Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation anthropology

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete. – ABCD 00:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation anthropology

Total votes are 17 for delete and 2 for keep giving 89% delete.

Page is an example of a POV fork and is non-notable. While there are many things wrong with this page, primarily it isn't a real topic. While I recognize that creationists have their own forrays relating to, for example, creation science or creation geology, can anybody find a work that's actually devoted to so-called "creation anthropology"? Google gives a paltry 200 and some hits for the term, and none of them appear to be about the subject. The page is a basic rehashing of creationist POV on what possibly occurred in the past history of humanity. It is not an actual statement on an actual subject. Joshuaschroeder 14:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. schroeder's argument for deletion is that the topic doesn't exist. there are 7 cited and linked articles at the end, and a cited summary from an article on the topic at the very beginning. now consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JoshuaSchroeder. Then consider that physical anthropology discusses the origins of humanity, which this article does from a creationist perspective in terms of genesis. Then cultural anthropology, which considers the origin and nature of morality, which this article does from a creationist perspective, in terms of Genesis. Then linguistic anthropology, which this article considers from a creationist perspective, in terms of the tower of babel. Then ask yourself, "what HARM is the article doing?" Then please, vote keep. Ungtss 14:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Ungtss did not respond to any of the above critiques of the page, instead admits that this is a POV-fork for creationists to dissiminate their ideas and also makese an unrelated ad hominem about myself. The merits of the case stand. Joshuaschroeder 15:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that:

1) i discussed the relevence of this page above, in terms of three branches of anthropology

2) none of schroeder's comments have any relation to wikipedia policy, simply reflecting your opinion

3) since it is composed entirely of your opinion, the fact that you are on rfc for pov pushing is relevent to the credibility of your opinion.

4) i discussed this issue with two mysterious sockpuppets a mere 12 hours before schroeder put this up for vfd, right here.

5) If you do a google search with "creationist," or without quotes, you'll find a number of hits, including this one and this one, to start it off. Anyways, i'm resigned. Even when he loses one of his vfd's, schroeder deletes the page anyway. how many vfd's are we up to, mr. schroeder? and sometimes twice in a week!

1) i discussed the relevence of this page above, in terms of three branches of anthropology

Just because you think it is a valid POV doesn't make it relevent. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never said it was valid. i said that it IS a pov -- a very widespread one, and as such it should be described. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationism is a topic that is rightfully included in Wikipedia. Creation anthropology does not fit the criteria used for inclusion of this. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and why not, other than your own opinion on the matter? Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not a real topic. It is a topic about what you think about creationism's implication for anthropology. Joshuaschroeder 00:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2) none of schroeder's comments have any relation to wikipedia policy, simply reflecting your opinion

Non-notable POV-forks are explicitly against Wikipedia policy. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

please show me this policy, and explain how, exactly, this is a "pov fork," rather than an article describing a particular pov. Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This POV-fork, which you can look up for yourself, is stating that the article's idealization is to push a POV about the subject of anthropology. You aren't describing an actual discipline, an active area of research, or anything more than a mishmash of opinions of people who don't like anthropology because they think it contradicts creationism. Joshuaschroeder 00:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notability is NOT a grounds for VfD. There is no official policy on notability at wikipedia. it has been proposed, but not adopted.

This does not diminish the fact that it is a POV-fork. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what exactly is a pov-fork, schroeder? Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Figure it out for yourself. Joshuaschroeder 00:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3) since it is composed entirely of your opinion, the fact that you are on rfc for pov pushing is relevent to the credibility of your opinion.

The fact is that is courtesy of your own action. I wouldn't call the existence of an opinion on someone else's opinion a fact worthy of consideration. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, your argument is based on your opinion of what is notable -- the vfd is relevent in considering how objective your opinion is in determining that. the fact that you are on rfc for pov pushing against creationism is revelent. courtesy? VfD policy requires that you discuss the vfd on the talkpage before deleting it. where's the discussion? Just another suckerpunch vfd, in direct violation of policy. Well done. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought you said that it didn't matter whether it was notable or not? By the way, the discussion is on the talkpage. Anybody can read it. You make a poor case, the page is now up for deletion. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the sockpuppets gave up the discussion, either because they realized they had no argument, or because the one with a user name (e.g. you) decided to vfd.

User:THOTH is not me, but besides that, the discussion has landed us here on the vfd where the discussion is lively and seems to be indicating that there is an argument to be made for deletion of the page. Joshuaschroeder 00:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4) i discussed this issue with two mysterious sockpuppets a mere 12 hours before schroeder put this up for vfd, right here.

