User talk:StudyAndBeWise

Reminders
I am creating a page to save research on types of creationists.User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/TypesOfCreationists and User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/HarvardHowTo
 * In this regard, you might find some of the information I have collected so far at Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles to be of interest. It is not anywhere closed to finished yet, however.--Filll 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks filll. StudyAndBeWise 05:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to take a look at Harvard_citation_template_examples. Harvard references should be inline, and should not use the tag. The ref tag is footnote style references. Good luck! :)--Andrew Robertson 07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives
01-27-2007 archive

For archiving, please see --Filll 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution
No worries, thanks for the heads up. My background leads me to check things, especially putting numbers to things to do a "sanity check". My main aim with the numbers is to make sure that we are thinking about what is in the article, and what the implications are. The implications are there, numbers or no.Trishm 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

falsifiability
For example, Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." Similarly, the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what hypothetical evidence would disprove evolution replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton. The absence of such evidence against evolution serves as one of the primary criticisms of creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 02:44, Feb 1, 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks filll. Turns out I found one of the connections you point out, the Time magazine article.  Do you have page numbers for the Dawkins or Ridley books?  I'd hate to cite whole books for a simple quote.StudyAndBeWise 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek
As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".(Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz, and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, June 29, 1987, p. 23-24). I am waiting for the library to send me a copy of the article from their archives. I have it on order at the moment. I have not yet been able to find the article online.--Filll 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek quote, as copied by me personally
I have now gone to a library and looked at the physical copy of the article from 1987. Here is what it says:

As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." (Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz with Ann McDaniel, in Washington and bureau reports, Volume CIX, No. 26, June 29, 1987, ISSN 0028-9604 Newsweek Inc., NY, NY,p. 23-24).

It does not mention the source of the data, the 700 or 480,000. However, I believe that McDaniel and Martz still work for Newsweek and we could contact them. Comments?--Filll 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job tracking this down. I'll comment on the creation-evolution controversy talk page StudyAndBeWise 03:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

SBC position
Regarding do you have a citation that the SBC position has changed? JoshuaZ 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is in the already cited (and misquoted) Matsumura|1998 reference. I am adding something to the Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution discussion.  Stay tuned.  Matsumura herself questioned the SBC.  StudyAndBeWise 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Upload
I don't see the upload when I click on the link. JoshuaZ 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened, but I fixedit. Let me know if you still have problems.  StudyAndBeWise 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Orchard
Would you mind reviewing the content related to creation-evolution which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? I had some trouble adding similar material in the past and wanted to make sure it was encyclopedic. I also think some of the information can help in writing the creation-evolution controversy page. Pbarnes 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just took a look. I don't have time right now because I am neck deep in the creation/evolution controversy article.  In general, I try to quote disinterested parties whenever possible (e.g., historians).  If that is not possible, I try to cite opposing parties who come to the same conclusion.  If that is not possible, I try not to add anything to the article no matter how important I think it is.  And this is tough, because I from time to time find cases that should be included in my opinion, but it would probably fall under original research or soapboxing.  I'll have to take a look at the article in more detail in the future.  StudyAndBeWise 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it
Only because it does assert notability, and you are not allowed to remove it yourself of course. It's something I would probably prod or AfD, but I'll let the other editor take that route if they feel it's necessary. Leebo 86 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad it was done, for I myself am totally unable to judge Notability in this subject area, though by the standards of other areas the article is a little on the thin side. :) . However, I'll be glad to look at anything about evolution or creationism. even just to give an opinion.DGG 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, asserting notability here was as simple a matter as saying the rapper won that contest. Now, I don't know anything about the contest, but it's an assertion. The reason speedy delete exists is for cases where the article basically describes the person as normal with no extra reason to be in Wikipedia, but borderline notability needs to be discussed not erased without community consensus. Leebo 86 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand both of you, and will try to improve the article. StudyAndBeWise 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: creation-evolution controversy
Thanks for your message here. I've tried to provide some sort of explanation at the bit of the talk page you pointed out. As for the table, there were only a few items on it, so I thought it would be better in a list. I know there's a two columns thing somewhere, if it's still too long. --h2g2bob 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Julian Huxley
I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning for Creation-evolution controversy: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of transhumanism. We must not describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley, as it would be misleading. However, you should be able to find lots of sources to make your comments on Julian Huxley as arbitrarily strong as you wish. Vanished user talk 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily reverted your change back to evangelising for Darwinism, because Larson's description of Huxley, for the reasons I explained, shouldn't be applied to all biologists of his time. He was extreme, so it's not a justified extension. However, the more I think about it, the more I realise how apt that description is, as long as it's only applied to Huxley alone. Can we rephrase it appropriately? Vanished user talk 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me take one more stab. StudyAndBeWise 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy
I've reworked the section heavily. I had to add some of the history in to explain the mood of the time - I would have added the discovery of DNA as well, and some of the other discoveries, but...

