User talk:Filll/Archive 6

Response to -This article needs to be fleshed out/Suz Andreasen

IN response to your comments: I suggest that perhaps the last post was underwhelmed because you may not know anything about jewelry deisgn, functional art and the like. What is more - this individual is shy and the idea that I should "pump" her for more info only portends the idea that I am working as her self promoter which I am not. I did not include her early work in Lilith or her books because I don't want to dilute the article. And - I am pretty tired of this rather sorry and unintelligent comment about her parents. I think I made it pretty clear in the talk that she wants to honor her parents, they are notable, she does not need them to BE notable as she is on her own, (google her yourself), but they are in there because they relate to her origins and nothing more. I hope this answers your questions - if you want more info on her jewelry and that element of her life, I will add - which I have been doing in the last 50 edits, but the rest of it is exactly, or pretty close to what I think it should be at this point. The rules are the rules. I am following them to my best and to the letter. So - once this is put up, and the consensus period is over, (which is should be soon and we seem to have a consensus that it should be kept) then I am more than happy to elaborate further on not only her, but other designers I have knowledge of either through research or personally - dead or living. Let's try and be a little supportive here. We do this in our spare time. I love doing it, but editorial rules must be followed and I have done that. ArchiemartinArchiemartin 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Suz Andreasen

It is not up to me to google her. That material must find its way into the article itself. This is not a judgement on HER, it is a judgement on the ARTICLE. You see? And please try to moderate the tone of your comments. You will find you get a lot more cooperation if you do so, and people will cut you a lot more slack if you have built up a good reputation.--Filll 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Suz Andreasen

I see that and that is exactly my point. I think the article is well written and versed on the topic. My tone is firm nothing more and nothing at all personal. I build my reputation on what I know - not what I don't know. Hope this helps you understand ArchiemartinArchiemartin 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas about Suz Andreasen/Weak Keepl

I suggest that perhaps your last post about being underwhelmed by my article on Suz Andreasen is because I have been basically hammered to death about NOT going on more about the subjects personal life nor my insights as that would not be in keeping with WP:BIO. I have read all of the bios in this category and quite frankly, with the exception of Lalique, I was not only underwhelmed to quote Filll, but also feel that I have done en excellent job at editing this. If you look at my edits, I have done now more than 40-50. I am more than happy to add more but at this time, I would like to see not only a little more support from editors to keep, (especially those who know about functional art and design) but also a little less waffling here. The rules are the rules. I am following them to my best and to the letter. So - once this is put up, and the consensus period is over, (which is should be soon and we seem to have a consensus that it should be kept) then I am more than happy to elaborate further on not only her, but other designers I have knowledge of either through research or personally - dead or living. Let's try and be a little supportive here. ArchiesmartinArchiemartin 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rfc

DONT put comments on the RfC page: use the RfC talk page. Please, ... dave souza, talk 17:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Got you. I am always doing the wrong thing here it seems.--Filll 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Support for evolution

I've just nominated this article for deletion. In addition to the explanation I gave there, I thought that I would give an explanation to you specifically as well, since you created it. I've seen many articles like this in the past dealing with other subjects. Most of the ones I have seen have been made concerning criticisms of companies, and were created by supporters of the company, not opponents. By having such an article, support for the point of view espoused within it can be removed from the main article, thus skewing the articles that most people will read to the opposing point of view. In this way, having a "support for evolution" page would quite probably damage support for evolution on Wikipedia. What you need to do is add the relevant information to the appropriate articles, but cull much of the information that isn't informative and just takes up space. Having a list of organizations and scientists who support evolution isn't helpful, for example, since it could be taken to imply that there are reputable scientists and scientific organizations in the appropriate fields (or even in any field) who don't support evolution. Information about polls should go on the main page for the controversy. --Philosophus ^T 07:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for evolution

I'm confused. How is "support for evolution" different from evidence for evolution? --ScienceApologist 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I understand your idea that there is a creationist bias on Wikipedia, but I think you're going to have to back away from this one and change those articles to be more balanced. There is a definite problem with POV forking and making an article that ostensibly is told "from the evolution side" is doing a couple of problematic things: 1) it's buying into the controversy as having "sides" which is a POV in its own right, 2) it's leaving wide open the possibility for original research problems. What constitutes notable "support" for evolution outside of the scientific evidence for it? This feels a little bit like a personal essay on the subject, not one that is a generally-considered article. You might consider submitting this to evo-wiki, I think it may be more appropriate there. What do you think? --ScienceApologist 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• What you are doing now is (seemingly) recreating Evolution poll (although it is somewhat broader in scope). I don't think such an article will survive since there is precedent for deleting it. What may survive is an article like Political context of the creation-evolution controversy. That would at least be the closest to what I think you're getting at (and would actually be a spin-off of the section in the main article like a good content fork should be). What do you think of that? --ScienceApologist 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whew! Filll, some of those titles you are proposing are so long-winded as to be begging for deletion. Again, it seems to me that your ideas are excellent and insightful, but bordering a bit on original research. Rewriting the entire controversy article might be a good idea. God knows I've wasted days on that article and it hasn't gotten anywhere, but I think its organization is atrocious. Please do consider instead of making a parallel article, simply trying to incorporate all the information present in this article in a new fashion that is more likely to be based on brilliant prose. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• One thing I have noticed that is lacking in creation-evolution controversy is secondary sources. I haven't gone to the political journalism section of the library for years, but I know for a fact that there are a lot of good books written about the controversy as history/politics/etc. We might want to rewrite the controversy article with an eye towards using secondary descriptive sources as a guideline. The first place to start might be with an overhaul of the History of the creation-evolution controversy article. However, I'm not too enthusiastic about the prospects for an article like "support for evolution" surviving. After all, it's a confusing title. I think I'm going to vote that it be merged with evidence of evolution, with no offense to you, of course. --ScienceApologist 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Measurement to me cannot be done very easily on political controversies. Would an article like measurement of the gay marriage debate work? I don't think so. No, any claim to "measurement" would be hotly contested and lead us down the garden path of original research, in my humble opinion. --ScienceApologist 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for evolution

You really outdid yourself on this article. Well written and very well researched. I don't know what the original version looked like because I only saw it after you'd already altered it based on the AfD feedback. I think the article will probably stay, based on people's reactions. I know it is aggravating to have your article nominated by deletion--just thought I'd mention that I think it looks good. Tarinth 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Fill looks like your support for evolution work is gaining support. What a coup. You write and communicate well. I think your efforts to spear head rewriting the evolution article to maintain content yet communicate to a broader audience is finally moving. It has been exhausting trying to win favor for minor changes in the past. I think the article is slowly heading in the right direction, but the efforts often become stagnant or never come to fruition. How many times have certain frailties come to light by different readers, yet no change. GetAgrippa 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

an evolution question

i think that you have good knowledge about the concepts of evolution. So here are a few of my [personal] questions.