Partially why this VfD is up here. Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets should show their faces. I have absolutely no reason to believe it wasn't you -- i'd appreciate an ip stamp from you to confirm you're not from just outside fairfax, va. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: 140.180.132.151 15:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. still leaves open the question of the one with a username, tho.Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

5) If you do a google search with "creationist," or without quotes, you'll find a number of hits, including this one and this one, to start it off. Anyways, i'm resigned. Even when he loses one of his vfd's, schroeder deletes the page anyway. how many vfd's are we up to, mr. schroeder? and sometimes twice in a week!

This is not an article on "creationist", it is an article on "creation anthroplogy". Joshuaschroeder 15:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was named to parallel the other pages on the topic. it is about creationist views of anthropology. your search, limited to a single two-word phrase designed uniquely for an encyclopedia has no relevence. Ungtss 15:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was a page that was invented by you to maintain some of the other pages which have been subsequently deleted. Creationists may have views on all sorts of things from magic to baked beans. That does not mean we should include them in an encyclopedia. Joshuaschroeder 15:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

right. we should just cut out their cited and summarized views entirely, or replace them with "what schroeder thinks other people think." excellent. Ungtss 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Funny that this is your retort considering that the page is basically "what Ungtss thinks other people think." excellent. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A Google search shows that the term "creation anthropology" appears to be found only in mirrors of Wikipedia. Delete as original research. -- The Anome 14:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --G Rutter 15:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Should be titled "Ungtss' anthropology". Bensaccount 18:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. - SimonP 19:01, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • have you read wikipedia:original research? Here:

Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

please point to a single statement on this page that fits the above definition before justifying your vote with "original research." i think you'll find there aren't any. i think you'll find that the article is composed entirely of cited quotes and statements from the bible and christian writers. everything on this page is "published or available elsewhere." therefore it is absolutely, unequivally not original research. what it is is offensive to your religion. so please, when you vote delete, just back it with "heritical and must be suppressed." thank you. that is all. Ungtss 23:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". --> This is exactly what this page is. It is a synthesis by yourself and a few likeminded creationists into a new article that is about a topic that doesn't actually exist. You have recombined a lot of opinions that were written elsewhere into a totally new endeavor. Joshuaschroeder 00:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i note that you failed to point to a SINGLE statement of "original research" on the page. a topic that doesn't actually exist? the genesis account of the origin of man does not actually exist? lewis's abolition of man does not actual exist? the story of the tower of babel does not actually exist? the views on this page are cited quotes and summaries of creationist views on all the topics in anthropology. there is not an "original thought" in the project. anyways. systemic bias makes the death of this page inevitable. have fun at the witchburning. Ungtss 00:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this is meant to be metaphorical, eh? Otherwise, who would the literal witch we would be burning? Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree completely with bensaccount. unencyclopedic and useless.--Deglr6328 23:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete PatGallacher 01:41, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Different chunks of the content could be placed in other, relevant articles. But the entire collection has some NPOV problems. Feco 05:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I note again, in passing, that the above votes do not make any pretense to any policy justification for deletion. why? because there are none. there is absolutely no policy justification for this vfd, period. We just delete things we don't like here at wikipedia. it's fun. Ungtss 05:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/FACTS, here we go again. Delete as POV-pushing fork. And I would really appreciate it if this vote didn't turn into a shouting match. Radiant_* 08:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That vfd you link to is a vfd of a sandbox. is there a wikipedia policy allowing for the vfding of sandboxes? nah. but we don't need policy to delete things. just numbers. Ungtss 18:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact there is, "inappropriate user page" is a VfD criterion. Radiant_* 19:40, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sandboxes are explicitly contemplated as an appropriate use for user pages, particularly in the case of pov conflicts. inappropriate uses include offensive content, or things unrelated to the wiki project. FACTS is neither of those. FACTS is not an inappropriate use of a user page by any stretch of the imagination. it is only offensive to the sensibilities of those who fear creationism. Ungtss 20:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's right. The reason anybody could possibly object to an invention of Ungtss is because they're afraid of it. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork, no potential to become encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, non-encyclopedic the page is a mess, and I will refrain from stating my opinion on the topic in order to avoid offending someone. Martg76 18:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Would one of the above voters care to point out the wikipedia policy definition of a pov fork, explain how this page fits that definition, and show where wikipedia policy provides that they are prohibited, in order to justify their votes? Ungtss 18:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • allow me to help: ""POV fork" is a shorthand for "This article was created primarily to present the subject of an existing article from a different point of view".
    • I'm curious. what other article covers the topic of creationist views on physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, and linguistic anthropology? Are they documented anywhere on wikipedia? Perhaps we should vfd Christianity because it is simply a pov fork of religion. yes. that would be nice. Ungtss 18:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the article right now there are things on the Tower of Babel, Genesis, Christianity, creationism and many other topics. The views on those parts of anthropology are all derived from them. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I originally tried to bring some reality into this page but I couldn't cope with Ungtss complete takeover in pushing his creationist beliefs in a subject where creationism has very little bearing. There is almost no serious anthropology content from any perspective in this article, just a rehashing of Genesis beliefs. Is there anything mentioned by Ungtss in here that is reflected in mainstream literature? Its all from the Bible. He also deleted the original "pseudo-science" comment in the first paragraph. Dabbler 20:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

