Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo: Difference between revisions

Links to delected section on Dietrich

first of all, my edits on April 1 were a prank, which ended up confusing another editor (though at least I got content to stick for several hours). secondly, since kwami has finally archived the talk page, I'd like to link my content again for easy reference (Dietrich & De Laat).

Backup section on Dietrich: Talk:Decipherment of rongorongo/Dietrich

full-length version: [1] (note that the gallery image on reverse boustrophedon & astronomy is under fair use of copyright, and is currently not hosted due to the dispute).

shortened version: [2]

Section on De Laat: [3]

Xcalibur (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And the FA-approved summary:

At least a score of decipherments have been claimed since then, none of which have been accepted by other rongorongo epigraphers. Besides Fedorova and Fischer, who are discussed here, these include the pseudo-scholarship of José Imbelloni, Barry Fell, Egbert Richter-Ushanas, Andis Kaulins, Michael H. Dietrich, Lorena Bettocchi, and Sergei V. Rjabchikov.

— kwami (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Summary

It occurred to me that the archived discussions are a bit much to go through, and it would be useful if I summarized major points here. I tried to add sections on De Laat & Dietrich, only to hit a complete impasse. The issue with De Laat is that the decipherer themself showed up, asking not to be included, because they have overhauled their hypothesis since the publication of Words out of Wood. I updated my section (which was a synthesis of myself, kwami, and Francis Mortimer) with a note on this, and a line about the new interpretation, but this apparently wasn't enough.

But De Laat was a side project, my main contribution was Dietrich. The Dietrich theory has been published and positively reviewed in scholarly journals, as well as mentioned/referenced in other papers and publications, which should satisfy sourcing requirements. The theory states that rongorongo was not a writing system, but a notation system for astronomy/calendars/navigation; that is, the various glyphs refer to the stars. It also describes the structure of the glyphs through graphical analysis, showing how structures are simplified, combined, and have aesthetic unity.

The section I created adequately summarizes both Dietrich's papers and the review by Esen-Baur. This had no problem staying up in this former FA, until kwami raised an objection. I got into a long discussion with kwami, who seemed to not read the sources properly, at best skimming and reverse cherry-picking. For example, one of kwami's complaints: EB makes the profound statement that the Polynesians did not concern themselves with stars they could not see. Ya think? There's a lot of this, paragraphs of text almost entirely empty of meaning. A complete lack of understanding, I mean the original passage even starts with the word "obviously". The point was to narrow down the number of stars that would be relevant to Polynesian astronomy, evidently kwami completely overlooked this.

