Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neo-Darwinism


 * Comment I'm not yet convinced on the need for this article, and do think it could be cleaned up a bit, but to call Memestream an "[aggressive] POV edit warrior" seems unfounded and sounds to me like a personal attack. Although there are creationists who use this term, so does Dawkins. Using the term does not make you a creationist and to imply so is frankly disingenuous. Ben Hocking (talk 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah no it's not. Disingenous is trying to present yourself as expert on evolution while citing creationist sources, employing creationist tactics and arguments and constantly and aggressively trying to rewrite evolution articles from a creationist POV. He's certainly looks, walks and quacks like an aggressive creationist POV warrior. ornis ( t ) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He claims to have an interest in evolution, not be an expert (as far as I can tell). He has already admitted that he didn't realize those sources were creationist initially, and some of those cited sources are from Richard Dawkins. Again, if you are going to accuse him of being "an aggressive creationist POV warrior" (no doubt implicitly citing WP:SPADE), I think there should be evidence to back up what comes off to me as an unfounded personal attack. Ben Hocking (talk 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well maybe in future you should look more closely. ornis ( t ) 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to where he said
 * I'll point out that is not the same as claiming to be an expert. I'd also point out that someone else we both know has claimed to be a "subject matter expert", despite demonstrating ignorance beyond something such as whether or not a particular site is a creationist site. (There's a difference between having a "deep understanding" of a subject and knowing the controversial positions of players behind it.) Anyways, I still haven't seen any evidence that this atheist is "an aggressive creationist POV warrior". I kindly ask you to retract that accusation unless you can find some evidence to back up that claim. Ben Hocking (talk 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All the evidence of POV pushing we need. Odd nature 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be about the text and its citations. Comments on an editor's supposed motives and beliefs are not relevant to the discussion of whether or not this article fits the criteria outlined in the Deletion policy. Tim Vickers 22:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Tim. Unfortunately, it was included in the reason for nomination. Ben Hocking (talk 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree completely; read WP:SPADE. Editors who consistently push a POV are POV pushers. And when their POV pushing becomes disruptive, such as recreating POV forks prompting AFDs, etc., pointing out their chronic problems saves the community a lot wasted time. I don't appreciate you're removal of my all too accurate and necessary characterization of this editor. And it's not as if you don't have a dog in this race. Odd nature 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's hardly my "dog". I sympathize with him because I see him being attacked, and I disapprove of the way he's being treated. Could you present any evidence that he's pushing a POV? I haven't seen any, and I've just skimmed through his edit history. I noticed that almost from the very beginning he was accused of it, but it was on grounds as baseless as the current ones, IMO. Ben Hocking (talk 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at his main space contribution history. There's literally no contributions to articles that haven't consistently failed to gain consensus over NPOV concerns. Then read WP:SPADE. Then give it rest. I wish you were as concerned about disruption of project as you are about defending like-minded souls. As it is you have a well-established history of being quick to defend disruptive, less then productive editors and slow to discourage their trouble making. Why is that, do you think? Odd nature 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at it already (as I mentioned), and I'll kindly ask you to not make personal attacks on me, either. Could you give me an example of one of those that you think is POV-pushing? Please make sure it's a clear example, and one that doesn't require assuming bad faith in the first place. Ben Hocking (talk 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're genuinely interested in whether or not this contributor is a chronic POV pusher you'll have to do your own homework, Ben, because experience has taught me that you are not open to evidence that contradicts your views and that you all too often fall into this very familiar and tiresome sort of demands that suggest to me other motives. Odd nature 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand you completely. If you had any good evidence, you'd be quick to supply it. As you don't, I'll "have to do [my] own homework." For the record, I have changed my mind on several issues and admitted when I was wrong. Ben Hocking (talk 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you don't, but that's OK. Thanks for proving my point about other motives, though. Odd nature 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've looked at it more closely, and this is the first instance I see of him being accused of introducing "creationist cruft" – an accusation that appears to be wholly unfounded. It seems to me that someone assumed bad faith, and from there, any edit he made was assumed to be somehow supporting creationism, which of course then contributed to assumptions of bad faith. I've provided evidence that supports how I see things. Now it's your turn. If you again choose to dismiss this with some ad hominem arguments, that will say all that needs to be said. Ben Hocking (talk 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two points. What have I got to do with this discussion?  