Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

Peer editing 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Jsotelo3 (talk)
He did exceptionally well on his article. All citations seem to be accurate and everything followed in a very organized manner. In each category of his article, he gave good descriptions some parts were brief, but gave a basic understanding. Jsotelo3 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)No pictures were needed but some could have been added for more effect. Overall he did a great job.
 * Thank you for your feedback.Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Wikipedia already has a detailed article on the Creation–evolution controversy, and does not need a second article on the same topic. If there is any information in this article that can usefully expand the existing article, it should be copied there, and this article left as a redirect. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read the article that you have mentioned Creation-evolution controversy. While there is some overlap between the two articles, I believe that this article has enough unique material to merit being its own article. For example, much of the Creation-evolution controversy article goes into explaining the various creation views (which can also be found in the article Creationism, which has not been merged or deleted), whether creation should be taught in public schools, various points of dispute between creation and secular science (human evolution, transitional forms, macroevolution, etc...), and several other categories. It should be noted that the two articles in question Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate and Creation-evolution controversy are written in two very different approaches, and there are only a few instances where there is true overlap. While the Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate article uses a compare/contrast approach in comparing either side of the debate, the Creation-evolution controversy focuses more on the secular view of science (regarding the areas of overlap), and does not offer the best of the Creationist's arguments against evolution. Therefore, it is my suggestion that this article be kept separate from the Creation-evolution controversy article. If it is desired that readers of the Creation-evolution controversy article be able to see the information in the Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate (as a merger of the articles would suggest), then perhaps a see also insert could be placed under the Disputes relating to science heading linking to this article. Best regards,Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, your article might contain different information from the other article, but they both cover fundamentally the same topic. Retaining both articles creates a content fork, which Wikipedia tries very much to avoid. If you feel that your article has information that the original article is lacking, improve the existing article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the same reasoning, the Creationism article would also create a content fork, and should be merged. However, I am not aware of any proposal to do so, nor do I recommend such a merger. While the content of these articles are similar, it gives the reader a more freedom to streamline their search for relevant information. Merely added to an existing article will only make it bulkier, and will likely reignite content debate over issues that have already been resolved in the Creation-evolution controversy and Creationism articles. The topics covered in Creation science also have overlap with Creation-evolution controversy; however, it, as I propose that the Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate is, has a different enough focus that it can be considered a distinct article. I do not see any reason that the Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate should be merged with an article that would be cluttered by the addition of this information. It should be kept separate (as I said before, linked as a See also would work well) on this basis. To simply move information from this article to Creation-evolution controversy would be to negate the fact that the styles of writing are very different, to purposes of the articles are different, and the tone is different. In order to make such a merger work, this article would be summarily destroyed in the process, and I do not believe that is desirable for anyone. Sincerely,Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Creationism article is mostly about the Creationist belief itself, and not mainly about the argument of Creationism vs Evolution. But both your new article and the pre-existing Creation-evolution controversy speak directly to the argument of the one position vs the other, so the existence of both articles is redundant. Clearly, you disagree with my position on this matter. Fortunately, we have a consensus procedure at Wikipedia, so we can wait for other editors to weigh in on the topic before a decision is made. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I greatly respect your work in improving Wikipedia, as evidenced by your many Barnstars on your userpage, and I certainly do not intend for there to be provocativeness in my statements. I respectfully disagree, and will gladly comply to whatever the consensus may be. Best Regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article, which appears to be a homework assignment for undergraduates, is being compared with a mature major article that has been honed for probably a decade of probably heavy editing, influenced by scores or highly experienced editors, coming from diverse perspectives. It just seems like an insult to the many editors that contributed to the current article to give this homework assignment the same weight.  