but that's a detail. The primary thrust of kwami's argument seems to be that the correspondences between glyphs and star-names are spurious mass-comparison. to back this up, kwami attempted a sarcastic analogy, as follows: As a thought experiment, I thought I'd try correlating RR glyphs with European astro names. It's amazing -- there are dozens of matches! This proves that ancient Europeans (maybe Etruscans or Basque fishermen?) were in contact with Easter Island before the colonial era. For example, glyph 09 is a war club, which we can identify with the planet Mars, the god of war. Glyph 28, a vulva, is of course Venus, the god of love. 240 indicates the fleet feet of Mercury. Glyph 07 is a crown, indicating Jupiter, the king of gods -- the correspondences are already better than the Polynesian ones! And that's just with the planets. An upside-down 09 is anti-Mars -- that is, the star Antares. 660 is a swan, that is, the constellation Cygnus. (It may have come to be identified with a frigate bird after arrival on Easter Island, where there are no swans.) 14 is the Southern Cross. 730, the twin fish, is Pisces, while 700, the single fish, is Pisces Austrinus. 62 indicates the star at the end of the tail of Ursa Minor -- that is, the North Star. 53 is the river Eridanus, 69 is the arrow of Sagittarius, and 02 is the belt of Orion. Obviously, Easter Island star lore came from Europe, not Polynesia. Other than, of course, my hypothesis being utterly ridiculous, can you show that Dietrich's identifications are any better? It's easy to see shapes in clouds. The question is whether there is any predictive power to a decipherment. I haven't bothered to try, but I predict that using my decipherment to read the tablets, even assuming RR is a notational system and not true writing, would produce gibberish. Does Dietrich's fare any better? And why does EB not address that most elementary of issues? Problem is, these correspondences are weak and distended, completely unlike the straightforward, direct links shown by Dietrich. as I said, yes, that is ridiculous, for multiple reasons. this is clearly a bad-faith analogy. The connections you drew between rongorongo and Western astronomy were very far-fetched, relying on multiple tangents to work. For example, associating a war club with the god of war (Mars), or a crown with the king of gods (Jupiter), requires making leaps of faith, which are not required for the Dietrich hypothesis to work. You’re also operating backwards — Dietrich identifies relevant and applicable star-names, then seeks correspondences in RR; while you take the glyph first and try to find matches. To claim that those flimsy coincidences are stronger correspondences than identifying the star ‘pillar to sit by’ with a seated figure by a pillar, or ‘pillar to fish by’ with a fish on a line connected to a pillar (among many others) is downright disingenuous. Finally, there is no historical connection between Western astronomy and the Polynesians (but you knew that already); there is a connection between rongorongo and Polynesian astronomy and to repost my summary -- Your model was: GLYPH looks like ATTRIBUTE, which is associated with MYTH, which is associated with STAR/PLANET. Compare this to Dietrich: STAR-NAME matches GLYPH. The Dietrich correspondences are generally straightforward and direct, while your mock comparison makes multiple leaps. and again, D's method involved both extensive research and graphic analysis (both of which are covered more comprehensively in the paper). No, you didn't 'prove' anything with the bad-faith example of European astronomy, because 1. there's no cultural connection, and 2. the connections you drew were much weaker with many more steps of supposition.

That's not all. You say, For all I know, he might've drawn connections with Rapa Nui star-names. Sorry, but that's nonsense. If he found such connections, you should present them. Indeed, Esen-Baur (from here on "EB") should have presented them. A failure of such magnitude would indicate utter incompetence. So, either the EB review can be disregarded as incompetent, or Dietrich (from here on "D") didn't find any connections with Rapa Nui. And that is a very serious problem. here, kwami makes much of identifying Rapanui star-names among the glyphs. It took me a minute to track it down, but this has been presented: we do have star-names in Rapa Nui, and they agree with Dietrich! most notable is the name for the Pleiades, matariki which translates to 'small eyes', which agrees 100% with Dietrich's identification. the Rapa Nui name for Canopus, 'wayward one' is also consistent. It seems that Dietrich did in fact work with Rapa Nui star-names, in addition to those from other cultures, which is a huge point in his favor. [4] so that major point has been addressed. That's on top of the possibility that rongorongo, while known primarily from Easter Island, may have originated elsewhere in Polynesia; there's various evidence to support this, such as the Hotu Matu'a legend, Polynesian Völkerwanderung, etc.

Another issue of kwami's is the the article passed FA review, with Dietrich's name mentioned in a note listing researchers who's work is unproven. This was supposed to be some major strike against the theory, but it's not, for the simple reason that the FA review was in 2008, and Esen-Baur's review was not published until 2011! Thus, Dietrich wasn't eligible at the time, but became eligible after the article was featured, so the situation changed.

