Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism

Evolutionism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Nominated by User:CheeseDreams as a speedy, twice, (isn't cheese supposed to give you nightmares?, anyway...). Dunc|&#9786; 20:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, really vivid ones. CheeseDreams 20:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Creationists use the term Evolutionism to refer to advocates of Evolution, seeking to treat it as a belief rather than a scientific principle". I consider the existance of the page to be non-NPOV. CheeseDreams 20:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the page because it esentially boils down to the sentence
 * That very well may be true, I have no idea. I do know that the term is used by anthropologist Robert Leonard Carneiro to refer to the history of cultural evolution.  I have no doubt that creationists may have subverted the term, but does that mean we should delete an important article that has nothing to do with creationst usage? -- Viriditas 00:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * keep. Dunc|&#9786; 20:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can see no conceivable reason for this to be deleted. --jpgordon{gab} 20:21, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete (reason is above) CheeseDreams 20:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Materialism (philosophical meaning of the term) is something I believe in just as strongly as Evolutionism, and the existance of the term, and associated history, isn't something I consider POV. I'm at least one rabid atheist/evolutionist that has no problems with the term, even if I don't consider it a term I'd use very often. --Improv 20:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge some content to a history section of Creation vs. evolution debate and Redirect article to evolution, or some such arrangement. The bulk of this article is about Huxley's thoughts on evolution.  The passage on algorithms is out of place and covered elsewhere.  -- WOT 21:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * EEP! No no, not to evolution, if you must redirect, then please redirect to creationism! Kim Bruning 21:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? Robert Carneiro is a skeptic, and a proponent of evolution. His book about evolutionism demonstrates that fact. --Viriditas 00:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Abstain, But I'll note that the page definately needs a lot of attention. Kim Bruning 21:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I vote for everything that Improv said. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "Ummm...this isn't even a reason for deletion, let alone speedy. We cover lots of derogatory terms, and this one has a long and subtle history," said another evolutionist. Keep. Cool Hand Luke  22:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 22:46 Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unavoidably redundant. Merge into various articles and redirect to Evolution. Gazpacho 22:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Evolutionism is a creationist term, a redirect to evolution would be exceptionally POV. Suggest a redirect to creationism instead. Kim Bruning 23:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirects exist for the benefit of people who search for the term. A redirect to creationism would confuse them. My vote stands. Gazpacho
 * You're not seriously suggesting that a term which is *opposed* to evolution, and is utterly misleading by design should redirect there, are you? Evolutionism is a term searched for by creationists. It does NOT have anything to do with Evolution in any rational sense of "to do with". Allright, if everyone is going to vote redirect to evolution, I'll have to change my vote. Kim Bruning 23:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's also plausibly searched by people who are new to the controversy and have no opinion one way or the other. Gazpacho
 * That's fine, but redirecting to evolution would be a very blatant pushing of the creationist POV, I'm guessing that's probably not what you'd intended. Kim Bruning 00:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not what I intended, and I don't see it as pushing anything but accurate information. But I give up. Gazpacho
 * There is no controversy. Carneiro's theories are part of cultural anthropology. I think people are confusing Carneiro's term with an altogether different concept, quite possibly used by creationists.  --Viriditas 00:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reference for that? If you can we could probably blank the page and use it exclusively for that. Kim Bruning 00:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The reference is on the current page. Huxley coined the term in 1869 to refer to Darwin's theory.  Early cultural anthropologists were influenced by Darwin (who wasn't?) and Lewis Henry Morgan and others promoted the theory of linear development, which was popular at the end of the 19th century.  The theory has obviously changed over the years, with Historical Particularism, Diffusionism, Functionalism, Structuralism, and Cultural Ecology making up the core of cultural anthropology.  Julian Steward, Leslie White, and George Murdock popularized neo-evolutionism in the late 20th century.  Stephen K. Sanderson has an interesting essay about the role evolutionism plays in the social sciences. It should be noted that the word is not confined to cultural anthropology alone.  I have found many references to evolution using the word Evolutionism in the medical literature.  Since I don't know any creationists, nor am I familiar with their use of their term, I am unable to comment on that subject or whether they use the term.  --Viriditas 01:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe a redirect to a particular anthropology article then? CheeseDreams 17:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. If the choice is between redirect to evolution (Brrr) or no article at all, I choose the latter. "Evolutionism" is an extremely POV term used by creationists to confuse debate. Sorry. :-( Merge any remaining useful content with creationism. --Kim Bruning 23:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Should we delete all the terms that creationists subvert for their own purposes? And why would you merge Carneiro's anthropological work with creationism? Carneiro is a proponent of evolution.--Viriditas 00:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that creationists who look for information about evolution shouldn't be directed to it? Redirects are not for segregating the opposing POVs in a controversy. Gazpacho
 * Hmm, You appear to be confused. Evolutionism is not Evolution. Kim Bruning 00:50, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Not the point. "evolutionism" is likely to be used by a creationist (or non-partisan) to search for information about evolution, and entirely unlikely to be used to search for information about creationism. See Redirect. Gazpacho
 * Evolutionism and Evolution are separate terms. If someone seeks information on evolutionism, one should never be directed to evolution ever. Other redirects might be fine. In the same way, for instance if one searches for Blundering Moron, one should never ever be redirected to George Bush. Even if were to consider it a likely search term for someone seeking information on Bush, it would be extremely POV, and Not Done. Kim Bruning 01:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think even creationists will think to check "Evolution" when "Evolutionism" doesn't work. No redirect, as any redirect from here would be miseleading.  Joe D (t) 01:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is currently not very useful, and whether or not it is deleted much of the material is not relevant to the term "Evolutionists" so much as to the History of Evolution and History of Creationism articles. There's also some subtle creationist POV in places.  Unless someone proposes a way this article can be tidied up and made into a useful NPOV article about the word my vote will be delete. Joe D (t) 23:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Where is the creationist POV in the article?  The entire article is based on the work of cultural anthropologist Robert L. Carneiro, Curator of South American Ethnology, American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor of anthropology at Columbia University.  Carneiro is a strong and vocal proponent of evolution.  He is most certainly not a creationist, nor is the topic concerned with creationism or debunking evolution in any way.  I vote Keep. --Viriditas 00:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, it seems pretty good to me. It reports the usage, the history of the usage, and the politics around the usage.  If there is POV in the article, it's an evolutionary one.  I liked the fact that it located the debate in pre-Darwinian discourse, because that's where it belongs.  (Church figures were arguing against a literal intepretation of Genesis from the 17th-19th centuries, and they were shocked in the 19th c. by the emergence of literalism.  The 19th century created both sides of the argument.)  Keep.  Geogre 01:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The article has been cleaned up since the vfd was started. This is actually fair now :-) Okay, back to Abstain again then. Possibly move to a different title like Joe D suggests. I'll retain a very exceptionally strong oppose to any suggestions of redirection -> Evolution though :-). Kim Bruning 01:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, a very good argument could be made to merge and redirect the Evolutionism article with Cultural anthropology, as the current article lacks much of this information. I could probably change my vote to reflect a merge and redirect.  --Viriditas 01:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Touchy one indeed.  It needs to be clear that it is a creationist term, and I think the article does make this clear.  It also contains useful information.  If consensus is to keep a lot of the info with a merge and redirect, I could be persuaded.  Antandrus 02:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article should start with "Evolutionism is the perception by creationists of Evolution as a belief" ?CheeseDreams 17:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Evolution--Josiah 06:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most decidedly, a different thing than evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory; Evolutionism is a militant belief system that has many characteristics of a religion. The page needs to be expanded, not deleted. Pollinator 06:53, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep. / up+land 17:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. if darwin used it, it's a word.  saying that evolution is an "objective scientific principle" is the REAL pov.  clean it up if you like ... but don't deny it exists.  