would you care to back up some of the above accusations with some diffs? i wonder, creation has very little bearing in physical anthropology, that is, the origin of mankind, and the tower of babel as very little bearing in linguistic anthropology, that is, the origin of languages? Ungtss 20:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, checking the history, I see that the pseudoscience comment was removed by an anonymous editor whose only contribution to Wikipedia is that single edit. Now who was it who was complaining about sockpuppets earlier? You may read Talk:Creation anthropology and some posts on User talk:Ungtss/crazyeddie part 1 for my other comments.Dabbler 20:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

are you insinuating that i am the sockpuppet? the sockpuppet in question was 66.81.131.50, corresponding to an address in sacramento ca. my ip is 65.15.95.34 21:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC), corresponding to an address in athens, ga, which you can verify here. i think if you review the history further, you'll discover that i left the bulk of your edits untouched, and CERTAINLY not affecting the content of any of them. if you had a problem with the article, you might have said something in the past month, during which the page went untouched before being suckerpunched vfded. oh well. no surprise. thanks for everything. 65.15.95.34 21:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At this point i'm withdrawing from the discussion. policy is irrelevent on this topic. the witch must be burned, and she will. have fun. Ungtss 20:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ironic that you should use the term "witchhunt". Theres still some wood left from those sacriligious "evolutionists". Bensaccount 22:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For further edge-of-your-seat banter between bensaccount and ungtss, click here.

• Merge with School pranks --Pgreenfinch 22:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say GOOPTI, but it's probably not (sadly). Still, this is inherently POV. Merge. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:56, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

merge into what? Ungtss 04:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV original research, fork. Megan1967 05:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, before voting delete, read the seven cited and linked articles at the end of the page about creation anthropology, and this diff, the proposed intro from an article about creation anthropology, deleted by the proponent of this vfd. Thank you. that is all. Ungtss 22:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I might point out that this supposed "source" is about a creationist POV of anthropology and Hamartiology rather than some made-up subject of "creation anthropology". I removed it because long quotes like that are to be eschewed in Wikipedia. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a quotemine. Joshuaschroeder 07:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Ungtss, didn't you say you were going to stop editting articles about creationism or religion? I guess that moratorium has ended? Joshuaschroeder 07:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you put it up for vfd without discussion, claiming the topic didn't exist. in order to prove that the topic exists, i provided 7 links and quoted an article. you did not summarize or adjust the summary. you deleted it. find me the wikipedia policy saying that "long quotes are to be deleted wholesale on wikipedia" in order to justify your edit. my decision to boycott creationism pages is a result of your penchant for deleting everything that frightens you on these pages. I added reference to a cited scholarly article in the hope that you might begin to behave rationally. i was disappointed, but not surprised.

Note that the idea of deleted the page was discussed on talkpage, whether Ungtss liked the discussion or not. The seven links are a nice addition but don't respond to the major point that the article is simply POV-forking, similar to having a page on Evolutionary racism talking about how evolution is inherently racist. I'm glad you've figured out my motivations for edits well-enough to basically tell the world what they are and accusing me of bad-faith edits. Fine, that's typical of your style. Moreover, your addition was typically subpar with respect to what should be included in an encyclopedia. If any part of this travesty is to survive, the paraphrase now included is better than what you added. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, before voting delete, read the seven cited and linked articles at the end of the page about creation anthropology, and this diff, the proposed intro from an article about creation anthropology, deleted by the proponent of this vfd. Thank you. that is all.