There were other quibbles as well, such as kwami's objection to the idea that rongorongo is reverse-boustrophedon to account for the night sky flipping between hemispheres, but that was a speculative detail, and mainly from Esen-Baur. speaking of, you cast doubt on EBs qualifications, even though she's an expert in Polynesian studies, which is highly relevant. Keep in mind, if Dietrich is correct, if RR is not a script, then expertise in ancient scripts wouldn't be relevant! We would need knowledge of astronomy, graphic design, and Polynesia, which has been provided. De Laat, for their part, objected to various odd/incorrect statements made by Dietrich, such as about the Rosetta Stone and the Louvre, or the statement that Polynesians did not have religion (despite Dietrich drawing a connection with a moon goddess!) But as I said, these are details, none of which affect the central points: to summarize: you can point out errors and absurdities in Dietrich's work (although I try to give the benefit of the doubt) and you can point out possible discrepancies (although there are alternate explanations). but regardless of Dietrich's faults, none of this refutes the central points being made, namely that 1. rongorongo is a notation system, not a writing system 2. the notation system contains astronomical content, with numerous & direct correspondences to Polynesian & Rapa Nui astronomy 3. the glyphs are governed by a set of rules for composition and compounding, which form consistent patterns. the evidence is in favor of the preceding points. the correspondences seem too strong and numerous to be mere coincidence, and are further supported by cultural context (which rules out mass-comparison, which was kwami's main argument). if you assume rongorongo is linguistic, there are a number of stumbling-blocks, such as structural dissimilarity to an alphabet/syllabary, and the Mamari tablet with its repetitive lunar signs; at the same time, these features fit well with a notation system. finally, the rules for composition/compounding are entirely consistent with known glyphs, and the 'equations' provide an elegant deconstruction of how rongorongo was designed.

There was also a complaint about the length of the full-length proposed section. I'll admit, it was a bit bulky, which is why I've cut it down to a summary of a single page-length. I'm willing to cooperate and compromise, yet my opponent remains intransigent, simply due to personal disagreement.

Another editor dropped by, suggesting that I put content on an "alternate theories of rongorongo" page. Trouble is, what is alternate about them? Rongorongo remains an unsolved mystery, therefore, any published & positively reviewed guess is as good as any other, as long as it's not obviously wrong. And if I may anticipate the response, no, Dietrich is not obviously wrong, no one has been able to offer any effective refutation of this. I've shown that the objections raised were based off of disingenuous misunderstandings, logical fallacies, and breakdowns in reading comprehension (no offense, but this is demonstrable). If D were such a crackpot, you'd think it could be easily refuted, yet all I see is IDONTLIKEIT. to refer to my summary: numerous 1:1 correspondences between Polynesian star-names and glyphs; the Mamari tablet, which contains a lunar calendar; pan-Polynesian cultural interaction, the need for navigation during their golden age, the importance of astronomy in Polynesian mythos, etc; various references to rongorongo not being limited to Rapa Nui (eg Hotu Matua) and being associated with the sky; structural qualities of the script that conflict with it being writing, but are consistent with a notation system.

Finally, I'm not actually insisting that the Dietrich theory is correct. There's no way to be sure of this, because nothing is proven, but this is not falsified either.

I beg your pardon for the very long post, I needed to quote key points, which caused bloat.

If kwami would like to respond with his own version, that's fine. If he will finally come around and accept inclusion of my shortened or full-length section, well then, it's never too late; in that case, all ridicule and obstruction would be forgiven. Xcalibur (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

to elaborate, kwami stated: The critical part of the objection, BTW, was that Dietrich was cherry-picking data, which vastly increases the likelihood of finding spurious correlations. this would be a problem if there were any validity to it. But given the many direct correspondences, the cultural background and structural features that are all consistent with the hypothesis, this is not an issue. I also showed how the mock-up version using Western astrology fell completely flat by comparison. Simply put, if this is incorrect, how do you explain away such a strong, consistent connection? At the very least, the graphical analysis of combined glyphs is a genuine insight into the system, made self-evident by the 'equations' I added.

the scholarly RS are more than adequate for this, I haven't seen any serious case made against this point, mostly just IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, those I've debated here have flat out ignored most of my points and resorted to personal attacks. It really is absurd, but WP favors the deletionist. If this constitutes notability, WP is doomed. or not at all. if WP is doomed, it won't be because of me, but because of mocking personal attacks, gaming the system, refusing to read, and gatekeeping of articles. Xcalibur (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding on: as far as establishing NOTABILITY, it's worth considering that this is already a fairly fringe topic, so requirements shouldn't be considered the same way as a more mainstream topic. There's also the fact that rongorongo studies have been moribund as of late, evidenced by kwami not getting a response from the Yahoo study group. Thus, we shouldn't argue from silence. there are no RS refuting Dietrich, while there are RS supporting the theory, so on those grounds, it should be included; but it's not, due to gate-keeping. but never mind basic logic, Wikipedia is DOOMED!!! for some unfathomably dumb reason. on a couple details about the mock comparison: It's amazing -- there are dozens of matches! no, there aren't, long chains of coincidence and supposition are not matches. the correspondences are already better than the Polynesian ones! laughably wrong. the Polynesian matches are direct, not based on long chains of nonsense. honestly, do you even know what the Dietrich correspondences are? have you read my section, or done more than skim Esen-Baur? It seems doubtful. With all that said, if you withdraw your objection, all offenses shall be forgiven. Xcalibur (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of academic interest, I'll go through all of User:Austronesier's disingenuous comments.