I'm... not sure if you'll like it. It removes entirely the quote you liked, but it does quote Huxley, which is possibly better. And I think the whole thing holds together better than it did. Vanished user talk 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ID talk page
I've explained what I was trying to say in an addendum to your comment on my motives, and, after reading it, you might want to discuss it with me, or possibly even modify it on the talk page. (I consider myself as one of the more temperate and non-POV pushy evolutionists there, & my motive was to try to restrain some of my less temperate friends). DGG 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Creation-evolution controversy
Please be careful - you replaced the new section with a version of the old that was missing words everywhere, and, frankly, had some bits that barely made sense from being chopped and repasted so much - the phrase about evangelising for Darwin, particularly, had gotten so awkward and out-of place from all the changes so as to be meaningless and, well, frankly, unreadable. If we're going to describe the period at all, we need to describe the culture on both sides, not just the general populace, as the increasing divide between them is the very heart of the matter. Vanished user talk 04:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for screwing things up. I also hope you understand that I am not trying to lambast you, I am trying to keep NPOV in the article, and keep it informative.  Larson and Numbers are two great sources in my opinion, and I don't presume to second guess them too often.  StudyAndBeWise 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Regarding this edit summary - it is unacceptable to characterise good faith edits as vandalism. See Vandalism. Guettarda 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is also unacceptable. Please see our policy on personal attacks.  Guettarda 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is even worse, especially after you were warned. Guettarda 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting vandelism and trying to get others who hold views that are sympathetic to the vandel (unintentional or otherwise) is not a personal attack. How did you become aware of this?  Also, warning a vandel that his edits are vandalism is not a personal attack.  Also, what makes you think I saw your warnings?  I can barely get a response in on my own talk page you're posting so fast.  StudyAndBeWise 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The post was done at 5:03. Your first "warning" was at 5:00.  I started editing the page before 5:00.  See how this works?  Please slow down on your accusations. I had to spend some time looking up how to do the vandelism 1 warning.  StudyAndBeWise 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]
 * [W]hat makes you think I saw your warnings? You posted the warnings after I posted to your talk page. You edited this page before you posted to Adam's and Filll's talk pages, but after I warned you.  So it's false to say that you made them before you were aware of my edits.
 * As I explained, the edits in question are not vandalism. Did you look at the links I provided?
 * How did you become aware of this? - um, you accused Adam of vandalism in your edit summary at the evo-creo talk page. You made accusations of vandalism in your edit summary on Filll's talk page.  Please stop making these false allegations and remove the ones you have made.
 * Accusing someone of vandalism when they did nothing of the sort is unacceptable. Don't do it!  Guettarda 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The post was done at 5:03. Your first "warning" was at 5:00.  I started editing the page before 5:00 Come on - you edited this page after I did.  Anyway, you made accusations of vandalism when you posted in response to my post.  Are you saying that you responded to my post without being aware of it?  Guettarda 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please spend your energy commenting on the disputed edits in the creation-evolution controversy. Your time lines are and reverts to my vandelism warnings were unappropriate.  The post you claim I posted *after* you "warned" me was posted at 5:03, 3 minutes after your "warning" was posted.  However, I started editing the vandel warning *Before* your warning was received.  I did not see your inapproriate warning until after I posted the vandel warning, and frankly, your lack of participation in the creation-evoltuion controversy article leads me to think you're jumping the gun and being over protective.  I would really rather have you comment on the creation-evolution talk page about the vandelized section, (e.g., if you think it was not vandelism).  StudyAndBeWise 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]Please spend your energy commenting on the disputed edits in the creation-evolution controversy. Your time lines are and reverts to my vandelism warnings were unappropriate...I did not see your inapproriate warning - you are the one who is violating policy; it's far more important to deal with your behaviour then it is to jump into an edit war.  Before anything else can be done you need to start acting in a civil manner.  Guettarda 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen, 5:03 and 5:00. You are spending a lot of time doing shoddy police work when you could instead comment on the talk page of the vandelized article. And it is vandelism, as I explained. You have a different opinion, it appears. If you think wholesale deleting a section that has existed and been seen for months by very strong evolution people like dave, filll, and orangemarlin on the opinion of somebody who makes a simple assertion without doing research is not vandelism, I don't know what is. Simply moving it to a talk page doesn't clean up the hole created by the vandelism on the articles page. StudyAndBeWise 05:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited this page at :00 . You edited this page at :02, so obviously you would have "received" my message.  You then edited Adam's talk page  at :03 and Filll's page at :04 .  So you got two "new message" banners before you got to Filll's page.
 * You continued to characterise Adam's edits in your responses here and on my talk page, which were made in response to my warnings. Even if you didn't know beforehand, you knew that it was unacceptable to characterise the actions as vandalism by the time you replied here.  And yet you continued to do so.  Guettarda 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

