Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 June 28
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < June 27 | << May | June | Jul >> | June 29 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 28
editDoes any of this mean anything?
editHow can I get information on whether the gibberish in this article has real-world meaning or not? Requests for cleanup over many years have gone unheeded. Does Wikipedia have psychology experts who can comment? Bracha_L._Ettinger#Psychoanalytic_theory Equinox ◑ 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Humm. Not going to comment just yet but is worth a read; even though I got lost after the first period after the first sentence. Which came before everything that came after. Which all comes together (eventually) to paint a holistic verbalized image of I know not what. Aspro (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Have you listened to Bracha Ettinger lecture? Blooteuth (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why don’t you do the research and mould the article into sense? Aspro (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- It would be somewhat helpful if that wall-of-text was split into paragraphs. It would still be mumbo-jumbo, but easier to read. — 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:90BF:36D1:C424:982A (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just what the world desperately needs: easy-to-read mumbo-jumbo. Oh wait, we already have Plain English tax laws ... -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would have thought that anybody presenting a theory, for it is only that, would do so in a way that would be intelligble to most people without the need to constantly check the meaning of so many abstruse words. Or perhaps I am way more stupid than I thought. People often are! Richard Avery (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- While whiling away the hours the other day, I downloaded the 150-page proof by Andrew Wiles of Fermat's Last Theorem, to see how much of it I could grasp with my increasingly rusty 35-year-old degree in mathematics (et al). I did not get past the first paragraph. The time has come for a "Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for Idiots". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- However if you read Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem you will have a very broad overview of how the proof works, and what it is about -- Q Chris (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I read that first, and my appetite was whetted for the finer details. But it remains unslaked. There must be a middle path. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- However if you read Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem you will have a very broad overview of how the proof works, and what it is about -- Q Chris (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- While whiling away the hours the other day, I downloaded the 150-page proof by Andrew Wiles of Fermat's Last Theorem, to see how much of it I could grasp with my increasingly rusty 35-year-old degree in mathematics (et al). I did not get past the first paragraph. The time has come for a "Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for Idiots". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would have thought that anybody presenting a theory, for it is only that, would do so in a way that would be intelligble to most people without the need to constantly check the meaning of so many abstruse words. Or perhaps I am way more stupid than I thought. People often are! Richard Avery (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there an award for Wikipedia's worst article? If so this could be nominated! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- We already have such an illustrious award ! It can be esily summonsed up by evoking, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to grant us the holy privilege of resorting to a sacred triphthong. To the uninitiated reading here, (whom may have not found how to gain access to our very un-secret inner circle), we refer to this award as simply AfD. For something to move beyond hypothesis to a theory there has to be some underling evidence. So even his holynesss make more sense to my brain than this. Aspro (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)