Leave it in a sandbox.  After the semester is complete, no one will care.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's definitely WP:BITEy to be so dismissive of a new editor's effort. I completely agree that the two articles should be merged, and likely there won't be much here that can be used there, but every little bit counts, and we should apprectiate GG19's efforts.  E Eng  06:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that this was an assignment has been brought up several times, so perhaps I should bring some clarity to this issue. This semester was my professor's first time involved in this project (in which Wikipedia invited colleges to take part in). It was thought at the beginning that students would be writing their own wiki articles; however, it was only later clarified that it was preferred that students take stub articles and improve upon them. This article was written prior to this revelation. Also, do not use the fact that the course is about the art of argument. It was made clear from the beginning that Wikipedia is composed of neutral articles, and that both points of view must be presented. The reason I created this article was to present what I thought was lacking in other articles concerning creation and evolution, which is the arguments of the Creationists. Yes, they are presented in the other articles, but the main focus was primarily on the evolutionary evidence and arguments. This is not bias one way or the other on my part, but an acknowledgement that such articles should have the strongest and best of the Creationists' arguments presented. Best regards.Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you have any particular content from this article in mind that you think should be merged with the Creation-evolution controversy article? It seems to me that it is rather inevitable that this article is going to be merged, given the amount of support that your proposal has received. If you have something specific in mind, I would be most interested to hear it, as I do think that this article does have something to offer to the existing Creation-evolution controversy article, and I would be willing to help in any way that I can. Best regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I think the only part of this present article that brings new information to the table is the section on the personalities involved. The list of prominent scientists who come down on each side of the issue might make a nice addition to the Creation-evolution controversy article. The rest seems to be already well-covered there. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, that is an honest assessment. I figure that this conversation needs to take place sooner or later, as support for your proposal seems to be growing steadily. It seems that supporters of your proposal are split into those who want to delete the article entirely, and those who want to merge specific parts of it with the Creation-evolution controversy article. It is my suggestion that those editors who wish to merge the article begin discussing what should be merged sooner rather than later. Best regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You have commented a couple of times that this article presents better / stronger arguments from the creationist perspective than are in the other article on the controversy. I am interested, because that argument should present the strongest possible materials offered from the creationist perspective. Whilst I agree with other editors that NPOV requires the scientific view to be weighted strongly due to it being the consensus amongst sources, that does not mean that the creationist perspective should be weakened by presenting only its weaker / weakest evidence. In fact, doing that would be a POV violation. As the person who wrote this article, I would like to hear what you think is inadequate / weaker in the existing discussion. This goes to what evidence is presented as opposed to how, and it is the latter that is problematic in your work when applied to an encyclopaedic purpose. I say this to indicate that the task you were set is appropriate as an academic exercise but not for a neutral encyclopaedia, and I am glad to have read your comment elsewhere that the instructor of your course is re-evaluating for next year. Learning from events is a great way for them to be avoided in the future, and sadly in this area the regular editors of WP have experienced repeated cases of education program tasks ill-suited to the content as it exists, which has made for ongoing issues like this one and thus "oh no, not again" feelings. I am sorry that this happens as it causes stress for both sides and can discourage potential editors from remaining. Please believe that the fact that your contribution has met with resistance does not mean that you are unwelcome, just that you have run into an area where your work is misaligned with policy. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear that your question falls under the WP:TLDR category. I have no idea what it is you are asking of GG, nor do I think they will understand either. Without all of the apologetics, can you please rephrase your question in one or two sentences to make it easier for GG to answer? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept that I've mixed together explanation, reflection, and question, but I do think what I've said is good for GG to hear. Some of the resistance here and the comments are reflecting "oh no, not again" feelings (understandably) but the many other cases that have happened are not GG's fault.