• Which was the oldest specimen found with its DNA being intact.
• What is the commonly accepted date for the chromosome number change from 48 to 46.
• Amongst hominids, which is the oldest found specimen found with its intact DNA.
• When the number of chromosome changed in hominids, did this change happen to just a couple or to a population of few thousands. (I mean, how can a thousand people be born with the same genetic mutation.)
• Do you have an idea about the number of chromosomes in Neanderthals.

Thanks.nids(♂) 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are all great questions. My knowledge of genetics/biology/evolution is pretty limited, since I am a physicist. There are probably others here who are much better suited to give you an answer, but we can leave it here on my page and others will answer I am sure since they visit my page from time to time (are you guys reading this?). Anyway, I will give you a completely amateur response to those, without even trying to research them. Let's see how wrong I am when others correct me!!

My GUESSES

(And these are pure guesses so do not trust them!!!)

• Which was the oldest specimen found with its DNA being intact.

I am not sure. Of course there are samples of Mastodon DNA from many tens of thousands of years ago that appear to be fine and are the subject of cloning etc experiments. I recently (last year or two) heard some news about much older DNA being recovered intact from something, but to be honest, I cannot quite remember what it was. It strikes me that it was millions of years, but unless I look it up, I am afraid I cannot recall. Sorry.

Well, even if we get a Mastodon DNA, we cannot produce a clone from it. {Since a living cell is required to induce mitosis(if that is the correct word)}. And it seems unlikely that such technology could be develpoed even in the near future, which can clone from dead cell.nids(♂) 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very very early in this game. It is not yet clear what can and cannot be done. I only know that there were some attempts to try.--Filll 12:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I just listened to a story on National Geographic radio (get XM Radio to hear it, so this isn't going to be verifiable), that the oldest human DNA they've been able to extract is around 12,000 years. However, there seems to be some problem with how specimens have been stored and such that reduces the ability to extract DNA. So I don't know for sure, but I think it's not that long. I think that Jurrasic Park stories about extracting DNA from amber are a bit overblown. Orangemarlin 00:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is the commonly accepted date for the chromosome number change from 48 to 46.

Another good question. I think that we are pretty certain that modern humans extend back 100 or 200 thousand years, presumably all with the same chromosomal structure. So I am guessing (pure guess again) that it would be probably 200 or 240 Ky BP. How far off am I? Remember that even in current day, we have people with an unusual number of chromosomes that appear, I think. What about the XXY or XYY people? I am really clueless about this all though. This is pure guess.

XXY or XYY is completely unrelated concept. they are just sex chromosomes. We also have X in Turner syndrome. My question relates to the fusion of 2a and 2b chromosomes in hominids.nids(♂) 22:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Amongst hominids, which is the oldest found specimen found with its intact DNA.

Again a great question. I am going to guess that 10 Ky BP or so. I think they are struggling to get DNA from Kennewick man. I think they are able to get DNA from that guy in Switzerland that fell on a glacier and died. I would guess those would be about the oldest. I do not think we have any reasonably intact bodies going back farther, although again I might be wrong about this. You can get DNA from hair, but if it is not kept in ice or something, or a desert tomb, I think it decays with time. There are fancy tricks they try to use to patch up DNA when they have overlapping damaged strands (which is probably more along my lines of work; I could help with that work), but again I do not know enough about it to give you a great answer. This is pure guess. How far off am I people?

• When the number of chromosome changed in hominids, did this change happen to just a couple or to a population of few thousands. (I mean, how can a thousand people be born with the same genetic mutation.)

I am no expert, but I think given population bottlenecks, I would postulate that it only happened to a couple to start with and then spread. Remember the Mitochondrial eve and the whatever you call it adam ? Well that is where I draw my intuition from, but again this is pure guess. It is hard for me to imagine a natural mutation event that affected a large group simultaneously, but then I am no expert.

It is called Y-chromosomal Adam. But again, it is unrelated to my question.nids(♂) 22:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have an idea about the number of chromosomes in Neanderthals.

Another great question. No I don't, and I think we have some pieces of damaged DNA from Neanderthals, but I do not know if we have complete strands. We have to get input from an expert! So I invite any experts passing my page to give their input, or links, etc.--Filll 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is now DNA from Neaderthals that is good enough to sequence, but the work has not yet been done. See Neaderthal Genome Project. For human and ape chromosomes, see Human evolutionary genetics, with references to go further. WP is a good source for this sort of thing, but you need to search in Google to get the right article name. DGG 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is your friend. Try:

