User:Davril2020

Welcome!
Welcome to my talk page. My interests include biology, evolutionary psychology, as well as some other bits and bobs. A lot of my wiki-time is spent on controversial topics trying to help people out and avoid POV material entering the article. Equally, I try to be as sympathetic as I can be to individuals who inadvertently POV-push without realising how this clashes with Wikipedia policy.

Tips for controversial articles

 * Read the archives. A lot of controversial articles tend to spend an inordinate amount of time chasing around the same few issues. That doesn't mean the issue can't be raised again, but people will be much more sympathetic to you if you demonstrate you understand where the argument went last time, and that you are proposing new information rather than just resurrecting an old issue. A good example of this is the opening segment of the Intelligent Design article which states that 'all' of the supporters of intelligent design are affiliated with the Discovery Institute. People claiming this is untrue post on the talkpage on a weekly basis - yet no meaningful information has been presented to dispute this in several months. This inevitably leads to irritation on the part of the experienced editors since it involves going around in circles when time could be spent more productively on other things.
 * Be aware that virtually every sentence of a controversial article will have been a compromise between diametrically opposed ideologies. Changing even a simple sentence, even if you don't alter the facts contained in the sentence, can often be controversial. Sometimes even a particular word can be the result of weeks or months of debate.
 * Try to read around the issue first. It's often difficult to contribute to a specialist article unless you have a fair amount of knowledge of the subject. While it is true that we must all assume good faith, editors often, inevitably, begin to get short with people when they repeat old and debunked objections to ideological or scientific opinions, particularly those that are addressed in the article itself. In the evolution page for instance, the objection 'it's just a theory' comes up frequently, despite the fact that the article itself explains that the perceived difference between fact and theory is essentially a populist misconception.
 * Try to be as nice and polite as you can be. Some people will not be nice, or polite to you. But if you can ignore the trolls, people, even people who disagree with you, will respect you for that and hopefully listen to what you have to say.
 * Bring sources. Virtually every fact in a controversial article gets challenged by somebody who doesn't like it, so more than anywhere else you need to be sure you can back up the statement. Unfortunately, unless you source a claim on a controversial page there's a good chance someone will rv it as unsourced. Ensure your sources meet WP:V and WP:NPOV or it will be discarded.
 * Ask for help. If someone reverts a change without explanation, feel free to post on the talk page or on the deleter's talk page to find out why - they may be able to help you out and advise you about reposting the material in a more neutral light.
 * Ask for help. If someone reverts a change without explanation, feel free to post on the talk page or on the deleter's talk page to find out why - they may be able to help you out and advise you about reposting the material in a more neutral light.