 * GG, earlier you said that the existing article on the controversy "does not offer the best of the Creationist's arguments against evolution." We should be presenting those; in fact, NPOV requires.  What do you see as the areas included in your article but missing from the other one in this area?  EdChem (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, which I had no problem understanding. Under the 'Geology' category of the Creation-evolution controversy article, it simply states what Creationists believe, and that they dispute radiometric dating methods. However, Creationists have other reasons why they believe the Earth is young apart from their disdain for radiometric dating, like the folded/bent rock strata (I had included this in my article; however, it was deleted by Isambard Kingdom, who has already voiced that this article has no useful information, and should be deleted. I think that is a possible conflict of interests). I didn't include this in my article, but Creationists often cite the fact that several rock samples were taken from newly formed rock after Mount St. Helens irrupted, and they dated to be much older than they were (whether their methods are good or not, I don't think that matters, as Creationists still use it as evidence). I think that the 'DNA as information' argument in my article is one of the stronger arguments made by Creationists. One problem that I see in the Creation-evolution controversy article is that it will mention a creation argument, but fail to explain what evidence Creationists use to support it. For example, under the section 'transitional fossils', whale evolution is brought up. I believe it would be beneficial to state the evidences Creationists cite to support their claim that those fossils are not transitions between animals, but distinct species. While the article I wrote does not go in depth in the points it brings up, I think the points it brings up are good, and, if elaborated on, would be very useful as a whole to the aforementioned article. The 'cosmology' section in particular seems to be lacking in any Creationist argument. While it is true that the reason Creationists ultimately believe the way they do is because of what is recorded in the Bible, they do present reasons for believing that. I think that the Creation-evolution controversy article tends to fall back on the 'they believe it just because of the Bible' line of reasoning. Again, thank you very much for your comment. Best regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabriel, you would benefit from investigating geology, biology, and cosmology in more detail, possibly reading corresponding articles on Wikipedia. It is clear that these are subjects that interest you, but the ideas you are presenting above are confused and inaccurate. Folded rocks, for example. An entire branch of geology is concerned with metamorphism, heat and pressure changing the form and mineralogy of rocks (and, yes, folding them). The section of the article on information is also very off base, and factually flawed. Just saying. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabriel, thanks for responding. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.  EdChem (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabriel, with respect to Mt. St. Helens, you might be interested in this article by Kevin Henke: . Of course, even if there is "controversy" on this issue, it has little to do with the age of the Earth. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just reporting on what the Creationists are arguing; I am not trying to say that their arguments are either valid or invalid. So, with regards to factuality, I, when putting this article together, was looking for arguments that are actually made by Creationists, and, if you follow the footnote to the article, you can see that this (concerning rock folding) is an argument made by Creationists. However, I should say that I may not have worded my statement well, as the article was referring to the bending of sedimentary rocks that show no sign of metamorphism (changes made by heat and pressure, which alter the chemistry of the rocks, causing limestone to turn to marble; yes, I do know this)(it should be noted that an Evolutionist may say that the rocks do show signs of metamorphism, but I do not know whether they do or not). I am glad, however, that my interest in topics pertaining to the natural world does shine through. Best regards. Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding with concrete examples. I think you have identified some interesting issues with the existing Creation-evolution controversy article, so I will share some of my thoughts on that article.
 * Geology: The section cites few references.  The coverage of radiometric dating states (without reference) that creationists "usually dispute these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties caused by diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes."  The disputes I have encountered have (both in a book by creationists and debate with a colleague who is a talented chemist and a tenured academic but (somehow) also a young earth creationist) pointed to a specific paper where different methods produced wildly inconsistent results, reported by scientists who noted that there was no apparent flaw in techniques and the methods have widespread acceptance.  The paper concludes that they have no explanation for the discrepancy.  Creationists interpret it as evidence of a flaw in one or both methods, which is not supported by the paper nor by the multitude of analyses which provide consistent results, so my conclusion was that creationists are taking "something odd is happening" and turning it to "all radiometric methods are flawed and worthless."  I think that examples would make this section more interesting and accessible.  Creationists sometimes argue that decay rates are not constant p. 91, which is also not in the article.  One problem that you need to be aware of, Gabriel, is that wiki policy does not allow us to cite a paper and then creationist comment and then note that creationists are over-interpreting of data unless we have a source that says this (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH), which can be an issue as sometimes no scientist has bothered to publish a refutation of something scientifically unreasonable.  We could use a book like this which has a chapter on discordant dates and the scientific papers it cites for the creationist perspective, and this for refutation, but ideally then need to find a scientific paper both consider.  My point here is that it can be much easier to be policy-compliant in saying they fall back on the bible than to engage with their treatment of the science in detail without the sources to back up what is actually needed (even when a scientifically trained editor may immediately know why it is flawed).  Materials like p. 208 would support some of your comparison materials but they would still need to be presented in an NPOV manner.  Isambard Kingdom has posted some materials relevant to your point on the Mount St. Helens and pointed out that folding of rock strata has a well-established scientific explanation is and is entirely consistent with geologic time scales and processes.  However, it is worth noting that p. 154 notes that Austin's work on 40Ar and Mt. St. Helens misused techniques by ignoring they were unreliable for rocks under 2 million years old.
 * DNA and Information: I agree that the creationist argument on DNA and information appears strong to those lacking the necessary background in science.  It is also very surprising to me that it is not covered in the existing article.  There are two arguments here that should be covered.