• Ancient DNA
• Chimpanzee Genome Project
• Neanderthal#Genome

Regarding the question of the fusion of 2a and 2b, it only needs to happen in one person. Fusion of two chromosomes isn't necessarily going to stop them from pairing up during meiosis, so there's no reason to assume that a person with 2a and 2b fused being unable to reproduce with someone with unfused 2a and 2b. Guettarda 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, I must clarify that i did read the articles (on wiki and elsewhere) before putting my question here. And none of the article addresses any of my question directly (I may be wrong, for which i would apologize in advance). Secondly, from what i know about genetics, two people with haploid no. 23 and 24 may pair up, but they cannot produce fertile offsprings, except under exceptional circumstances. For example, Mule is almost always sterile.nids(♂) 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the issue of sterility comes from failure of the chromosomes to pair during meiosis because they lack a homologous partner. That said, chromosomes will still pair up if they recognise certain regions of their partner - X and Y chromosomes still pair, despite the fact that most of the Y chromosome has been lost, and there are also some regions which are non-homologous with the Y. Consequently, if you stick two chromosomes together (2a and 2b) they still retain most if not all of their original structure, so I would expect that there would be no problem for 2(a+b) would pair up with 2a and 2b during meiosis. Guettarda 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hey Filll, I think I'm going to call it quits based on the guidelines that you highlighted for the rewrite of that article. I am very much pleased with your plan. Anyway, although I don't have to, I'd like to apologize for wasting your time and making people generally feel uncomfortable. I hope you can understand that I acted with the best intentions and only wanted to clarify something that I think, along with the information I presented, is true. Thank you for your help and participation.UberCryxic 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You did fine. It is good to make sure people are aware of the distinction between the process and the theory, because apparently some editors have never heard of it. I was stunned a few weeks ago when one of the editors who originally wrote that section in evolution wanted to claim that there were not two meanings to evolution, and that the facts of evolution were not data, but instead were the theories. He felt that the theories were so well established they could be called facts. This is semi true, but really just confuses the issue.--Filll 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

discredited theories

I am a little puzzled by your statement in italics on the discussion of Irreducible complexity: What's more interesting are the theories that should have died or been modified but didn't (mainly because some famous scientist got their ego stuck in front of it ref: Einstein, Hawking) Which of Einstein's theories have been discredited? Some have not proven productive so far, such as his attempt for a unified theory, but I do not think his interpretation of quantum mechanics has been disproven, rather than become unfashionable. Which of Hawkins? Perhaps his prediction about information crossing black hole event horizons? Yes, this appears unlikely, but it is only one of his many theoretical concepts on the general subject. In both cases, what is the relationship to Einstein's or Hawking's ego. It is not helpful to oversimplify theoretical physics. It is not helpful to make glib remarks about the relationship of the personality of famous individuals to their theories. DGG 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to also disagree with that statement. I don't know of any situation where it is true for Hawking, and the main case I can see for Einstein is his attempt at a unified theory, which, as far as I know, was never presented beyond its framework and didn't really live past its time (excepting the few crackpots, of course). Perhaps you meant Penrose, with his consciousness works? But even then, it has more to do with people placing more weight in the ideas of famous scientists than with the egos of the scientists involved. --Philosophus ^T 06:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Filll was quoting someone else who said that and asking that person what he or she meant by it. A little more attention never hurts.UberCryxic 22:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Graphics

One thing I can definitely not do, and that is any sort of graphics. I'm a word person. DGG 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: More precise

I don't believe that the Methodist, Catholic, or Presbyterian denominations accept evolution, though I don't know about the other ones. Show me something from the Catholic church that supports evolution --froth^T 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. Catholics are asked to reject an intelligent design that contradicts evolution in order to be in agreement with the Church position. On the 12th August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic Schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal.--Filll 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks I had no idea --froth^T 01:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Most mainline Protestant churches in the US have no opposition to science/evolution. Guettarda 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that Froth asked the question, and was surprised by the answer. We've been in a bit of a intense edit war around Talk:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, and many of the editors are writing as if the only religious perspective is the fundamentalist/creationist viewpoint set out by the US religious right. The RC viewpoint appears to be highly nuanced, but in general, science and faith are compatible in their opinion. The Catechism does not state a Creationist philosophy (although it is technically ID). Actually, from my perspective, I don't mind the ID'ers, as long as they stay out of the schools, because many of them accept Evolution and ancient earth, they just have a supernatural being running the show. Close enough to quit arguing as long as it stays out of the school system. Orangemarlin 23:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

fulbecke

Good start. Now figure out how to use the citebook template so the refs in the text match the full titles in the reference list. It will look much more carefully prepared. and the main thing is to get a reference for the nurenberg trial use. DGG 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, good friend, my primary purpose at WP is not to rewrite articles for you. This is the 2nd one I helped you with today. Please at least make it easy for me by putting in the links yourself, putting in links & text if needed in pages that might link to it, putting things in chronological order, and learning how to enter bibliographic references. Of the relatively few WP people interested in these topics, most of them do care about a certain level of finish. I'm glad to see you moving into scholarly territory, now write like you belong there. DGG 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

names

If the two names look the same check the disam pages & add the new link--I dont think it is automatic. DGG 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird experiment

I use to do research in developmental biology and that blossomed into an interest in evo-devo. I read about this in a Science article. It is one of those scratch your head results. Development can be so sensitive to perturbations which produces developmental defects and yet this experiment defies logic. Not the results I expected. It was just an anecdotal comment. I thought it odd that drastic genetic mutations and alterations could still produce normal development. Apparently biological systems can be very forgiving or have parallel or backup systems-transgenics and knockout's often don't produce the expected results. A recent discovery in Arabidopsis mustard plants is an unknown mechanism to actually replace a mutant or defect to produce normal offspring, although the genome contains no resource to replace the defect. I couldn't help notice DGG's comments on referencing. Referencing is a pain in the ass on this Wiki and different people use different means. I always screw it up so dometimes I will just place the reference in the Talk and let others edit it in.GetAgrippa 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they developed normally but all developed cancer. I would have never thought a viable embryo least a normal (anatomically and physiologically)mouse would have developed. Over half of all cancers envolve mutations in p53 and this protein plays a role in the cell cycle and in apoptosis. Both cell cycle events and apoptosis are essential to developmental processes, so just a mutation there alone would make me doubt anything normal (however they also had chromosomal abnormalties and other mutations). GetAgrippa 17:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

User talk:Raspor. Finally. I hope this type of person is not common on here. Orangemarlin 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced categories on non-Main text

