Hi RiverCityRelay! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, RiverCityRelay! You may call Paul's hypothesis a fringe theory or pseudoscience but then you should provide a reliable source explicitly stating so. Keep in mind that there is nothing particularly pseudoscientific about the Paulian Hypothesis. It does not violate accepted scientific methodology. Being refuted means a hypothesis is falsifiable and therefore science. Regarding its content, it simply boils down to Archaeopteryx being a bit lower on the evolutionary tree. That might have been perturbing in 1988, when minds were still clouded by protoscientific essentialist concepts, struggling to reconcile the Dinosaur with the Bird but in an age where birds are dinosaurs, it should not be shocking if some dinosaur should be closer to extant birds than to some other dinosaur which by some historical contingency once was commonly used to define birds.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to have this "debate" with a paleontologist, if you can find any to entertain you, because your opinions on "protoscientific essentialism" are not relevant to the question of editing the article. Paul's theory is a fringe one by scientific consensus as explained repeatedly in the article in question. Again, you'd do best to review the Wikipedia standards on fringe theories and pseudoscience. It is not at all required that every fringe theory be addressed specifically for editors to prevent an article from lending undue weight to such fringe theories. RiverCityRelay (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Paul's hypothesis was never pseudoscience, even in 1988. It was at the time generally rejected, but this rejection was itself not based on strong evidence. In 2022 we are in a far better empirical position and some cladistic analyses now show troodontids and/or dromaeosaurids as more derived than Archaeopteryx. So, though it might have been an bit fringy when it first appeared in a popular science book, today it is simply one of many possible outcomes, tested any time when analysis is carried out. The term "fringe" is indeed defined by policy as "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" but this wide scope was chosen to battle any form of idiocy that might conceivably pop up. The broad definition is not well suited to judge phylogenetic analysis by, as any new paper strives to depart from previous results. In any case, labelling a hypothesis as "fringe" in the text is in principle loaded language and needs an explicit reliable source.

No, it doesn't. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, as I have explained twice already. RiverCityRelay (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states: ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. Which reliable source claims that the hypothesis is "fringe"? It's uncontested that the hypothesis was generally rejected in the eighties and nineties. Why is it not not enough to simply state this? What is the added value of labelling it as "fringe"?--MWAK (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your acknowledgement that the fringe theory is rejected by scientific consensus. Please refrain from further unproductive argumentativeness. RiverCityRelay (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RiverCityRelay. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  --Blablubbs (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Universaladdress per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universaladdress. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]