Dietrich still needs to be assessed by an expert in the script (Esen-Baur is an expert about Rapanui, not the script)EB's expertise on Rapa Nui (which you admitted to) is relevant here, she's also published on petroglyphs, which have some similarities. Keep in mind, Dietrich's claim is that it's *not* a script, but a notation system -- if true, expertise in ancient scripts wouldn't be relevant after all! but not with a 15k-narative which makes up alomst a fifth of the page's scroll size which is why I chopped it down to almost a fifth of its original length, I'm willing to compromise.

And we should cite EB about Dietrich's unbearable digressions. no, she didn't say they were "unbearable" at all, she referred only to "digressions and flowery language". you just made that up. and some of the digressions were interesting at least, like the one I quoted early in discussion. re-adding 15k (what's been "truncated" here?) about 5k of text, since the original version was 20k. But the re-insertion of massive text with minimal "truncations" below the threshold of observability, apparently, 5,000 characters is "below the threshold of observability". and that was only the first reduction, I've since reduced that version by half.

If you want to present evidence for support of Dietrich's hypothesis, please go ahead and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. yea, totally, why don't I do a whole 'nother degree program, become an expert in ancient scripts (which as I said, may not even be relevant here), and get published in a journal. All that, so kwami can delete years of my life in 5 seconds and call me a crackpot. No thanks. Why don't *you* go get published in a journal on why you think the Dietrich theory is wrong, and we'll leave the content up until then?

Die Zeit is a highly respectable newspaper, but the report about Dietrich does not necessarily support his scholarly notability, but rather his public notoriety. No, again, you're just slandering and making things up. There is no textual basis for this. The subtitle ... exactly says that: an amateur yes, but there's nothing wrong with being an amateur in this case.

No, the main sticking point is that it is a fringe theory by a layperson with zero credentials, and it hasn't been reviewed yet by scholars with expertise in rongorongo. Simple as that. First, kwami didn't argue this, he argued that he personally thinks it's bullshit, even though I refuted his points as well as pointed out his contradictions and failures at reading comprehension. As to your argument: being a layperson without expertise in ancient scripts doesn't refute this. D was published in a scholarly journal (which already puts it above self-published work like De Laat) and reviewed by a scholar with relevant expertise (Esen-Baur). That should be enough. I remind you again, if Dietrich is right, then rongorongo isn't even a script to begin with!

Even if you count Esen-Baur as a peripheral expert review, does this in any way justify the excessive undue presentation of details of Dietrich's theory? Again, I cut it down to a single page-length, I'm willing to compromise on that point.

Can't you see the fallacy? "Primary sources in the form of reputable scholarly journals" do not support Dietrich. Again, they provide a stronger foundation than self-published work, eg De Laat. There is one journal that has published his ideas. "Secondary source(s)" boils down to a single source: Esen-Baur's review. Plus one mention in Die Zeit. As I said at the time, there are other mentions in the literature. If this consitutes notability, WP is doomed. there it is, verbatim, WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED!!!!!!! and I already addressed the relevant issues in the post above. Xcalibur (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

To return to kwami's argument, specifically the mock comparison, there's one more point to address: The question is whether there is any predictive power to a decipherment. I haven't bothered to try, but I predict that using my decipherment to read the tablets, even assuming RR is a notational system and not true writing, would produce gibberish. Does Dietrich's fare any better? the answer is yes. If you read my section, Dietrich applied the theory to texts, and there's an example showing that the interpretation is consistent with known astronomy. This is on top of the numerous, 1:1 correspondences, and much other supporting evidence.