Sorry about that. I am still fairly new and there are lots of things I do not understand about WP.--Filll 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. I removed them because the article that you were writing on your talk page was showing up in the category view, among the other articles. Unless the articles are in "article space" (that is, not inside of a user page), they should not be visible except for internal use. I personally think that it's the best to just start a new article rather than making a draft your own user space and then copying the result when it's done, that way you can include categories and also allow other people to help you out on the important core structure of the article. —msikma (user, talk) 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When I first came to WP, I would just start a new article right in MAIN. However, what has happened repeatedly is that I am hit with all kinds of speedy delete templates, no reference templates, nonnotable complaints, etc. And so I have started to develop the articles in various scratch spaces. When I have been collaborating with others, I have invited them in to edit these articles in scratch space; either my personal scratch space, or the scratch space of an article. I would not have done this if I had not had some many complaints about writing text in MAIN. Finally after enough trouble, I have given up and resorted to starting in scratch space. That is why I do it. --Filll 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I've faced the same problems too. See some of the deletion requests for the Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate article, for example, or the huge discussion at the beginning of that talk page which I was forced to enter. Anyway, I hope you will finish that article without too much problems! —msikma (user, talk) 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Acting against consensus

As far as I can tell, the article in question is very much "under construction". The article dealt with "support for evolution" as though it was purely a matter of a conflict that was brewing between evolutionists and creationists. That isn't a discussion of the support for evolution, that's a discussion of what creationists believe is the support for the various sides in their invented controversy. Moving the article to a name that doesn't involve evolution is important because it has only to do with what "evolution" is in the minds of creationists/general public influenced by creationists. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, quit moving these articles around without fixing the resulting double redirects. There's been a proliferation of subarticles on this subject recently - evidence of evolution, level of support for creationism, misunderstandings about evolution, evolution as theory and fact are just the ones I know about - and they're getting difficult to navigate. Briefly, this is not talk.origins and we don't need to anticipate and refute every piece of nonsense a creationist might ever utter; can we reduce the TLDR factor on some of these? Opabinia regalis 17:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis I understand your frustration. However, in our defense, I will point out a few things:

• We are not, and cannot be, talkorigins (see following section). However, we can offer something unique and useful.
• There is a substantial amount of material on WP on the creationist side of this controversy. For example: Creation (theology), Origin belief, Creation within belief systems, creationism, Modern geocentrism, Theistic evolution, Progressive creationism, Old Earth creationism, Gap Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Young Earth creationism, creation science, intelligent design, Neo-creationism, Pre-Adamite, Creation-evolution controversy, Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy, Creation and evolution in public education, History of creationism, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, List of Young Earth Creationists, Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, Answers in Creation, Creation Science Evangelism, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, American Scientific Affiliation, Fundamentalist Christianity, Christian right, Evangelicalism, Conservative Christianity, Access Research Network, Leadership University (web portal), Campus Crusade for Christ, Creation Science Association, All About God Ministries, Intelligent design, Intelligent design (disambiguation), Santorum Amendment, Teach the Controversy, Critical Analysis of Evolution, Irreducible complexity, Specified complexity, Fine-tuned universe, Intelligent designer, Intelligent design movement, Theistic realism, Intelligent design in politics, Wedge strategy, Critical Analysis of Evolution, Michael Polanyi Center, Intelligent Design (book), Access Research Network, Discovery Institute, Quality Science Education for All, Center for Science and Culture, International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, Biologic Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Truth in Science, Omphalos (book), Creationist cosmologies, Creation according to Genesis, Adam and Eve, Biblical inerrancy, Biblical infallibility, Biblical literalism, Biblical inspiration, Creationist cosmologies, Flood geology, Creation biology, Baraminology, Science and the Bible, Kashut - Reasons for the Biblical dietary laws, Biblical archaeology, Fine-tuned universe, Rare Earth hypothesis, c-decay, Omphalos (theology), Cosmological argument, Dispensationalism, Created kind, Baraminology, Variable speed of light, Starlight problem, Mediocrity principle, Anthropic principle, Cosmic pluralism, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science, Horizon problem. Is it wrong to balance this a bit with some articles on the other side of this controversy?
• I do try to write my articles and create articles where one only has to read the first 3 or 4 sentences to get the point of any article (Evolution as theory and fact is being rewritten to accomplish this, hopefully).
• I try to summarize major points in tables that are easy to digest.
• The longer supporting material in my articles (after the first 3 or 4 sentences) is only there for those who are interested in knowing more details, or who want to see my claims in the first few sentences backed up. I favor very short LEADs if possible on WP articles.
• I did not move the article around capriciously, and I did it only once. This is being done because of the tremendous disagreements and hard feelings that exist, as you can see on the talk pages, and the AfD pages etc. Obviously we have people that want to ignore consensus to act unilaterally.
• If you read the talk pages and AfD pages of Misunderstandings about evolution or Support for evolution, you will see that there is a planned long organizing article planned, probably called Objections to evolution. Two versions are currently in sandbox form right now (see one at User:Silence/Evolution). Presumably some of the material in Creation-evolution controversy that overlap with this planned article will be removed or rewritten to present a more seemless interface and rational division of topics.--Filll 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, your list of "creationist topics" does not inspire confidence in your ability to conduct proper research. A good many of them are not creationist topics at all. --ScienceApologist 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that some are more closely related to creationism and some are more distant. I am not going to put a huge amount of effort into a quick post on a talk page, after all. I would be glad to put my abilities in "proper research" up against yours or anyone else's , on WP or real life or anywhere else.--Filll 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I look at Creationism as anything that presumes a supernatural answer to what is scientific. Of course, maybe there's a better word, which I will refrain from using, to lump everything from the Loch Ness Monster to UFO's to Creation Science. They're all pseudoscience. Orangemarlin 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I agree with SA that you're casting your net too wide here; a substantial number of those links are about creation, but unrelated to creationism, and others like fundamentalist Christianity are about much more than creationism. More broadly, parity in "number of articles" is hardly a useful measure of relative coverage.