 * (1) That mutations can't lead to new information, which misses the role of natural selection. p. 73-82, esp. 79-80 on what creationists claim about evolution, and the scientific view
 * (2) That the laws of thermodynamics prevent either the formation of complex systems or evolution leading to new characteristics. This also sounds plausible as the Earth as a closed system makes perfect sense, unless the definition of "closed system" is understood.  The decrease in entropy associated with complex systems and life is more than made up for by the increase in entropy in the energy source (the sun).  Sources: p. 158     (this last one addresses transitional fossils)
 * Cosmology is an area where my understanding is limited, but again there are sources
 * Gabriel, I wonder what you want to do now. If you want to work on content for the existing page, that would be excellent.  For policy reasons, I don't think this article will survive, but you could ask that it be moved to your user space where you can use it to build content for the existing article.  I guess you are disappointed by the reception it has received, and it is unfortunate that your instructor's approach was misaligned with Wikipedia poloicy and practice, and also that there was no advice given on duplicating existing topics.  You are making valid points on deficiencies in the existing article, I am surprised that the effort to address the non-biblical basis for creationist views is undercovered, though I can see why it is a challenge to write in a policy-compliant manner.  EdChem (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your well-written response, and it has helped me see the difficulties in sourcing information. I agree that this article will not survive, and, since I have it saved in a word document, I feel that I do not need to have it kicked back to my user space (as I can simply copy/paste it there if I should choose to work on it again). I would like to help improve the content on the existing page, though I don't know how much time I will have to do so. It is rather unfortunate that this had to play out this way, but at least my experience will help prevent things like this from happening to future students of my professor. What surprises me is that the course my professor went through in order to participate in the wikiproject did not make this sort of thing clear. Again, hopefully improvements will be made, and other students will benefit from it. Best regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it is sad when events like this take place. Before the Education program was established, the situation was much worse, believe it or not, partly because students were editing inconsistently with policy, having articles deleted, and then there was conflict over it as the articles were needed for them for there courses.  Attempts have been made to reduce conflict with guidance such as at Course pages: Student assignments may also be developed within the "Wikipedia namespace", the "User namespace", or "Draft namespace". All assignments should use course page within Wikipedia's administrative namespaces not the Main article namespace, including those participating in the U.S., Canada, and other Wikipedia Education Programs as well as independent courses.  We now have guidance for instructors here and here (where this piece of advice would have been relevant for you, though a link to WP:SYNTH would help too), suggestions for designing assignments, and a specific editor with experience on content and policy to assist your instructor  and you students  in your case.  There is also an Education Noticeboard to discuss course issues, and in this case, what has happened.  I will post there shortly, and ping you to provide a student's perspective on the experience, if you wish to comment.  Sometimes, the problem is that we don't know where problems may be, so we try and give an overview which covers policy, but not knowing what areas might turn out to be important, and the instructor doesn't know what questions they don't know to ask.  In this case, though, I am concerned that OR and SYNTH were evident as a problem area from the course aims, and yet was not addressed.  Hopefully, we can learn from what has taken place.  EdChem (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding the above merge proposal
and I have reached a stalemate on the above merge proposal. I'm seeking input from third parties regarding the issue. The question at hand: should this article be merged into Creation-evolution controversy? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support That's a pretty clear merge target; this article basically constitutes a WP:CFORK. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Object as creator of Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate article per discussion under 'Merge proposal'.Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rather go for a delete. In one of the edit summaries by the article creator, he states that "The point of this article is to summarize the points of debate in the debate...". Ergo, a summarising duplicate of Creation–evolution controversy, upon which it by definition does not expand (see criterion A10 for speedy deletion). What also concerns me is the way in which this is written: a debate instead of an encyclopedic article. In fact, we have a template warning against that. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OpposeOpposeOppose - besides the procedural issues of too-casually WP:RFC for WP:MERGE, I think of the proposed merger as undefined, unwarranted, and unwelcome. Really just NOT ready for RFC.
 * Procedurally, doing WP:MERGE should TALK more than a few days about it before even THINKING of going to a normally 30-day RFC, in particular clarify the topic intended at each and the items of distinct different content or focus a bit, then since this is a controversial topic area I think it will need to do both WP:MERGE steps and WP:PAM.