That should complete my summary. Again, pardon the length, there was much to go through, and many quotations to include. At least my digest is much more accessible than the archived discussions. As always, questions/comments welcome. Xcalibur (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Note Under Fanciful Decipherments

Don't censor the fact that the RR group found Dietrich to be a "pseudo-scholar", and that this article passed FA that way, as you just did, or we're going to have problems:

At least a score of decipherments have been claimed since then, none of which have been accepted by other rongorongo epigraphers. ... These include the pseudo-scholarship of ... Michael H. Dietrich.

That's as true now as it was then. Despite Esen-Baur's suggestion that epigraphers take a look at Drietrich, none report finding anything of merit, and she herself has dropped the suggestion. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We've already had problems, as I'm sure you're aware. You won't allow me to contribute to the article, not for any valid reason, but because you personally disagree with the theory. I invite you to review my reasoning, and if you want me to elaborate on any points, just let me know. Again, no one alive today can read rongorongo, so one guess is as good as another, as long as it's published and positively reviewed in the literature.

On the current issue: it's not censorship, because the situation changed. The article passed FA review before Esen-Baur was published, so while Dietrich wasn't eligible at the time, he became viable later. Since there is a positive review (+ other mentions), it's not accurate to say that D's theory isn't accepted. As for pseudo-scholarship, that certainly describes Barry Fell, but not all the names listed there, so it's a bit misleading.

Are you sure the rongorongo group explicitly rejected Dietrich, and/or labelled him a crackpot? As I pointed out in the past discussion, you yourself added that note, so I can't be sure if it speaks for anyone else besides yourself. Do you have any links/screenshots to the Y! study group responding to Dietrich? If so, I'd be interested, last I heard they were inactive. Speaking of which, to my knowledge, epigraphers simply haven't evaluated Dietrich because the field is inactive. Lastly, I haven't seen any withdrawal of support from Esen-Baur. Xcalibur (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who said EB has dropped Dietrich. You can go in circles for ever, but one of the signs of a crackpot is resorting to conspiracy theories that anyone who disagrees with you is out to suppress the WP:TRUTH. And you make my point for me: "epigraphers simply haven't evaluated Dietrich" -- exactly. Until they do, there is no RS evaluation of D, and therefore nothing for WP to cover. Until there is, you're wasting your time rehashing the same material. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

when/where did I ever say that EB dropped D? and I never said the Dietrich theory is true necessarily, just that it's an intriguing possibility; moreover, I believe the sourcing is adequate, although there's a fundamental disagreement on that point. and I don't mean to rehash, I just thought Dietrich's name didn't belong in the note for reasons given. the summary above is rather lengthy, but I distilled all the major points from our even more voluminous discussions, and it should help you to reconsider if you're willing.

you haven't answered: can you point me to discussion of Dietrich by the RR group? I'm not asking this to waste your time, I'm genuinely interested. All you've mentioned so far is a wry quote from Sproat, who was simply expressing skepticism without actually delving in. Xcalibur (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course I can't. If you won't take the word of Jacques or de Laat or whoever else from the group commented, then that's a dead end. But when the experts on a subject make wry comments without delving in, there is at least the possibility that's because they don't find it worth their while to delve in -- as is commonly the case when ppl encounter pseudo-scholarship. You can "prove" anything if your argument is that we should take it seriously it because the academic community doesn't.

Anyway, that's not how WP works. Without RS's, you have nothing. And a RS is an expert on the subject, not a non-expert who wants the experts to take a look. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

De Laat had many useful criticisms on details, but they weren't able to address the major points.

it's possible that they don't take it seriously, but it's more likely that the field is simply inactive. I addressed and refuted the points you made earlier, including the mock comparison, so you may want to reconsider whether it's really crackpot or not. Again, no one can read rongorongo, so it's an open question.