On the current set, I'm not convinced that evolution as theory and fact needs to exist, as it seems more instructional or tutorial than reference material (perhaps it has a better home as a chapter in a wikibooks project on evolution), but I could be convinced with a rewrite. Do I understand correctly that misunderstandings about evolution and the content formerly at support for evolution (I believe this is now at level of support for evolution, at the time of this writing) are to be merged into one article at objections to evolution, or is that outdated? I can't keep up. Opabinia regalis 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't think there's any more food needed here, do you? Opabinia regalis 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As you surmised, Evolution as theory and fact is going through a substantial rewrite, with many more references discussing the issue, and more historical and scholarly material. Theory vs. fact objections are the most frequent objections, and have appeared in dozens of state laws and several court cases, so this topic is worthy in that sense. It is obviously not well understood. It is also a topic of dozens of creationist tracts and numerous popular accounts of evolution, many newspaper columns, magazine articles etc. It has had prominent discussion in two National Academy of Science publications and several others as well. Originally this was meant to replace the completely confused sections discussing evolution as theory and a fact in evolution and in Creation-evolution controversy but it became too long for that, so we made it its own article. I realized it was not clear enough or scholarly enough, so I have been collecting material and rewriting it. You are also slightly confused about the plans and intended prospects for Level of support for evolution and Misunderstandings about evolution. Silence and I and Orangemarlin have been advocating a general article called Objections to evolution that would include the material from Misunderstandings about evolution. It would also have a short summary paragraph or so about Evolution as theory and fact and Level of support for evolution, but because of length considerations, they would remain separate articles. There presumably could be some other long articles also expanding on short paragraphs in Objections to evolution as well, but this is not clear yet. The idea is to describe in a NPOV way a small fraction of the arguments and/or objections put forth by evolution denialists, and to provide links to some useful pages out of the copious amount of other material on the internet, such as some pages at talkorigins, and at National Center for Science Education and other places. A more careful description can be found at the talk page of Misunderstandings about evolution if you are interested. An early draft can be found at User:Silence/Evolution--Filll 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're going for at evolution as theory and fact (though I have to say I'd chuck that first table out the window so quick that passersby might be in danger). If level of support for evolution is to remain its own article in the long term, then it still needs a better name even after all the moves; at a first attempt, I'd suggest popular opinions of evolution, or something that specifically indicates in the title that it is about popular reactions and not about the science itself.

FWIW, I used to run a forum for discussing evolution/creation issues (what possessed me to do that, I'll never know) and I do like the idea of an explicit effort at covering the common arguments well (if nothing else, how many stupid internet flamewars might it cut slightly shorter after yet another post by yet another unoriginal troll). But at the moment these articles are difficult to navigate and not really serving their purpose because they're close in length to the talk.origins FAQs, and less organized. If that gets fixed post-rewrite, you guys will have a useful set of articles here. Opabinia regalis 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you have a suggestion for a name, put it on Levels of support for evolution on the talk page/strawpoll. We are open to suggestion. I also agree that the little table is sort of sad and I have a replacement table made for it. However, I sort of find that tiny first table charming, although I guess it has to go. Unfortunately it is not really accurate and it is too small with too little information to be of much value. Yes they are too long and poorly organized so far. The goal is to make them very accessible (at least their first 3 or 4 sentences) with supporting material deeper in the article. Then to have a main article like Objections to evolution but with only short descriptions of each objection and answer, and links to longer articles that expand on the objection and response. Hopefully, a person interested in quickly seeing a list of major objections can find them, with short answers and links to more material. As you know, I have always argued for accessibility. That is the biggest drawback I would say for the material on talkorigins and National Center for Science Education (NCSE); a casual reader cannot really see all the objections listed and a one sentence response, and cannot easily find the supporting material. In both cases, they are just sort of amorphous masses with no site map. They both are a bit out of date as well and do not include a very wide range of material either, which I plan to do. There is plenty of value to presenting a good roadmap of the main creationist websites and links to their arguments, which is also not easy to find on talk origins and NCSE.--Filll 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Already posted over there; I know I missed the original discussion, but 'levels of support' is painful. On the planned 'objections' article - this is making me a little concerned; even if such a thing is missing from other sites, we shouldn't have a 'list of objections and one-sentence responses' either; WP:NOT a FAQ (or an FAObjections). But I'll reserve judgment, as navigating through and finding specific information is a perennial pain in the talk.origins material, and a compilation of common related objections would be encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis 05:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How is 'levels of support' painful? Too hard to read? Or too long? or? badly organized? You are quite right about the FAQ. It has to be done carefully. I just hope we can do a better job than some of those other sites. There are also quite a few sites that list 5 or 10 major objections/misunderstandings. I know WP is not a list of links, however: We could perform a valuable service by even just finding and listing the main ones/best written sites. Of course, there is no way to be as comprehensive as talkorigins, which deals with literally hundreds or even thousands of objections. But we can provide links to some of their material as well as those of competing sites, as well as those of creationist sites as well, and that would be handy.--Filll 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Posted my objections to 'level of support' in this thread - 'levels' doesn't accurately convey what the content is (currently) about, and the title gives no indication that it's primarily meant to cover popular or layperson acceptance, and will discuss matters in that context. I don't share ScienceApologist's concern about 'sides', which I don't entirely understand.

On objections - I agree on the matter of usefulness, as long as the eventual article prioritizes being an encyclopedia article over being useful. Useful things get AfD'd all the time; we don't need any more articles in this group on AfD. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request to disengage

I have requested that Raspor stop engaging in debates over Intelligent Design as they violate WP:NOT and do not help with the larger goal of encyclopedia-building. I would like to ask you to likewise disengage. If he is looking for a debate on ID, evolution, and creation science, he can find a web forum offwiki. If you have any questions, please let me know either via my talk page or e-mail. (Just ignore that big ol' Wikibreak banner--I clearly am.) -- Merope 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it

Talk:Creation science has some interesting discussions going on. I'm still at a loss as to why they (meaning those who are convinced that little green men created the earth) can babble on about their ridiculous POV, and we (meaning those who believe in science and rational thought) get ripped to shreds when we have an ever so slightly nuanced comment about their myths. Frustrating. I'm going to have some mead. Orangemarlin 07:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just hang in there. It's not just the POV stuff that gets me, it's the sleight of hand that the IDers practise that gets me. Orangemarlin, have an extra glass of mead for me.Trishm 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Never had mead, but after reading Filll's link, I might have to try it. I do hang in there, and I love the subtle changes some editors make, that aren't overt vandalism, but still need to be reverted. Someone put in one link in the Evolution article referencing some inane Discovery Institute article. Tiresome, really. Orangemarlin 17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with talkorigins

I think that we can offer something that talkorigins cannot.