 * Undefined here is even the basics of what is it being intended to merged where -- this proposal seems to be suggesting a MAJOR edit at Creation-evolution controversy, without even describing the rough idea of is it wanting dumping this article content as a section there or interleaving it or redoing that articles sections, and who is going to do all that work and how ????
 * Unwarranted merger if the logic is only 'there's already an article' since there are whole CATEGORIES of creation articles, and there are other candidates such as Objections to evolution.  Creation-evolution controversy alone has categories of Creationism, Evolution and religion,Intelligent design controversies, and so ... why is THAT article the plae for THIS conent ???
 * Unwanted -- or at least not ASKED at the other page if they want this content ... I'll just go there and mention it and invite comment on if they want their longer, more worked on article to get this major edit just dropped in.
 * anyway, will see in the usual 30-day RFC what transpires. Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The RFC does not have to run 30 days. That's just the default setting of the bot that cleans the RFC page. We can choose to end this RFC at any point we feel that sufficient consensus has been met and no more comments are coming in. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, your comment about whether the editors of Creation–evolution controversy "want" this content implies a level of WP:OWN that we frown on at Wikipedia. The point of this discussion is about whether this new article should remain intact, given that it is a content fork of the older, pre-existing article, or whether any salvageable content here should be merged into the existing article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually that was just highlighting that the basic WP:MERGE procedure to involve the other page had not been done, and that I would backfill a bit to do so. (Logically if a merge didn't then they could just RFC splitting it back out again.)    See WP:MERGE procedure -- Step 1 Create a discussion "This is usually done on the proposed destination's TALK page, but exceptions exist." and "Notify Involved editors (optional)"  plus in Step 3 "Discuss the merger" that "You may be able to evoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. " and "Alternately, you can contact the potentially interested editors by notifying them directly from the merge discussion page, which is simpler for you and less intrusive for them."   There was no post at the Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy and no mention or apparent notification of those editors.  I remain opposed to this merge proposal as a too-casual and too vague jump, and as undesired to simply append in some undefined manner this still-forming content of different structure to that more mature page.  But we'll see over the remaining weeks what others input. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. My opinion: The Issues article has good info on the different viewpoints and can be combined into the target article, because both articles are written on the same subject.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Support merge or Delete with redirect. This article has some organization and small amount of content that would be usefully incorporated into Creation–evolution controversy. There is virtually nothing in this article worth saving, and we don't need articles that are so on such closely redundant subjects. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to creation-evolution controversy. The present article is a non-neutral POV-fork of the main article.  It is practically an object study in WP:EQUALVALIDITY.  Most of it appears to be original research, in violation of WP:NOR.  Specifically itemized content for "merging" to the main article should be proposed at the main discussion page, but I see very little salvageable content here.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no original research done in any apart of this article. All information had already been stated, and connections between points have already been drawn. If you follow the citations, you will find this to be the case. This article merely shows both views. If one did not show both views, then its title would hardly be appropriate. Best regards. Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GEVAL and WP:SYN. The division of the topic into two "camps" is unsupported original research that is systematically committed throughout the article, with the apparent purpose of teaching the controversy, and giving both "sides" equal validity, in direct contradiction to the WP:NPOV policy.  A reliable secondary source naming participants in each of the "two camps" is necessary to avoid committing original research.  Finally, the science itself is quite clear on the matter, and creationism (or at least YEC/Creation science) is an anti-science movement.  This article relegates the science to the opinions of a number of critics of creationism, and presents countermanding opinions with equal weight.  This manner of framing "the debate" is entirely original research by synthesis.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I note further that the topic of "creation-evolution controversy" is not so easily divided into two opinions. There is a spectrum of opinions on the subject, as already discussed in the article creation-evolution controversy.  The miscellaneous arguments for YEC and creation science are already covered in much greater detail in the appropriate sub-articles: Young Earth creationism and creation science.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to creation-evolution controversy for the reasons offered by Sławomir Biały. Or better, delete for the reasons given by HyperGaruda. Apart from some of its quaint but eminently disposable statements, such as "The vast minority of scientists hold to the belief that God created the universe as recorded in Genesis", I don't see any useful material not already expressed more appropriately in Creation-evolution controversy. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per . Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or very selective merge per comments above, especially "The present article is a non-neutral POV-fork of the main article."  The question is the relative quality of a homework project by undergrads vs a mature article refined by hundred of Wikipedia editors over a decade --Smokefoot (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, all great articles must start somewhere. The original 2004 version of the Creation-evolution controversy is a mere shadow of what it is now, and those involved in making it into the article that it is now should be greatly thanked. However, if no one started improving on it in the first place, then we would not have that vast amount of information on Wikipedia. Best regards. Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is a reasonable and substantial article as it stands now. But what has that to do with your inappropriate offerings? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep this discussion civil. Calling this article 'inappropriate offerings' is irrelevant to what it actually does or does not have to offer. Best regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Partial merge or redirect. I appreciate the intention and efforts behind this article, but it is honestly somewhat superfluous, and to me creates the impression of a lower-quality digest of another, better-curated article. This should not be necessary; if it is perceived as necessary, then Creation–evolution controversy should be improved instead. In addition, the simplification of the complex debate into this pro/con list naturally overemphasizes some issues and proponents and gives short shrift to others, resulting in a stronger POV than the more nuanced treatment in the main article. Overall, I don't think the article constitutes a net benefit.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tone in which you write; I appreciate it. Best regards, Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support delete or redirect with merge of carefully selected content, per HyperGaruda, Sławomir Biały, and other excellent comments above. The article is substantially a content fork in template:debate format. It is also inadvertently a POVFORK. This article may warrant a high grades for neutrality in an "art of argument" class for trying to equally present arguments for both sides, but Wikipedia's neutrality is to accurately summarize information in context and proportion to Weight in sources. A good Wikipedia article does not argue a side, nor does it try to argue both sides. Wikipedia summarizes what Reliable Sources say. When the preponderance of sources are inequal then the our "neutrality" is to accurately reflect the inequality that exists. In theory that issue is fixable, however per this proposal, any valuable content is better handled with merging to Creation–evolution controversy. Alsee (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for procedural reasons only. First, this article was created in October, so of course the quality is lacking. Second there was only a brief merge debate then RFC. No discussion or invitation was made to Creation-evolution controversy talk page until after the RFC. Third when the RFC was initiated, it was categorized to "Maths, science, and technology" and "Society, sports, and culture". "Religion and philosophy" was not included, so the comments here may be one-sided. I added religion and philosophy today. Fourth if there is no intent to keep any of the material, then it should have been labelled as a proposed deletion rather than a proposed merger. If the intent is to merge the article, then it should have been clear how it is proposed the merger takes place prior to any poll/survey. WikiDan61 has not made it clear how the merger would take place, clarity would be useful before the straw poll. Lastly the straw poll (survey) should not have been introduced immediately following the request for comment. A discussion first would have been more useful and less polarizing. I would suggest allowing time for page improvement then revisiting the merger/deletion proposal in a few months in the proper manner. Relevant quotes below...
 * Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others.  from WP:RFC
 * If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject. also from WP:RFC
 * "Editors should exercise extreme care in requesting that others participate in a straw poll. See Wikipedia:Canvassing, which outlines policy on canvassing (and forms such as "votestacking" and campaigning")."WP:POLL
 * Straw polls should not be used prematurely .... If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming. from WP:POLL

Dig Deeper (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. This article is redundant, and its title is an embarrassment. Alexbrn (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Creation-Evolution controversy. There is no valid basis that I see for having two separate articles; it's a content fork. If the creators of this article wish to incorporate any content from this article into Creation-Evolution controversy, then they should propose specific pieces to incorporate there and discuss on the other article's talk page. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge (if there is anything to merge). On this topic there's no useful distinction between "controversy" and "debate".  E Eng  04:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I believe the onus should be on those advocating separate articles, to explain how the two topics differ. I have found no such explanation in the discussions on this page. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some content needs to merge / use, this page will be redirected: The outcome for this page is going to be to blank and redirect as this is a content fork of a substantial existing article, but it does offer some directions for improvement of the primary article. The open question, in my mind, is whether to hold off while that is done, or to implement now, add links to this talk page and to the this article onto talk:Creation-Evolution controversy and move the discussion to there.  