Ungtss 20:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If the word exists, then clearly it should go in Wiktionary, however, we are debating whether it is worthy of a seperate encyclopedia article, or whether it is actually just a propaganda term used by creationists, and ought instead just to be part of that article. Darwin resisted using the term until his 6th edition of the text, which also, entirely by coincidence (cough) co-incides with his "rediscovering" his faith.CheeseDreams 20:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Evolutionism is NOT only a term used by creationists. It is not only used by anthropologists either. It is widely used in humanities and social sciences as a usually somewhat derogatory label for the spencerian idea of social or cultural progress (i.e. progress as opposed to just change), which has been common in many fields. This debate reveals a strong engineering/natural sciences bias among Wikipedia users. / up+land 21:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So, do you think we need to make it a disambiguation page? Gazpacho 06:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea. / up+land 11:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not useful as a separate article. Merge and redirect to Evolution (and possibly elsewhere). - Mike Rosoft 10:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Now I'm curious. Have you read any of the discussion above? Kim Bruning 11:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it again, the best place to redirect would be Evolution (disambiguation). My vote stands: the article is not useful as a separate topic, and its content should be merged elsewhere. - Mike Rosoft 14:55, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Um ok. I take it that's a "no" then. :-( Kim Bruning 18:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: I posted my second comment after looking at the above discussion. (And I am not going to change my vote.) - Mike Rosoft 13:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the VFD has got anywhere in resolving the issue, because people are voting on two different things here - because the article is essentially two articles that should have been split (and then maybe it would be clear what we are voting on). The article is covering two quite different meanings of the term - that of cultural anthropology (which you could be forgiven for not realising was about cultural anthropology, it doesn't make it clear and needs work) and one the derogatory term used by creationists (incidently, hasn't the precedent for derogatory nicknames been set with "Dumbya" etc?).  I have started a discussion at Talk:Evolutionism for what should be done with the page, because I don't think the VFD can be of any use when the page in question is covering one legitimate topic and one debatable topic.  I suggest postponing or archiving this VFD until then.  Joe D (t) 14:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In giving serious consideration to your proposal, :) I examined the Wikipedia solutions for similar central words that branch out to have both 1) derogatory uses as well as serious 2) scholarly uses. Let me point you to the Wikipedia solution for the derogatory uses of the word capitalism.  In my opinion, the Wikipedia solution for the word capitalism was to recognize that there are at least two POVs on what capitalism is.
 * POV 1: The capitalism of Milton Friedman is the same as the evil capitalism that Marxists see.
 * POV 2: The Marxists and Milton Friedman have quite different meanings for the term capitalism.
 * And it seems to me that the Wikipedia solution, as manifested in the capitalism page, is only one approach to reporting the controversies between the warring POVs over whether or not the Marxists and Milton Friedman are talking about the same thing--namely the NPOV approach is to report what the warring parties say:
 * The Marxists say that the Marxists and Milton Friedman are talking about the same capitalism.
 * In contrast, the proponents of capitalism (like Milton Friedman) say that the Marxists are talking about a completely alien concept that has no relation to "capitalism."
 * For example, I quote you the following sentence from the capitalism page: "Of course, the precise ideology meant by "capitalism" in the latter sense differs: what a Marxist or Green may describe as capitalist ideology may seem thoroughly alien to what a classical liberal means by calling her- or himself a capitalist, and vice versa."
 * Now I ask of you, "Is the NPOV approach of the capitalism page the right way to go?" I say, Yes.  The Evolutionism page should accurately report and accurately attribute the POVs of the warring parties all in one page.  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In this case the capitalism approach doesn't apply because Evolutionism as used by creationists is NOT a derogatory version of Evolutionism as described in the first half of the article. I am NOT saying that creationists have taken the scientific word "Evolutionism" and used it as an insult because, as pointed out earlier in this article, "Evolutionism" in cultural anthropology is NOT Evolutionary biology.  Creationists will no doubt agree that the "Evolutionists" they vilify are evolutionary biologists, not the evolutionists that User:Viriditas has been talking about on this page, and I was refering to in the OP.
 * This is what I'm talking about when I say we're not talking about the same thing. It's nowhere near as simple as people voting here seem to think.  Joe D (t) 17:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll second postponing a VFD and sorting out this mess on Talk:Evolutionism first. Kim Bruning 18:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no precedent to postpone VfD, and unless you can achieve consensus to do so, I don't think it should be done. I oppose VfD, and think that we should simply allow the verdict to stand (which I personally hope will be to Keep). --Improv 19:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm with Improv. How about everybody vote to Keep and then we will work out all the proposals on Talk:Evolutionism? --like we do for all the VfDs? ;))  And of course, if anyone thinks we still don't have a worthy Wikipedia page, we can all get together here again on VfD? :(