• First, we have wiki-technology, so we can write much nicer articles with much nicer links.
• Second, we can be updated more rapidly
• Third, we are not trying to advocate for a given position like talkorigins or National Center for Science Education or Answers in Genesis is. We are compelled to present both sides, with their strengths and weaknesses. This creates a very different and in some ways more "honest" appraisal of the current situation than the more biased venues can or do.
• fourth, we are open to a much wider range of contributors, so we can in principle have a much wider range of material
• Fifth, we can function more like a review site or meta site than the others. I cannot go to Answers in Genesis to find this kind of information about competing organizations that support creationism:
  • Discovery Institute
  • Institute for Creation Research
  • Answers in Genesis
  • Creation Ministries International

because basically, these organizations, all ostensibly on the same side, and nonprofit (some of them), are in actuality competing commercial enterprises that disagree drastically with each other on doctrinal issues and strategy.

• Sixth, Wikipedia can take a far more academic approach to the subject, drawing on a much wider range of expertise than the pure creationist websites, or the science apologist sites. Wikipedia can offer the subject from multiple perspectives, critique and summarize the perspectives of the other organizations involved, etc.
• Seventh, I am not sure that any of the others have their information organized in a reasonable fashion for someone who just wants to learn about subject, from a neutral perspective, or even from the scientific or creationist perspectives.

Orangemarlin first came here to find information on the subject to combat trouble at his local school board. He was very disappointed with what WP offered on the subject. What WP had was basically worthless for him trying to learn about the issue, so he joined up to help contribute. The average person on the street does not even know to go to talkorigins. They know Wikipedia has articles on lots of stuff. And I personally use Wikipedia as sort of an intelligent search agent to point me to sites that I am interested in, rather than digging through pages of google output or dogpile output. Someone has already done that and organized it for me, on many many subjects, on Wikipedia already. It is far easier and faster to use Wikipedia than to reinvent the wheel. And that is what Wikipedia can do on this subject; Wikipedia can organize this incredible mass of information into something accessible (like an encyclopedia does, actually) for someone who just wants to know where to get started, what the issues are, what sites to visit, what is there, etc. --Filll 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hardly ever edited until I was trying to find information about Evolution. For the past couple of months, I've probably spent 2-3 hours a day on these issues!!! I like your idea, but I think the NPOV police will delete it. Of course, I am so confused by NPOV that I'll never get it right. Anyways, I'm probably not quite as critical of the articles as you are. I don't think much of what Creationists have done to the articles, but I learned a lot of valuable discussion points with regards to Evolution. Orangemarlin 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Renomination of Group-Office

Discovered this by accident and it confirms my decision to quit Wikipedia. I urge you to do the same. This project is no longer sustainable, and will only lead you into frustration in the long term. I'd hate to see that happen. All the best, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

• Durians-Ate one while in Singapore a few years ago. They smell like a men's locker room, but much worse. More like a men's locker room not cleaned for about 5 years. But they are sweet as anything I've ever tasted with a flavor that is unmatched (and I don't mean sweet locker rooms either). But they are banned on the Singapore mass transit system, although there is no smell until you open the fruit. What I don't get is who was the first person to say, "I'm so hungry that i need to eat this thing, despite it's awful smell."

• Lutefisk-Actually each Scandinavian country (meaning linguistically, not Finland) has a version of lutfisk (spelling is different in each country). I refused to eat it, because I swear it looked like herring jello or something of the sort.

• Miquelon and St. Pierre are one of the few countries in the Western Hemisphere that use the Euro. You'll have to explore trivia to find the others. Also, I can't remember the exact story but I believe the English invaded the islands during WWII, ticking off de Gaulle, whom both Roosevelt and Churchill distrusted.

I love trivia too.

Orangemarlin 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not know Denmark had a rotten fish dish. Do Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia count too? I am of partial Scandanavian ancestry and we ate lutefisk every Christmas. I do not like it at all. I have had a frozen Durian here (the frozen ones are far cheaper but less pungent than the fresh ones). I liked it. Apparently when the Jamestown colony was founded in 1607, the Spanish had been in the area a fairly long time already. There was even a Jesuit mission not that far away (not sure where exactly). So all this pride over the brave colonists and so on in the wilderness is sort of overblown. In fact there was a rumor for years in the history/archaeological community that part of the high death rate of the Jamestown colony was that the Spanish had poisoned the English well. They recently ran a test on the Jamestown well and found no traces of poison. I heard this in a documentary on CSPAN with a bunch of learned professors discussing this. I was a bit strange to hear that they expected to still be able to find traces of the poison after 400 years, but they are the experts; what do I know? It does strike me as somewhat comical all the excitement over this colony (and even MORE over Plymouth Rock, for some reason which I do not understand) when the Spanish had been in St. Augustine for decades already at that point, and the Basques in the Nfld area, at least during the summers, for perhaps even longer (maybe even since before Columbus, but no one knows for sure). When I visited the first permanent site of Europeans in the Americas in Jacksonville, I found it overgrown with weeds and barely a sign to mark it (it is not the fort itself, but another site a ways away). It is sort of funny. I guess there was an even older French site a bit further north but the Spanish wiped them out to keep the French from getting a toehold in the New World. I guess it does not count since they did not speak English, but you know that salsa has been outselling ketchup in the US since 1992? The radio stations with the biggest audiences in places like Minneapolis and St. Louis and Washington DC are all Spanish. We are in the midst of a demographic shift, and few people realize it (well california and texas and Arizona realize it, but the rest of the country is just barely starting to wake up to it). Another great piece of trivia I like; the difference between catsup and ketchup. They are two different transliterations of the original word for a type of fish sauce in Malaysia which was then imported to China and became a Chinese word, and from there picked up by European traders at Chinese ports. Ah yes...trivia..--Filll 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I have been to the Baltic countries, I do no know about there like or dislike of lutfisk. Technically, they aren't Scandinavian countries, since Estonian is a Finno-Ugric language (so they're ethnically closer to the Finns), whereas Latvia and Lithuania have Baltic language groups, and are ethnically quite separate from Scandinavians, Slavs and Germans. I don't know how you even touched the Lutfisk. I was in southern Sweden a few years ago during the Christmas Holidays, and was taken to a traditional Swedish holiday meal. It started with goose blood soup. I ate it (being somewhat brave with food), but I swear it tasted like rusted iron soup. But I like goose, so in the end I enjoyed most of the meal. Desert, as I recall, was high calorie, sweet, and delish. One of my recent interests are the runestones found throughout North America. I think that they are mostly hoaxes or the such, and may qualify as pseudohistory, but they are intriguing. As we once discussed in one of the many discussion that we've been involved, the Vinland site was once thought to be pseudohistory, but then were discovered based on some sagas from the Vikings. I'm suspicious, but who knows? It's not like Noah's Ark!!!! With your Viking heritage, you should look into it. Most of the articles are kind of pathetic, so who knows, maybe we can make a noncontroversial addition to Wikipedia!!!  :) One of my other major areas of trivia/hobby is linguistics. I don't get much into words and patterns, mostly into the family tree of LInguistics. It shows evolution (both meanings) over time. Since there was no Tower of Babel (another great myth, more fascinating than Noah), I am fascinated about how languages moved geographically too. Part of my family background is Welsh, and I love hearing Celtic languages. Anyways, look up Rune stone. Orangemarlin 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy now

