User talk:AndrewAz

Welcome
Hello, AndrewAz, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

April 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Race and genetics. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''I've made an edit to the article that both you and The Devil's Advocate should find acceptable. In the future, please discuss the edit on either the article's talk page or on each other's talk pages instead of editwarring. '' thoriyan 18:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your message to me regarding my edit on Race and Genetics
(moved for ease of talking) Thanks for intervening. I am not able to identify the consensus change you have made.My editorial changes that were quickly reverted by the other user was only giving a valid alternate point of view that was needed in what is an area of science that is controversial.You will concur that evolution is not conclusively proved and is at best a belief of some scientists who could be called evolutionary biologists. Thanks for your attention. AndrewAz (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
In fact, I don't concur with the sentiment - the study of genetics itself is deeply rooted in the study of evolution. I've tried to be neutral and accommodate all perspectives and opinions, but please don't be stubborn and keep editwarring. If you'd like to debate creationism or evolutionism, put it on the talk page. IPlease stop pushing the opinion/doubt of evolutionary theories into the article - it's not the right place to do it. There's a place for evolutionary debates, this is not it. Furthermore, Wikipedia should be written from a neutral perspective. Please understand that pushing an opinion does not follow this. thoriyan 12:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to your response on my edit in Race and Genetics
Hi! You have said that Wikipedia should be written from a neutral perspective. That's the point! The article on Race and Genetics is anything but neutral. In fact it is openly pushing for an evolutionary point of view. The word 'evolved' is used three times in the first para of the sub-section on evolution in the article as I last saw it just a while ago. I would like you to kindly deal with that blatantly non-neutral position. I have stopped editing that article. I would like to see how neutrality will be restored to that one para for a start, let alone other references to evolution in the article. Further, the study of Genetics need not be deeply rooted in evolution. Genetics is a study focussed on and related to genes  - the DNA - tangible and verifiable. This is good science. Why should Genetics look for support in Evolution that is itself in serious need of credible bolstering arguments? Thoriyan, you are welcome to your opinion and I to mine. But I would like proponents of an evolutionary worldview to state one conclusive proof to bolster their idea and not go about talking authoritatively on the subject as if it were proved beyond doubt. .Thanks for your attention!AndrewAz (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Response
Put up a request for comment in the article's talk page. Even keeping my beliefs out and trying to neutrally mediate this is becoming difficult. It's clear I'm not going to be able to convince you that evolution exists, and it's also clear that you're not going to change my opinion as well. I don't think it is necessary to cater to the creationist point of view every time the word "evolve" is mentioned - anyone who does believe in creationism will take the statement with a grain of salt anyways. Most of the academic consensus points to evolution, and it even says something like this in the lead of the article for Creation-evolution controversy. If you feel strongly enough to push your view against the community - and the academic consensus, go for the RFC and good luck. thoriyan talk!contribs! 11:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades response
Andrew, evolution is accepted as a fact within the scientific community. It is also clearly stated as such in Creation–evolution controversy. You have the full right to have your own personal opinions and not accept this scientific fact. What you don't have the right to do is push this opinion in articles. Your edits have been reverted by 3 different editors now. Please review WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to understand why your edits are inappropriate and a violation of the core principles of Wikipedia. Please understand that in this context, weight cannot be given to a viewpoint unsupported in WP:reliable sources as doing so would be in violation of WP:NPOV. BlackHades (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

AndrewAz
BlackHades: While evolution may be accepted within the scienticfic community, it need not be indisputable fact to enjoy that status. It just happens to be a belief with a semblance of scientific fact. I have given two examples in my previous responses to other editors; 'irreducible complexity' of the eye and DNA repair which are serious challenges to evolution and which need to be refuted. Furthermore, my edits to the article were not blatantly creationist but rather countering the blatantly evolutionary stance of the article. I did not even try to remove the word 'evolved' used three times in the first para of the sub-section on Evolution in the Race and Genetics article. Thanks for suggesting relevant Wikipedia guidelines.AndrewAz (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)