Esen-baur is not an epigrapher, but she is an expert on Rapa Nui, which I believe qualifies the review as a secondary RS. However, there's a fundamental disagreement there, because you insist that the relevant epigraphers weigh in. WP favors gate-keeping, so there's nothing more I can do for the time being.

But why do you insist on leaving Dietrich's name in that note? As I said, the situation changed since FA review. Xcalibur (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Doing your own evaluations is OR. WP isn't the place for that. The fact that you can see animals in the clouds doesn't mean they're there -- we need RS's for any contested claim. It doesn't matter if there are no RS's because all the scholars are "inactive".

Why do you insist that we remove his name? Why not any of the other crackpots? Things haven't changed much. It's still the same crackpot ideas, with even more idiocy thrown in.

Anyway, it's been obvious for a while you've drunk the Kool-Aid, and I'm not going to continue to re-re-re-re-debate it with you on the off-chance that I might see the animals too. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

we're allowed to evaluate whether sources count as RS. Why do you insist that we remove his name? Why not any of the other crackpots? because I'm most familiar with Dietrich, and the Esen-Baur source came out after FA review supporting the theory. Anyway, it's been obvious for a while you've drunk the Kool-Aid as I've repeatedly said, I don't know if this is true. but given the self-evident compounding patterns, and connections such as Polaris = pillar to fish by = , I have to consider it an intriguing possibility, especially since no one alive today knows for sure. I'm not going to continue to re-re-re-re-debate it with you on the off-chance that I might see the animals too. I don't expect you to. you jumped to the conclusion that it's crackpottery long ago, and you won't listen.

The main issue is sourcing; I think Esen-Baur qualifies, while you don't. There are also no negative reviews refuting Dietrich, as there are with genuine crackpots such as Fedorova or Barry Fell, which is another reason why I think Dietrich's name should not be lumped with the rest. Xcalibur (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• You didn't respond promptly, so I took that as assent. I don't want an endless debate, I'm just trying to fix a detail. If you insist on Dietrich being in that note for whatever reason, I can compromise with that, if the claim of pseudo-scholarship is removed. That label applies to Barry Fell of course, but not necessarily to the others, and certainly not to Dietrich. What RS is there refuting it? None. It's just your personal opinion that you're putting above and beyond scholarly journals. To say that epigraphers have not accepted D's theory is true, the claim that it's pseudo-scholarship is unsupported OR and supposition from you, User:Kwamikagami, and it does not belong. Xcalibur (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You're still pushing your personal opinion. The fact that you see the animals in the clouds doesn't mean they're really there. Dietrich is just as much pseudo-scholarship as Fell or the others; the only diff is that the others don't have fans advocating for them.

I don't see how Fedorova is a crackpot, actually. She was rigorous and provided her methods, which is the essence of science. The fact that her results were gibberish demonstrates that her method didn't work, but at least you can check. The reason we chose Fedorova as an illustration is that she was the least crackpotty of the lot. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Your point about Fedorova is well-taken. I'll admit, I didn't delve into the details of that case, I just took it in at a glance.

But claiming that Dietrich is pseudo-scholarship is in fact you pushing your opinion. I already addressed your claims about his methods, at length; I'd rather not get into that again unless you insist on it, for reasons already stated. But there's really no basis for your criticism, so the claim is baseless OR. Bettocchi at least has an RS refuting the method, but none exists for Dietrich. Thus, it needs fixing. Xcalibur (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

btw, but at least you can check. you can also check D's theory, because it too is falsifiable. either it's a notation system or it's not, either the Polynesian star-names match the glyphs or they don't, either rongorongo has a pan-Polynesian connection or it doesn't, either the readings are consistent with known astronomy or they aren't, either the compounding rules apply to the glyphs or they don't, and so on. You never did more than skim through my section and Esen-Baur, as proven, so you're not really responding to Dietrich, more like a strawman version of what you think the theory is.