I just read your latest contribution to raspors talk page. Interesting stuff but don't get yourself blocked. You're just letting him play the persecution card if you take the low road. Did you get it all out of your system? David D. (Talk) 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have avoided raspor since he was blocked from editing. I think it is best if he be ignored while he serves his sentence so he learns. That quote attributed to me on his page is from another discussion, and taken out of context. Raspor took it and reposted it on his page. I thought about removing it, but that might cause more trouble yet. In my partial defense, I will note that I was not referring to any individual on WP, or slurring anyone personally.--Filll 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Projects underway

• Objections to evolution drafts
  • falsifiability
  • Evolution as theory and fact rewrite
  • evolution as religion draft
  • Level of support for creationism Name controversy
• Bee inebriation
  • Bee inebriation???? Do tell Orangemarlin 20:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bees and drunkeness

Rough draft of article is at User talk:Filll/beedrunk--Filll 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems strange to me, but I do have faith in most experimental science. Could you give me more info, if only to satisfy my curiosity? I'm wondering how the bees get drunk in the first place - is this through alcohol consumption or consumption of nectar from certain plants? Now, I've not seen this sort of thing with my own hives (but, I'm in the UK, if this is place specific), but it's well known that bees will attack others from different colonies unless they're carrying food, and that there are some mites (or some disease - not sure) which can cause the legs to become damaged. I'm quite interested in this now :). Off to Google for me! Martinp23 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard this on a documentary or a book review. I want to find it again and put it in an article here on WP because I was quite amazed when I heard it. It was a show full of amazing bee facts that just stunned me. I am not really a bee person either. Apparently the nectar ferments under certain conditions and the bees get intoxicated. And some bees are more tempted by it by others, and the drunk bees cause terrible havoc. They stagger, they cannot stand up straight, and they have trouble flying. If they get drunk enough they apparently just lay on their backs and kick their legs in the air. Some bees get belligerent and get into fights with other bees when they get drunk. A research team in Ohio is studying aggressiveness while drunk and using bees as models of human brains on alcohol. Bees also get terrible hangovers that last for about 48 hours. I will put all this with cites in my Bee Intoxication article.--Filll 05:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I think it has potential - after all, it's no more strange than exploding whale, an archetypical Wikipedia article (and an FA). Guettarda 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur - it seems you have bee experts commenting as well, to ensure accuracy - I will watch this with interest. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as will I. Good work! Martinp23 19:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I did it as a joke, but I think that the bee experts have given it the nod, so I might even make it a real article. It is interesting, but sort of whimsical I admit.--Filll 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO you should put in the effort to make it a "real" article - as Guettarda points out, it is no stranger than exploding whales, and Wikipedia is not paper. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now incorporated the comments of several reviewers in the article, and run it past 3 bee "experts" and incorporated their comments. I am just about ready to launch it on its way I think. --Filll 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bees and inebriation

Please take a look at my rough draft at User talk:Filll/beedrunk and give me your opinion.--Filll 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

bees

The experts you consulted, judging by their replies, confirmed that the toxic effects on bees do occur, but not much more. If there's a reply that says more than this, send me the link, for I may have missed it.

If you do want to improve it a little: 1. The effect of alcohol and its analogue to the effect on humans is one subject. The effect of pesticides and other toxins is another. If you combine them both in one article do not use the same phrase for both. I suggest "ethanol intoxication" instead of plain "intoxication" throughout that part. 2."Bees have brains and nervous systems that are similar in some ways to humans," is almost total nonsense. The phylogenetic lines separated before either of them had much a nervous system, and very definitely before either of them had anything resembling a brain. Check the articles on the origin of the phyla. Their brains are definitely not similar, any more than their eyes are. 3. Comparisons to humans are irrelevant. If you add ethanol to their culture media, you will first paralyze and then kill any organism. Even protozoa.

I will not Afd the article myself If you want to keep others from doing so, use a very inconspicuous title. Bee sensitivity to toxins might work. Then two sections 1. ethanol, 2. other toxins. Do not use intoxication in the article title. I am about to take apart the exploding whale article, since it too deals with 2 completely different phenomena--even less related than your two. all I can say further is don't take it personally.

