Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/138.130.194.229

behaviour
I do believe that pseudoscience it is worth mentioning; it is socially important. However, it should not obfuscate the main article and it should be balanced. My main gripe are the edit wars on the various articles that try to insert the pov. It's quite subtle, but it's there.

"Creationist says x, but scientists say that's nonsense" is a fairly good way of summarising. He is trying to say "Creationist says x, but scientists say that's nonsense, but creationists views are supported by scientists", when the third bit is false and then will act aggressively against any changes made.

Creationism largely consists of a diatribe against science, and so it is impossible for a creationist to accurately represent the scientific literature, and they will pick papers and misrepresent them. Putting this into the main body of the text and asserting ideas that are false obfuscates the main text. It is also out of proportion to the rest of the article.

Some of it is border vandalism, though the term pov-pushing would be better. Dunc|&#9786; 13:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What you're talking about here happens, certainly (I note that you've just made exactly this comment on Talk:William A. Dembski. The fact is, though, that it's not what's been happening on Talk:RNA world hypothesis.  It seems clear there that some people, including you, are reacting to any mention of intelligent design, or even argument from people who accept intelligent design, as if it's ipso facto NPoV interference and vandalism &mdash; and you're then taking that as an excuse to behave badly.  I share your view of intelligent design and creationism (I've even lectured on the subject), but that isn't the issue here.  The problem is that what's happened in this case hands ammunition to the creationists who claim that their opponents are equally driven by religious-style faith and intolerance, as well as weakening your case in other areas where you have a genuine point. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The RfC page seems to be a bit mixed up. The "outside view" section had a "users who endorse this summary" header, and then underneath people who hold opposing views have all signed with "endorse," when it's not clear what they're endorsing. I've removed the misleading sentence. Should there be for, against, and neutral sections?  SlimVirgin 02:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought that it was clear. The "endorses" are within the section Outside view, which has a summary of the argument in support of the user.  The "endorses" are all endorsing that summary, as per the instruction in the line you deleted.  Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What now?
This page was created twelve days ago. So far we have one person endorsing the complaint by the original two complainants, and four people endorsing the argument supporting the subject of the RfC. Counting the editor being complained about and the person who wrote the argument in his support (me), that's six to three in favour of the anon editor. What is supposed to happen next? How long is this allowed to wait before it is concluded?Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)