all that aside, it's misleading to call the theory pseudoscience when there's no support for that whatsoever. Xcalibur (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I said this on my talk page, but I'll repost here: I don't think that qualifies as edit-warring, since I tried different ideas each time, and responded with an edit summary. I'm not trying to add my proposed content, just reformat the note (that you added) so that it's accurate and not misleading. if the RS say that a researcher is building on sand (or on the clouds), then let them be called pseudo-science. but other names mentioned there, including D, only have a link to their primary sources without any refutation. this applies to all, not just D, but it's especially true in his case due to the mostly positive EB review. despite our long-term disagreements, there's no need for gatekeeping or hostility.

as to Austronesier, I said it was disingenuous because it really was. and here's another point -- you said that this is not the place to discuss the merits of theories. but kwami is the one who directed the discussion that way, all I did was respond. Xcalibur (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Now we have another one. Maxime Roche deciphered the Aruku Kurenga tablet and found that it confirms Atlantis (?). Evidently he had the help of rabbits. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok... /facepalm Xcalibur (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the note under fanciful decipherments: this FA was approved before the Esen-Baur review was published, so Dietrich was not yet eligible for inclusion at the time. also, I see no RS's supporting the pseudoscience claim for Dietrich (or half the other names in there). Xcalibur (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, labeling researchers as pseudoscience without RS is baseless OR. You yourself added that note, so the RR study group is an irrelevant appeal to authority. so is FA review, which could've easily overlooked that wording. Xcalibur (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's try this again: The RR group reviewed the article as it was being written. Jacques Guy, as close to an expert as anyone, was principle author as well as a member of the RR group. The list of pseudo-scholars was from him. I didn't even know who most of those people were, which is why I allowed you to post the nonsense on Dietrich -- I didn't recognize his name. If I had, I would've nipped this in the bud before you became so invested in it. So, we have an opinion written by an expert on the subject, reviewed by a group of experts on the subject, and reviewed here for FA. The only other people to offer an opinion also say that Dietrich is nonsense, or par with von Däniken. In opposition, we have you, who for whatever reason keeps pushing Dietrich or at least pushing to water down any criticism. No. — kwami (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the fact that his article has no independent sources, and nothing significant I could find in Google Books or Google Scholar, I'd say Jacques Guy is utterly non-notable. The only source on his article is his dissertation. I think we can safely ignore his opinions and opnions based on his expertise, at least until some writes him a proper biography. Per WP:BLP, a BLP with zero independent sources is supposed to be deleted on creation. Skyerise (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Skyerise thinks that Don Laycock was unscientific because he didn't interview angels. (And no, I'm not making that up.) — kwami (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

And yet Einstein, who essentially interviewed a beam of light, was not locked up in an asylum and is still considered a scientist. Skyerise (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in, I'll note that these are not even remotely similar. I cannot interview an angel, whereas anyone has the option of "interviewing a beam of light" -- testability and reproducibility are cornerstones of scientific inquiry. This false equivalency between the scientific method and the interviewing of angels is concerning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, everyone had the option of interviewing a beam of light before Einstein, but as far as I know, only Jakob Böhme wrote of his mystical experiences with light (and yes, until Einstein's theory was confirmed, it was treated more like a mystical experience than a proper scientific method by other physicists). Not everyone has an electron microscope, yet they can most likely get access to one to do legitimate research; similarly, John Dee could not interview angels, so he hired someone who could, Edward Kelley. There are certainly people who at least claim to be capable of scrying in the world today, so how could one know whether the results of interviewing angels is or is not reproducible without at least attempting to use the proper tools to do so? "I don't know how to reproduce it" is not the same as "It can't be reproduced." I see nothing in the article on Angels that suggests that science has disproven their existence... Skyerise (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The non-existence of something is not provable. See also Russell's teapot.

The existence of angels is not currently testable by any known means. As such, the existence of angels is not something that can be explored scientifically, and thus, until and unless we (the broad "we") discover some means of reproducibly testing and verifying the existence of angels, we cannot treat discussions of what angels have said or done as scientific.

Scrying is not supported by science.