EdChem (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any consensus to be had from the outcome of this RfC regarding specific content for merging. If an editor wishes to merge something specific, then the appropriate place to propose it is the main discussion page at Talk:Creation-evolution controversy.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete any duplicated content, merge anything with references that remains. Wikipedia is not Debatepedia. Xaxafrad (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge as this seems to be a clear content fork, and as many have pointed out the encyclopedia would be better served by improving the more mature article. Lizzius (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete per HyperGaruda. The article is textbook example of failing NPOV due to WP:FALSEBALANCE, presenting creation and evolution as if they have equal validity. Even the title is poor and unworthy of a redirect. Had the article gone to AfD instead of RfC it appears very likely that it would have been deleted. Manul ~ talk 20:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge and redirect as both articles are on identical subjects, and have different information. RedPanda25 14:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - merge or delete. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -merge what is helpful (I think there is some good content) and also create redirect. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Note:It would help if WikiDan61 and GG both state and summarize their WP policy positions on the RFC, to justify their positions. Statements like "as the proposer" and "as the creator" are not WP policy justifications.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * GG and I have already started a discussion above. I think it would be clearer if any further discussion regarding the matter occur here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, GG is taking part in a course where the aim is that "students will learn art of Critical Thinking through argumentative styles such as Rogerian, Socratic, and Toulmin." Critical thinking through argumentation is not necessarily the best basis for producing a WP article as an encyclopaedia explains and describes rather than setting out to persuade.  There may well be useful material in this new article to fold back into the original, but I can't see how two separate articles are either justified or compliant with WP policy.  EdChem (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought when I read the course description. A discussion with the course instructor (and the Wikipedia course ambassador) might prove useful. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia course ambassador is . Ian, would you like to make a comment and / or talk with the instructor?  If the course is about to end, there might not be much to change for this semester, but there is a mess here for the community to deal with (there is an ongoing discussion at the Chemistry WikiProject and an AfD in progress). , maybe something can be learned from all this to avoid similar issues going forward – at least, I hope so.  EdChem (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have provided some clarification on this matter under the 'Merge Proposal' section of the talk page. The semester is essentially over, and the professor will be approaching this project differently in future semesters to avoid this problem. I hope this eases your concerns. Best regards. Gabriel Gonzalez19 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As this is an RFC on the above merge discussion, I believe that have already clearly stated our positions for or against the proposed merge.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean the discussion above, I don't think it is a clear concise statement of your positions for readers. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't believe the statement is clear or concise enough, and yet seven other editors found it sufficient to voice an opinion about. I don't know how to make my statements above more clear or concise. If you don't find enough clarity or conciseness to form an opinion, then you are free to voice no opinion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * RFC position statements that lack reference to WP policy will be ignored in the final consensus. It is unhelpful to refer to argument conducted outside the RFC. I recommend both individuals revise their position statements, summarizing their cases, taking care to back up their positions with relevant WP policy references. (Invited here randomly by a bot.) Jojalozzo (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very nice WP:Wikilawyering. I filed the RFC for the purpose of getting more attention to the merge discussion that had reached a stalemate between the two participants and was unlikely to garner any other attention. Did I choose the wrong process? Perhaps? Did I get a number of eyes on the discussion? Absolutely. If you'd like to close the RFC as inappropriately formed, feel free to do so. It won't change the fact that a number of users have expressed their opinions at this page, which was the ultimate goal anyway. – WikiDan61 (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That rigid and formalistic position of yours is somewhat shocking . The issue here is to do with content, and in a sane world would be decided by editors with some familiarity with content and some ability to argue rationally. Someone once said patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. But that was before Wikipedia offered the alternative of wikilawyering. Users with little content awareness who bludgeon other users with strings of "WP policy references" are the bane of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's fair to issue a request for comment, only to accuse those who reference and try to uphold Wikipedia policy and procedures as "Wikilawyers". Looking at the definition of a wikilawyer, I don't think his comments fit that definition. That said, Jojalozzo is not quite accurate about "ignoring" everything that doesn't quote policy . Given that this is a survey...
