they call these stories myths or something else? Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. --Mark viking (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Mythbusters. However their sense of the word "myth" seems to be kind of like "something that lots of people believe that may or may not be true." This article is going by the same concept. A more scholarly use of the word would be more like: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." That's from the Oxford Dictionary online. BigJim707 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Folklore of science" sounds right to me. That gives a much more clear picture of what the article is about. BigJim707 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_myth&oldid=539968650"