I call anything that smacks of creationism as "Creationist Cruft."  Second, you apparently missed something that Tim wrote above:  " Comments on an editor's supposed motives and beliefs are not relevant to the discussion of whether or not this article fits the criteria outlined in the Deletion policy."  Thanks for taking time on this.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Point 1: I didn't mention you specifically. The edit that I linked to was made by you and is relevant because it incorrectly referred to changes he made (including statements from Dawkins that were not at all unflattering) as "creationist cruft". (I really don't understand what about those edits "smacked" of creationism – if you were to explain that, it might help me to understand your perspective better.) Point 2: The label of edits made by Memestream as creationist cruft are quite relevant here on the talk page as the same type of arguments are being incorrectly applied to the article he (re)started. There's no doubt that article could be improved on (as others have pointed out), but calling it creationist cruft is assuming things. There's an old saying about what happens when you assume things&hellip;
 * Most importantly (also dealing with point 2), I did not make the original comments about the "editor's supposed motives and beliefs", correct? After being made, it seems the honorable thing not to let them stand unanswered. Perhaps you feel that these accusations have already been sufficiently debunked. If Odd nature is the only one who doesn't feel this way (and his last comments suggest that he doesn't feel this way), then I am content to let the matter drop. However, if other people are unable to go through his edits and draw the reasonable conclusion that he is in no way a creationist, and if that faulty opinion of him is contributing to their decision to vote for delete (as numerous editors seem to suggest), then my defense of him does not only seem germane, it seems necessary. Ben Hocking (talk 14:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Memestream is a lot of things. It's also irrelevant to this discussion.  There is no need to defend or support him.  Once again, read what Tim Vickers wrote above.  As for creationist cruft, it was.  It it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and acts like a duck, it must be creationist cruft.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The "walks like a duck" comment isn't really helpful unless you can describe to me how it walks like a duck. It might be self-evident to you, but please explain to me how that edit you made removed any "creationist cruft". I readily acknowledge that there are areas of creationism that I am quite ignorant of, so please consider this as a good faith request and not simply word-play. Ben Hocking (talk 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As an outsider with a little knowledge of ID creationism, using links to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design is a red flag. Like the edit you linked earlier, their definition is generally ok, but gives priority to "Neo-Darwinism" as a term over what scientists would generally call the modern synthesis or variations – see the rewritten article for TalkOrigins Archive references, including an analysis of Behe's quote mining with a vague and incorrect description of what he calls neo-Darwinism..... dave souza, talk 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen of these discussions and edit wars, I can only conclude that anyone who dares to utter (or type) the words "neo-Darwinism" is to be considered a creationist. It is a sort of shibboleth. (Regardless of the obvious fact that Dawkins uses the term often and is not a creationst). --Itub 07:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "Neo-Darwinism" is currently used almost exclusively by Creationists. Add to this a large dose of OR & a sprinkling of citations to a known ID-creationist organisation (as well as to other non-reliable sources), and the whole does bear at least some resemblance to a creationist jack-up. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Drastic re-write
I've rewritten the intro to reflect the way I think the article should develop, with sources from TalkOrigins Archive. Other sources would be welcome, but not creationist cruft from ISCID ;) . I've commented out sections which seemed to overlap the modern synthesis article or were rather dubious. Time for a new vote on that proposal? . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. I haven't voted because I'm not really that familiar with the history of evolution, even as a layperson. I did notice that at least one other editor stated that they might change their vote depending on a re-write, and I think others might as well. Ben Hocking (talk 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)