---Rednblu | Talk 21:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok. Kim Bruning 23:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Support suggestion on Talk:Evolutionism I think the suggestion on the Talk:Evolutionism page is an acceptable solution. Are people prepared to change their votes to support the proposal there? CheeseDreams 20:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll support the proposed compromise as well. Requires me to vote Keep here. So that's my vote then. Kim Bruning 23:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep under proposed compromise. Gazpacho 13:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For reference, I have read and oppose that suggestion. I retain my vote of keep, but do not want to see said rewrite. --Improv 16:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For reference, I also have read and oppose the suggestion on Talk:Evolutionism to split the Evolutionism page into the POVs on "evolutionism." With Improv, I retain my vote of keep. This suggested split is as much a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy as would be the split and merge of the Capitalism page into the Capital page and the PrivateOwnership vs. PublicOwnership debate page. Such a split into Main articles: with summaries on the MainPage might be NPOV appropriate if the Evolutionism page were huge, which it is not.  A disambiguation page may be appropriate, but in my opinion, the naming convention for that disambiguation page should follow the NPOV naming-convention policy used in constructing the Capital (disambiguation) page.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A disambig page would be great. --Viriditas 02:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Great idea! I just created an Evolutionism (disambiguation) page for your review. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work. Aside from some minor grammatical errors, this page needs further work.   As far as the cultural anthropology entries are concerned, they need to be merged into one paragraph and section.  While it is true that clasical evolutionism is discredited in anthropology, it has made important contributions to modern anthropology..  Neo-evolutionism has influenced more popular theories, like cultural ecology and sociobiology.  It's most popular form is Cultural materialism.--Viriditas 05:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * According to the way I read Kim, she's opposed to a disambig between Social Evolutionism and Evolution. But I would accept a disambig between the former and Creation vs. evolution debate. Gazpacho
 * Oh, Id assumed Kim was a man. I am opposed to disambiguation between Social Evolutionism and Evolution. UNLESS it explicitely states against the pointer to Evolution that Creationists use the term to refer to supporters of Evolution. In which case it will be acceptable. CheeseDreams 20:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Very perceptive of you. I do have a beard at the moment ;-) . I don't mind folks saying any of "he", "she", "them", "hir" or whatever though. I've been on internet so long that I'm used to it, and didn't even really notice until you mentioned it. :-) Kim Bruning 22:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry to mention it, im very perceptive. Thats how I know what POV people take, and how rabidly they do so. CheeseDreams 22:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having seen the disambiguation page, I consider the first two bullet points (i.e. references) to be POV and the 3rd should cover them. I would like to see the first two removed, as I consider their inclusion POV. CheeseDreams 20:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The two sections of the current Evolutionism page have very little to do with each other. Therefore:
 * I would like to see the creation of an Evolutionism (anthropology) page (which I have now just created - It looks like it needs to be tidied up and put into sections properly etc.), with the material on this subject in Evolutionism moved there (which I have just done by copying, though I would like to see it removed from Evolutionism).
 * I would like the Evolutionism as used in the creationism/evolution debate to be moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page.
 * I would like to see the removal of the (then completely pointless) Evolutionism page, with a redirect to the disambiguation page in its place. CheeseDreams 20:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Effect of the Recent Adjustment of the Evolutionism Page

Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?

I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.

What remains afterward is
 * one or two paragraphs about the use of the term by creationists
 * this could be moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page


 * a few quotes about evidence for evolution used by darwin
 * this could be moved to Evolution


 * a dictionary etymology
 * this should be moved to the Wiktionary


 * discussion of one or two theories of albiogenesis etc. before Evolution
 * this should be moved to a new article such as Early Theories of Albiogenesis (but with a better title).

Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Move. As per CheeseDreams suggestions. Evolutionism is a neologism used in the creation-evolution debate to equivocate between respectably neutral biological science, on the one hand, and rampant philosophical materialism and atheism on the other hand. Darwin described himself as an evolutionist in The Origin of Species, but he didn't mean what this article says. Some interesting scholarship here, though, that shouldn't be thrown away. CLAVDIVS 11:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Well, yes, that's why my first vote was for a multi-way merge. I did not know at the time about "cultural evolution", which is distinct from all of the above and sometimes called "evolutionism". Maybe we'll just have to hack on this one for a while and then try again. Gazpacho 12:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.