you are the one who is violating policy

Assume good faith. Besides, reverting ^vandalism^ and dealing with sections being deleted is not a violation of policy. StudyAndBeWise 05:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your are violating policy by making unjustified attacks. Your continued characterisation of the edits as "vandalism" (a) violates WP:AGF, (b) violates WP:CIVIL and (c) probably violates WP:NPA.  You are making false accusations of vandalism.  Guettarda 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandelism can be done without ill intent. It is not false.  See the discussion.  I am backing them up.  Please take further discussion to the disputed articles talk page.  I am specifically addressing Adam's demonstrably false assertions there, the assertions he used to justify the vandelism.  I am not arguing that Adam is evil or has ill intent.  He has vandelized, though, and I am attempting to communicate this to him.  StudyAndBeWise 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandelism can be done without ill intent. No, it cannot. The policy (to which I provided a link in my first message) says:


 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

How can you claim that the policy states the opposite of what it states? Guettarda 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not repost this "warning" again. If you continue this behaviour you may be blocked for disruption. Guettarda 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This and this are no better. You are abusing warning tags, which is vandalism. Consider this your last warning. Guettarda 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "How can you claim that the policy states the opposite of what it states?" The AGF tone of vandalism 1 warning covers this base.  StudyAndBeWise 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationism before Darwin
An interesting aspect of Charles Darwin's biography is the way in which beliefs in divine creation of every individual species had developed and become very controversial around the start of the 19th century, so that he grew up at a time when ideas of evolution were a dangerous blasphemy promoted by radicals and street revolutionaries. This History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth is the best overview I've found given my limited resources, though essentially it's an evangelical Catholic blog article based on a book by a protestant evangelical. However, it seemed to me to be fully consistent with the various other histories I've come across. Do you have any problems with it being used as a source, where possible substantiated with references from the books I have? ... dave souza, talk 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, I'll have to spend more time on this latter. In general, I don't have a problem if it is a reliable source.  If it is an active participant to the controversy, I think anything it says about its opponents should be suitably disclosed in the text of the article (as opposed to leaving it as an exercise to the reader).  I'll take a look at it in more detail later.  I don't assume I have any authority, just opinions.  I am glad you respect mine, though.  Perhaps the book it is based on is better (I try to work up the chain as far as possible, but of course I cannot do this on every source.  StudyAndBeWise 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, your opinions are much appreciated and I'll value any further comments if you can find time. Unfortunately getting access to books is a bit difficult for me, so I'll try to take care in using this source and include disclosure as you suggest. .. dave souza, talk 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability section
You do realise that I didn't intend it to be gone permanently, just thought the talk page was a better place to revise it, so we could have these discussions without affecting the main article. Vanished user talk 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I've added a series of quotes found with amazon.com's search inside feature on Unended Quest.