 * Wikipedia has established processes to deal with certain procedures. These include deletion discussions and featured content. Because these processes are somewhat institutionalized, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. In reality, Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. (emphasis added) from Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussionDig Deeper (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Jolly good then. Despite the clear consensus and strong arguments above, you should be able to keep this rolling on indefinitely. Good luck. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Clear consensus would suggest that all sides have come to some sort of agreement or compromise. That doesn't seem to be the case yet. I agree with in the sense that both individuals should revise their position statements, summarizing their cases & arguments, and back up their positions with relevant WP policy references. Dig Deeper (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are not clear on what is happening here. The creation of this article was well-intentioned but its approach is inconsistent with fundamental policy and its underlying topic already has a well-developed article.  There already is consensus on these points.  It could have been unilaterally turned into a redirect, which  has not done (wisely, I think) as it would have led to angst, but it would have been justifiable.  Instead, as part of consensus building, a sense of what can be used in the existing article is being sought, which is collaborative and respectful of the effort of the creator.  Don't doubt, however, that this ends in one of three ways: (1) a merge incorporates some content into the existing article; (2) an AfD closes as "redirect" and the merge of material is left to be done on an ad hoc basis, or a request to userfy the article is accepted leaving a redirect; or (3) the article is deleted.  I don't know whether you've looked into AfDs (I notice you have not participated in one) but the policy issues here make the continued existence of this article as a stand-alone beyond improbable.  A significant fraction of editors here already know this.  Arguing about procedure is only making the launching of an AfD more likely.  A new presentation of issues from each side might help an RfC where the issues are unclear and there are multiple reasonable policy-compliant alternatives, but this is not such a case.  There are editors here who saw what this was very quickly: another case where a course instructor inexperienced in Wikipedia has led students to develop content that is redundant, misaligned with policy requirements, or both.  It's a situation which has developed before so there is a genuine feeling of deja vu here, and I am grateful to all those who have tried to engage here without taking steps to force the inevitable outcome.  Please recognise that raising points of procedure is not helpful in the present situation.  Thank you.  EdChem (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Walking away now I created an RFC as a way of getting eyes on a merger proposal that had reached a stalemate and needed more attention from other users. If that was the wrong process, fine. Close it down and let whatever happens happen. The Wikilaywers have won, and process will trump content. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we are at WP:RFCEND - the poster seems to have withdrawn the question, and the inputs for it "The question at hand: should this article be merged into Creation-evolution controversy? " were very mixed. I'll suggest
 * (1) merge be tabled for the now and this article remain developing due to lack of any strong consensus to merge;
 * (2) mentions to "merge carefully selected content" "or very selective merge" may independently pursue taking which parts (unspecified) they thought of value for the other article and work on inserting there; and
 * (3) advocates and critics of content here may work on helping better the content or structure issues (unspecified) of concern. For my part, I'm thinking the very different structuring is better in showing the direct counterparts and allows a more direct WP:NPOV point-by-point clearly showing "majority of scientists" versus "minority".  Markbassett (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There may not be consensus to merge but there is clear consensus against keeping the article. I count only two editors who want to keep it. All the others are delete, redirect or merge, so those are the only real options here. A "no consensus" is not a default "keep". --Adam in MO Talk 02:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Opinions differ on what exactly should be done, but the majority agree that the page should not be kept. Fixing up the article with an eye to keeping it is clearly not the outcome, whichever way you read the discussion.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Double agree. WikiDan61 didn't withdraw the question or the RfC, nor is the feedback in this RfC "very mixed" on the question of keeping the article. Manul ~ talk 20:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment not sure why I got the RFC at this stage in the debate, but since I am here, FWIW, I think that this article reads like a school project that went wrong and got posted here as a sort of vanity publication. It might (just might) be possible to justify an article with the present title or theme, but this one is not that one. Until there is a sound justification and outline, I say delete and redirect. If anyone feels that any of the content justifies salvage, then rewrite it and stick it into the existing article. JonRichfield (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible areas of improvement
Following my own advice out of the RFC, I'll put in possible areas to work on for this article and invite others to remark.

My concern would be the structure is perhaps too simplistic or too casually showing absolutely polarized -- 100% A or 100% B. Perhaps this is as it's relatively young and largely showing Berkley vs AnswersInGenesis. I'd suggest a few more sources might give a more Area of A vs Area of B with a number of folks that are mixed in view. I'm thinking many are mixture of partial positions of say substantial acceptance with just a few points at uncertainties/skepticism or at 'do not know'/'do not care'. May also find adding a couple more base sites gives wider view on some definitions -- like I think "Catastrophism" includes the view that Extinction events played a significant role. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You might contemplate EdChem's comments above for some understanding of content issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)