Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Evolution/FAQ

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn No sense having this run a full 7 days. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution/FAQ


This page is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. The FAQ is for a controversial topic, yet it is heavily weighted toward a particular point of view of the contentious issue. It is highly hostile and dismissive of other editors. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  05:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It may (or may not) need improvement, but for an article as popular as Evolution, a FAQ is very useful. (And TBH I don't see any major POV/tone issues.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: seems some people here interpret "POV" as "not my POV". The FAQ represents a general consensus that editors have agreed on (in previous discussions), the purpose of it seems to be to avoid redundancy: so people can read the FAQ and not raise the same questions over and over. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The FAQ is well written and very helpful in heading off unproductive discussions which crop up often on the talk page. I also do not see any significant POV issues, nor do I detect any sense of hostility or dismissiveness, nor do I find it at odds with WP policies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, It's useful. Certainly a strong deletion argument. Let's examine the problem with the FAQ page:


 * Q1: Why won't you add criticisms or objections to evolution in the Evolution article?
 * A1: This is essentially mandated by Wikipedia's official neutral point of view policy...
 * Yep, we have a whole section at WP:NPOV devoted to discussing the Evolution. Why, that policy has paragraphs and paragraphs prohibiting the mention of criticism and objections to Evolution. Blatant misrepresentation of policy.
 * See WP:UNDUE Bulwersator (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Q2: Evolution is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?
 * A2: As noted above, evolution is at best only controversial in social areas like politics and religion...
 * This statement is flat out wrong. There are a number of scientists on both sides of this debate. The very subject discussing the number of supporters is controversial. Yet this FAQ statement dismisses it as if it isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for personal opinions and analysis.


 * Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?
 * A3: That depends on if you use the words evolution, theory, and fact in their scientific or their colloquial sense...
 * Very poorly written answer. It doesn't even address the the question asked. It drones on describing different meaning of the words theory, fact, and evolution. (maybe this part can be transwikied to Wiktionary) It again tosses in unneeded and controversial claims ("What adds to this confusion is that the theory of evolution is also sometimes called a "fact", in the colloquial sense—that is, to emphasize how well-supported it is." More personal opinions and analysis.


 * Same problem with A4 as A3. There isn't anything really concerning about A6.


 * Q7: What about the scientific evidence against evolution?
 * A7: To be frank, there isn't any...
 * Now, you can't tell me that is neither an opinion, nor controversial.


 * The answer to A8 lacks proper understanding of what mutations and natural selection is.