My best guess at assembling the quotes - this could be completely wrong - is that Popper argues that since natural selection isn't rigorously testable, and cannot be isolated, thus is no way to falsify it. There also seems to be comments about its predictive power, which probably refers to it being impossible to get the same mutations every time, and hence it being impossible to ever get the same results. This seems to be why he classifies it as a metaphysical research program. He does, however, in several of the quotes - as far as I can read through the very literal Popper chopping, say that it's a better explanation than any other suggestion known, which is probably relevant.

I'm satisfied enough with the current revision. If you're satisfied with it, we could probably drop the subject for now, and work on other sections. I am sorry if I was unduly upset, but the section did feel like it was drawing conclusions from Popper in contrast to what the later quote from Popper's letter to New Scientist justified giving to him. Also, if, as per the cite I found, common descent is the part creationists were attacking most as unfalsifiable, the Dawkins and Haldane quotes make much more sense, as they seem oddly fixated on common descent outside of that context.

I'm afraid we probably both over-reacted a bit: Perhaps I'd have been best off not removing the section, just marking it and challenging on the talk pageany conclusions and juxtapositions that seemed to be saying more than evidence justified. Ah, well. Live and learn. Vanished user talk 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, I've added a few more comments there, but yes, in general, there are other sections that need a lot of work in my opinion. I have been reluctant to remove them or even change them because I have not done the research in those aspects.  For example, Religion and historical scientists-- I am not sure it belongs, an if it does, I am not sure how to improve it.  And while Quote mining is interesting, I am not sure it belongs, as I have not come accross this in my studies (which have intentionally avoided internet sites run by participants in the controversy, and which is probably why I have not run into much to contribute here).  The Debates section could (and should) be expanded in my opinion, but again, I have not found material yet.  I'll go back and check the changes to falsifiability in a few days, and revert as I think is justified based on my understanding of the references.  StudyAndBeWise 21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Strike
Could you explain in more detail which content forks you think are problematic? JoshuaZ 03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think drastic changes were made by some without comments from others like Filll, Dave Souza, et. al., and without regard to my own reservations (which are not binding, but might merit consideration). The partitioning may or may not be logical/warranted(as opposed OR) partitions, and other partitions may be more logical and justified by similar partitions made by disinterested commentators. The partitions were most certainly drastic--and the partitions should have been handled differently, in my opinion, by using an approach similar to the approach filll uses when he proposes drastic changes or drastic additions. StudyAndBeWise 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a rough look over, the splits look ok to me (although yes, more discussion before forking is generally a good thing). If you think there are serious problems with them, why not just address it on the talk page? JoshuaZ 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good point that discussion could have saved some puzzlement and annoyance. While "forking" is discouraged if it leads to different articles having unbalanced POV, splitting as Summary style is an essential part of keeping main articles to an easily readable length while keeping detail readily available. The summary can readily be reviewed to ensure that a good explanation is kept in the original article. However full discussion in advance makes this much easier, and is much better than having to sort it out afterwards. Sorry to hear about the strike, a wikibreak is probably a pretty good idea. Us addicts will try to get things sorted out, though I must admit trying to sort two crises at once just now, and tending to skitter about rather than getting on with them.. dave souza, talk 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I should note that there was much to trim from the article before the fork, but this trimming was not done (I did not do it in sections that I thought might be controversial, but I often did bring up sections on the discussion page). A consequence of this is that inferior material made it appear that the article needed a fork, when in fact it needing a trimming first.  Consider this a wikibreak from contributing to articles than:)  StudyAndBeWise 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "All your edits have been reverted." LOL.  You wish you had the courage to revert StudyAndBeWise's contributions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.17.61 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Articles for deletion nomination of Lucca Brazzi
I have nominated Lucca Brazzi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Lucca Brazzi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Phil153 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)