Talk:Ostrich Egg Globe

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Seeming copyright violations

This article appears to have had large parts copied from the book "The Da Vinci Globe" By Stefaan Missinne. See [1]. I'm not sure (yet) how to handle this, but I've already removed some problematic text. Attic Salt (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Why are the images marked with a copyright, but when you click the images, they are marked as having the CC BY-SA 4.0 license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.93.74 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV etc

This entire article is based upon one source, Stefaan Missinne. Missinne is described in his publishers page[2] as: "Professor Stefaan Missinne received his PhD from the Economics University in Vienna in 1990. He is Laureate of the Prince Albert Foundation and Managing Director of the Ginkgo GmbH." But there is no evidence I can find that he is a professor. As this Linkin site with his name[3] also states "Owner, Ginkgo Projektentwicklungs- und real. GmbH" I found the company's description here[4] and there are other sources describing him as involved in real estate. In addition the Prince Albert Laureate is associated with business development.[5] He has also published in the predatory journal Advances in Historical Studies.[6] In short, he has no academic background in this field. His 'Da Vinci Globe' doesn't seem to have any academic recognition and although when originally publicised in 2012 attracted interest, as you can see here also skepticism and the possibility that Missinne is actually the anonymous globe. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving to Ostrich Egg Globe also. But is this version before Attic Salt started working on it enough to say unsalvageably corrupted WP:G12, or make that argument at Afd? fiveby (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wants to revert my attempt at "fixing" the article, so that it can be deleted, I'd be okay with that. Attic Salt (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby and Attic Salt: on my talk page User:Davidguam says "Hi Doug, I have an academic relationship with Stefaan Missinne and and I asked for his copyright for this wikipedia article and he accepted. how can i solve the many problems i seem to have ?" Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think an explanation of the WP:SELFPUB, WP:IS, WP:COI, and WP:COPYRIGHT on the users talk page is the first step. Will give it a shot and see if he responds.fiveby (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a copyright release directly from the copyright holder. Is the author aware that he would be giving copyright permission not just for use on Wikipedia, but also for the content to be shared freely by the public? –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doug Weller for this comment. BTW, John Hessler told me that the Washington Post reporter (somewhat) 'distorted' his comment, toneing it down. Missine has no standing whatsoever in the community. The reason is simple: good scientific practice is based on the assumption that a theory cannot be proved, only falsified. Missine simply does the reverse by piling ever more contrived 'evidence' to prove his theory (LdV) and ignores simple basically logic facts which falsify his theory.

Kaygee4 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a move to Ostrich Egg Globe. This is how the Da Vinci Globe source describes it; I've found several instances where Ostrich egg was changed to Da Vinci when it was copy-pasted over. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for an ancient date of the so-called Ostrich Egg Globe is spurious. In contrast to bone which consist mostly of collagen (see wiki bone) which decays over time, avian egg shells cannot change density with age because they consist of 96% minerals and only 4-5% of organic glue. The obvious error of the so-called regression analysis showing 1.40 g/cc means an egg 500 years old is very simple: Density is defined as weight/volume. 5 of the 8 historic specimen entering the regression are carved. This means that material has been removed, making them lighter. In his analysis, Missine calculated the volume from dimensions, remaining unchanged over time. Therefore, weight/volume decreased. Hence, the hypothesis that density change can help determining age is invalid. On the contrary, the low weigth/volume ratio of 1.40 g/cc compared to 2.5 g/cc for ostrich egg shells is proof that his artefact is NOT made of ostrich egg shells. This is not rocket science but simple reasoning. In 2015 we compared CT-scans of a guaranteed >300 years old Ostrich Egg with impeccable pedigree with a modern egg and found no change in density. Confirming the obvious is not readily published so this investigation was never published. Kaygee4 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few edits to the article (and another related article) to tone-down the certainty regarding the date of the globe. Pakbelang (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Professor is something Austrian school teachers have

Yes, he has been given the professional title of Professor. A title that schoolteachers have.[7] He's got the title but he isn't "a" professor as we know it, and by adding this to his name his publishers are creating the illusion that he is a university professor. Which given the publishers isn't surprising. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidguam has been blocked for a year

Obviously not by me as I'm involved. Of course he may appeal. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the replacement of "Ostrich egg globe" with "Da Vinci Globe

Thanks for spotting this. And I can now see a Google preview of the book, and its obvious that Davidguam decided to make a major change when he copied passages from the book. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review by Wouter Bracke

He's head of Collections at the Royal Library of Belgium.[8] The review is here. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Bracke's last name in the header: He is Wouter Bracke, per the review given by Doug. Bracke's publications (according to Researchgate) are here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]