So far, your arguments suggest a profound confusion about the nature of the scientific method, which appears to be leading you to various kinds of logical fallacies. This fundamentally undercuts your arguments. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a weird source on that statement. Why use a textbook on Evolution when there are studies and surveys of studies? - falsifying predicting the future or finding secret but hidden facts about people and the world is rather different than falsifying for communication uses. But why did that thing just fall off your desk? Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In any case, I'm more of an historian than a scientist. Historically, these things were part of proto-scientific theories. Some say the world worked differently then. Of course, there's no way to prove or disprove that either. I'll just continue to add historical information based on historical sources and leave the disbelief to scientists and skeptics. It seems you've got it covered. Skyerise (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion took an unexpected turn! glad to see new editors getting involved.

The RR group reviewed the article as it was being written. Jacques Guy, as close to an expert as anyone, was principle author as well as a member of the RR group. The list of pseudo-scholars was from him. ... So, we have an opinion written by an expert on the subject, reviewed by a group of experts on the subject, and reviewed here for FA.

So you say. But as I proved in our earlier discussion, you added that note: [5] so as far as I'm concerned, you're appealing to imaginary authorities here -- if experts weighed in, then surely you can link the RS, otherwise it's irrelevant. Not only that, but the version that passed FA review did *not* contain the pseudoscience clause! So by your own argument, that baseless accusation should be left out. The approved version simply listed names of researchers who hadn't been accepted yet, it made no mention of "pseudoscience" and didn't refute them. And to reiterate, at the time this article was promoted, the secondary RS review from Esen-Baur hadn't been published yet, so although the Dietrich theory wasn't eligible for inclusion then, it is now. There was never a reason to exclude this except for OWNERSHIP and IDONTLIKEIT. And your baseless OR accusation of pseudoscience does not belong. Xcalibur (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page is a link to the FA approved revision, dated 9/29/08. There you'll see that there's no pseudoscience claim in the footnote. Just because you slipped that under the radar afterwards doesn't mean it should stay. Again, the RS refute only a couple of those names; to call the rest pseudo-scholars without RS is in fact a BLP/LIBEL violation, and that sort of thing really doesn't fly here (or on any other wiki project). eta: I see you finally came around, that is encouraging. Xcalibur (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that you listened to reason for once. But one more thing: Don't censor the fact that the RR group found Dietrich to be a "pseudo-scholar" that's not a fact, that's fiction. Dietrich wasn't rejected by any experts at all! You don't have any RS representing the RR group, so for all intents and purposes, they may as well be a made-up authority. After all, you did spout nonsense about De Laat (which you owned up to, at least) which casts doubt on the rest of your claims. Either way, wiki goes by RS, I've presented a small handful in my favor, while you have nothing but your personal opinion against. What gives you the authority to gatekeep the article? Xcalibur (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the content again for a couple reasons, 1. to give you a chance to reconsider it, and how it fits into the article; and 2. to ask for a reminder of what exactly the objection is. as I said in the summary, is it personal disagreement? Not enough sourcing? I just want to be clear. Xcalibur (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I was openly mocked by User:Austronesier for my claim that a primary scholarly journal, secondary journal review, news article, and various other mentions should be sufficient for adding a section. I noticed that Pozdniakov seems to be built entirely off of his published papers, and one comment by Sproat. It also says there "hasn't been much response". So if De Laat & Dietrich are not fit for inclusion based on sourcing, why should this be? Xcalibur (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You cannot equate Pozdniakov with Dietrich and De Laat. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Check the first five publications that come out in a Google Scholar search for "Rongorongo" from the last 4 1/2 years[6]:

Pozdniakov is cited in four out of five of these papers[7], [8], [9], [10].

Only this paper[11] does not cite Pozdniakov at all, but then its reference list is rather sparse anyway (e.g. no mention of Horley).

Dietrich and De Laat are not cited in any of these five articles. A more extensive look at these search results will not change this picture. (Don't be misled by positive results in a 2018–now search for "Rongorongo+Dietrich"; in all of these cases, it's the "Dietrich" in "Dietrich Reimer" (publisher).) –Austronesier (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)