 * This FAQ can't keep itself neutral or free of personal opinions for three paragraphs. It either needs a major rewrite, or it needs to be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is factually correct on the topic, on policy, and the tone is good. The vast majority of people on this planet do not see the topic as "controversial" or "contentious". The views of politicians pandering to their fringe voters and the like, are afforded WP:WEIGHT of exactly zero, per policy. Close on account of snow. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you have sourcing to back up your claims... Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would I just make shit up? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it really wouldn't matter if 80% of the world's population thought that Jesus road a dinosaur and created the earth with fairy dust - the masses aren't experts and democracy doesn't determine reality. When we on WP speak of controversy we speak of it in regards to controversy between experts, and there are virtually no experts in the world who reject evolution.  Unfortunately this fact is lost upon many people (mostly Americans, and apparently Turks), but people who are not educated in biology simply do not have a right to an opinion on biology.  Or like my grand pappy liked to say "you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.  N o f o rmation  Talk  10:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. And of those U.S. earth and life scientists in the know the number is 99.86% (btw, pixie dust is preferred when creating planetoids, fairy dust is primarily used for flying.) —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a very bad page, even though it was probably started with the best of intentions. I am a staunch believer in evolution, but this is obscene. Many of the questions have serious issues within them, including answers that essentially steamroll out any idea that opposing views will ever gain any merit within the article.
 * Issues that are present within the page:
 * Question one: "Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution."
 * Yes, there may be significant consensus that evolution exists, but we have an extreme liberal bias on certain articles, and essentially stating that we will not give any credence to it shows that we have no tolerance for anyone who is opposing this viewpoint. We are an encyclopedia, and we should allow for the input of others, no matter how much we may disagree with their views. Heck, we don't even mention creationism or intelligent design until the last paragraph of the article, something which shows that there is a push to erase it from history altogether.
 * Question two: "Thus, as a consequence of Wikipedia's policies, it is necessary to treat evolution as mainstream scientific consensus treats it: an uncontroversial fact that has an uncontested and accurate explanation in evolutionary theory. There are no scientifically supported "alternatives" for this view."
 * Okay, so it is uncontroversial. Does that mean that we should only mention the controversy once? No! There is a casual mention of the controversy surrounding evolution at the second to last paragraph. There should be a whole section about this, in reality. So what if we have a page. It would not hurt to place a section summarizing said page within the article so that people are informed that there is a controversy surrounding evolution.
 * Question three
 * This whole question talks about and addresses the issue of whether or not it is a theory or fact. Indeed, it is a fact, but this is used as an excuse to not address the issue of whether or not others view it as a theory which might have holes within it.
 * Question four
 * Again, as with question four, it is being used as a reason to not include the other side’s argument, although terms like this, “In the second sense, on the other hand, evolutionary theory is indeed "proven". This is because evolution is extremely well-supported by the evidence, has made testable confirmed predictions, etc. For more information, see Evidence of evolution,” show a point of view that mention that others disagree with the theory.
 * Question seven
 * “To be frank, there isn't any. Most claimed "evidence against evolution" is either a distortion of the actual facts of the matter, or an example of something that hasn't been explained yet. The former is erroneous, as it is based on incorrect claims.” That is one hell of a point-of-view statement right there, and totally discounts the views of people who believe otherwise. I also find this statement problematic for its wording issues: “This means that even if every editor on Wikipedia knew that there was evidence against evolution, we could not add that information to the article without violating Wikipedia's official policies of no original research and neutral point of view. Whether editors think that evolution has evidence against it or not is irrelevant; what matters are the noteworthy scientific views on this issue.”
 * Question eight
 * This whole answer does not even address the question and completely excludes the fact of how DNA and other things could just form out of happenstance.
 * In the end, this entire page needs to go, because it is being used by people with point-of-view issues to silence a minority on the site (Yes, I am aware that most people to not believe in evolution, but we're talking about the site, as this stuff has been able to be perpetuated for years with the minority essentially being shoved in the corner). In the real world, there are a hell of a lot of people who believe in evolution, and if the world’s leading encyclopedia does not mention any of their view, we have more issues than just a liberal bias. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep Of course it's biased towards a certain viewpoint, there is only one viewpoint in biology There may be creationists who disagree, but none of them are published in reliable sources (and let's be honest here, they're fucking morons, pardon my French). As a matter of fact, more articles are published on evolution in one week than the entire output of the discovery institute in its history.  This FAQ is a helpful tool in explaining both to newcomers and to seasoned editors who may not understand science but who are religious that almost any question that has been asked has been and has been answered as well. Evolution is as controversial to biologists as gravity is to a physicist.   N o f o rmation  Talk  08:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If anyone has a reliable source that casts doubt on a statement in the FAQ, please post it at Talk:Evolution for clarification. The nominator states above "There are a number of scientists on both sides of this debate" which leaves little doubt that the nomination is some kind of attack on the firmly established science supporting evolution (all research in biology and medicine is done in the knowledge that there is only one side, and there is no "debate" on this issue among scientists). The FAQ does not preclude a proposal to add material contradicting the science at Evolution—it merely presents a summary of points from past discussions with more care and detail than is generally possible in a talk page comment. The comment above that "we should allow for the input of others" is not compatible with standard policies: see WP:GEVAL and WP:ONEWAY. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The only people who see this as controversial and non-neutral are deliberately uninformed, religiously motivated nut cases who are opponents of Wikipedia's goal of improving the world's knowledge. By their actions they encourage a wider mistrust of genuine and important scientific knowledge. I regard them as dangerous people. The FAQs are completely neutral. Go to Conservapedia for your kind of "NPOV". HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPABulwersator (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it can be improved, but "yet it is heavily weighted toward a particular point of view of the contentious issue" is result of WP:UNDUE Bulwersator (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Controversial topics have FAQs. If this one is broken, get it fixed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Keep. What HiLo48 and SchmuckyTheCat said. And to Kevin Rutherford: The reason why creationism and ID are hardly mentioned in the Evolution article, is because they are not relevant. The article is about biology. Not religion. Yes, Intelligent design does pretend to be about biology, but it is not. Religious movements have no place in encyclopedia articles about biology, other than being mentioned briefly as cultural/historical curiousities. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science. The FAQ may need updating but it is completely appropriate and does take a NPOV. I think you would have to be really stretching to make that argument in the realm of science. The social and cultural implications have nothing to do with the science of evolution. The only other caveat is I would ask other editors to be respectful and keep their "opinions" to themselves as it does little to address the issue (it is just inflammatory and ad hominem). GetAgrippa (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Raul654 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I examined it, but I found no issues with it. Including the anti-evolution arguments would go against WP:UNDUE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per (1) other keeps above (how many times do we have to reiterate this?), (2) Alpha Quadrant: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for personal opinions and analysis" and (3) WP:DEADHORSE. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as an accurate distillation of well-considered responses to common questions, complying fully with policies. If any specific points are disputed and' those disputing the point present reliable sources showing genuine scientific (rather than religious or social) issues, these can be presented and discussed on the FAQ talk page. . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep - per all of the above. It seems to be snowing at this point, and "a motion to adjourn is always in order".... Doc  Tropics  18:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good page to educate those that are not familiar with the topic at hand - about what has  been talked about in the past.Moxy (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - yeah, I know, a total no-brainer, but I thought I would show up anyway. If we were to delete this FAQ page, we would have to delete all FAQ pages, and for an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, this would be a disaster; FAQ pages play a much needed role.  For many people making the transition from reader to editor, NPOV is a complicated policy - it obviously does not mean that every opinion is encyclopedic.  Moreover, the difference between a content fork (which the dif. between the Evolution and Creationism articles is) and a POV fork (which it is not) varies depending on the topic and the policy page cannot explain every concrete example.  FAQ pages like this are essential in explaining what the proper encyclopedic boundaries are for the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fact that there's a vocal minority who object to the fact that scientific consensus does not support their opinion does not alter the fact that scientific consensus does not support their opinion. --BRPierce (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.