Please reply on your own talk page --it is easier to follow the thread that way. Its on my watchlist & I check it once a day. Best wishes, especially when you work on worthwhile articles. DGG 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this draft might not be worthwhile; I wrote it as a lark, to amuse myself (after all, working on Wikipedia has to be fun too). I am not sure if I should divide it up into a couple of articles or not. The "experts" made suggestions and wanted more references which I tried to address. According to the people studying the effects of ethanol on bees and fruitflies, the reason they are using them is that in several ways they are not that far from humans (evolution at work I guess). It is somewhat surprising to me that they could be valuable models of human alcohol abuse, but they apparently are. There is quite a large literature about it. I only describe the tip of the iceberg (I guess the value in using fruit flies and bees is that they breed fairly fast and we can do genetic studies easier on them etc). So as strange as it seems, that is what gets funded. I am not a biologist, so it all seems sort of funny to me; that is why I wrote it.--Filll 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The good thing about exposing these articles to criticism, is that every time someone brings up something, like "I do not believe that bees and humans are sufficiently similar to be a good model for alcohol inebriation", then it shows me a hole that I need to fill to address what my readers might be thinking. So I will.--Filll 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DGG, I have now extensively rewritten this article and I am considering the title Bees and toxic chemicals or something similar. The current draft is at User talk:Filll/beedrunk.--Filll 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A few of the remaining problems. 1. do not use the word drunk with respect to bees. 2. add PMIDs for every article that might be in PubMed. 3. The press release does not support the human analogy. read it carefully to the end. 4. The anthropogenic poisoning sentence took me a while to decipher. I think you mean: humans putting poisons in honey to poison other humans, & I do not see the remotest connection with the article subject. I will look again when you've added it to WP.DGG 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will avoid the word "drunk". I have many press releases and several real papers; I will check to see which is more suitable. I did tone down the claims of parallelism however. Wow I am shocked about the anthrpogenic poisoning sentence. It made sense when I composed it. I have to see what is wrong with it. It of course does not mean humans poisoning the honey of other humans.--Filll 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "drunk" is now absent except in direct quotes and in source titles. I have included quotes that support the potential for using a bee model (which might be a stretch, but that is how they get their money). I replaced the "anthropogenic" sentence with something hopefully clearer. I added PMIDs whereever possible. I have a third review from a beekeeper/bee expert on the page. I cleaned up some typos. So I think it is better. Comments? User talk:Filll/beedrunk.--Filll 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Need help with a link

Hello again: I was so impressed with your dead horse, I would like to link it to my user page, if I have your permission. Actually, it fits in with the question of "what is normal"? I also have an interest in Hinduism and creationism. And, yes, now I want to know more about bees. If I have your permission, I would link my user page to the dead horse, but I am having trouble doing it technically. Richiar 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

hey, good catch on this one [1]! thanks. -- frymaster 17:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Civility and ad hominem attacks

Filll, your recent discussions about creationism have been--and I'm going to be blunt--rude, inflammatory, and absolutely out of line. Characterizing your opposition as deluded and stupid is not how a civilized debate is conducted. Your comments about Muslims in particular reveal that you have negative prejudices against people based solely on a limited understanding of a belief system, and, well, that's not cool. Is it so difficult to make your point without saying, "Not only am I right, but everyone who disagrees with me is crazy and ignorant"? You wrote, "Just shut your pie hole about it and do not throw a tantrum if others do not believe what you believe", but the only tantrum I'm seeing is yours. For the record, yes, Philip J. Rayment pointed out this discussion to me, but I want to be clear that he is not the only editor who has contacted me about your particular style of discourse. I think you need to calm down, make your statements without any accompanying insults, and treat the opposition with respect. If you cannot do that, then you shouldn't be engaging in this kind of debate on Wikipedia. I'll give you the same advice I gave raspor: find a web forum to argue. We're building an encyclopedia here, not engaging in hostile debates. I'm trying my best to be civil in discussing this, and I'm sure I've failed, but please, refrain from stating such gross negative generalizations about people based on a perceived belief. It does nothing to further the discussion. I apologize if I was rude--I probably should have waited longer before making this reply--but given that a number of editors have questioned your debate techniques, I felt I should apply as soon as this recent example was brought to my attention. Please feel free to contact me, either through talk pages or e-mail. I will be happy to continue discussing this (and I promise I will calm down after a spot of food). -- Merope 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll,you know I'm on board with you 100%. And I started on here as indignant and rude as possible. I've tried to calm down, though I get incensed when the other side makes condescending commentary to me. But look at Raspor--he disrespected the culture here, even when he made valid points, to his on detriment. There's an old theory in business about the "Emotional Bank Account." You start out with positive feelings from everyone, and you get to add to your account as you do things that get positive feedback from others. Once in a while you get to make deductions from it especially when you get angry or something. I'm sure you're on the positive side of things, because Merope didn't boot you out of here. And I think Phillip Rayment just doesn't like you and I for whatever reason, but I try my hardest to not give him ammunition. Let the rude people be on their side. Editors have to be passionately neutral, as difficult as that may be. So, I'm trying to follow this advice, and when I read something that ticks me off, I write a response that I want to write in a Word document. It gets it out of my system. Then I respond the way Wikipedia should be treated. Again, remember Raspor...everything he did was wrong. You know your stuff about Evolution and Creationism. A lot of people do. I know that people like Felonius Monk and bunches of others get really upset with some of the Creationist tactics in many of the articles, but it is clear that they try to be as neutral as they can be. It's hard, and I agree that some of these Creationists are foisting their agenda on us, but let them look bad with their vandalism and rude remarks. Let's take the high road. In the long run, the fact of Evolution is a fact, and the Creationists have lost on every battleground everywhere, including here on Wikipedia. The Evolution article is one of the best ever, and it does not start out by saying "the Earth is 10,000 years old." Trust me, you'll live longer if you fight your battles when it really matters.Orangemarlin 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Personal Attack

Hi, I removed the personal attack on the discussion page of the failed mediation page, since it violates No Personal Attacks policy. Please comment on contributions not the contributor. Thanks. Bearly541 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)