Note that the "intro" was basically a long quotemine, now paraphrased for the sake of editorial good-taste. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or, at the very least, merge with Creationism. The article currently has a strong pro-Creationist bias, but that calls for a POV cleanup, not a deletion. The links it provides clearly demonstrate that there has been serious thought given by Creationists to the anthopological implications of their beliefs, and I see no reason why that thought shouldn't be catalogued in an encyclopedia. Yes, this article reports on original research, but it is no more original research than (say) an article on the Big Bang Theory would be. As a Darwinist myself, I obviously don't think Wikipedia should be used to advocate Creationist viewpoints, but those viewpoints are held by more than enough people to make them notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion in neutral, verifiable articles. --Jacobw 14:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried that when Ungtss first put up this page, read the history. However, there is only so much you can do against a determined POV merchant like Ungtss. I didn't have time to argue with him all the time about his POV. I have more constructive things I prefer to do than argue with an individual who is determined to push his POV here. Find one single example of real anthropology in this article. Dabbler 16:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The edit history does not support your accusations. your opinion of what is "real anthropology" is ill-defined and irrelevent to an article about "creation anthropology." in short, your arguments give no justification for your vote. Ungtss 17:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem. Ungtss defines the term and has his own opinion and if you don't agree with him with what "creation anthropology" is and how it relates to "real anthropology" then your opinion is valueless. Hence the whole article is, by his own admission, POV and not encyclopedic. Dabbler 17:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is neither my opinion nor yours that matters, but the writers of the cited articles you're pretending don't exist, all of which describe a creationist anthropology, which is accurately reflected on the page in the form of cited quotes and summaries. Point out some pov for me on the page, please. Ungtss 17:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I quote "From the creationist point of view, when human societies deviate far from God's law, we decay. When we enact and practice God's law, we thrive." Dabbler 18:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not pov. that is an attributed viewpoint. it is npov to say, "atheists think there is no god." it is pov to say "there is no god." If "atheists think there is no god" is pov, then we better vfd atheism. This statement says, "from a creationist point of view ...." and then accurately states the point of view. it's npov: an attributed viewpoint. try again. Ungtss 19:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Simply attributing a viewpoint does not make inclusion of the viewpoint NPOV. A viewpoint needs to be reported about because, there are compelling interests for describing its existence. A detail creationist diatribe against anthropology made by means of quoting the Bible and whining about evolution is not reporting a viewpoint in an encyclopedic fashion. Indeed, the "viewpoint" doesn't actually exist in an encyclopedic sense. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Codes of morality and immorality

Originally in the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were innocent; they had no knowledge of good or evil; they were naked, and were not ashamed. They were vegetarians. They did not labor. God's only command was that they not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because it would result in their death, which they violated.

Adam and Eve violated God's command, and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Instantly, they experienced shame for the first time -- they realized they were naked and covered themselves to hide it. They also hid from God. As a result, God removed them from the garden, and cursed them. Specifically, Adam was forced to work to provide for himself and his family, and Eve was given pain in childbirth.

Within a single generation, humanity degenerated from life in Eden to envy and murder. Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, killed his brother Abel." Please explain where this is an attributed viewpoint and not presented as a factual account, based literally on Genesis. Dabbler 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thank you for pointing that out. i just fixed it. i also fixed an instance of mainstream pov that was in the same section -- text i believe you added and i didn't change a whit, if i'm not mistaken. Is there anything i can do to bring the page up to snuff for you, or are you set on deleting it regardless? Ungtss 20:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at the following sections "Noahic covenant", "Law of Moses". Dabbler 20:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attributed. How's that? Please feel free to edit the page in the name of npov as much as you like. i have no monopoly on editing here. i only object to the deletion or caricaturing of creationist views, or the failure to attribute views critical of them. as long as we follow the rules of npov, there is no conflict. i appreciate your insight. Is there anything else I can do? Ungtss 04:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to previous work with Ungtss, any description of creationists that is not glowing is likely to be called a caricature. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh, also, the main objection seems to be that the phrase "creation anthropology" is not in common use. It's a very reasonable objection, but it could be dealt with simply by renaming the page "creationist anthropology". Wikipedia articles must deal with pre-existing phenomena, but not necessarily with pre-existing titles for those phenomena. For example: there is no field called List of Jewish Superheroes but there is a phenomena of Jewish superheroes, and it is worthy of discussion in Wikipedia. --Jacobw 14:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that there isn't a phrase available but that the topic itself is simply a POV fork. One could conceive of creationists publishing articles on any subject they desire. Allowing this article, what's to prevent creation horticulture, creation engineering, creation physics, or creation mathematics? These are non-topics, just like the so-called "creation anthropology". Everything contained in the article can be and is explained elsewhere. Joshuaschroeder 18:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

you're mixing up two definitions. a pov fork is a page addressing ideas addressed elsewhere from a different perspective. redundancy is when everything contained in an article can be and is explained elsewhere.

Pov fork: This is not a pov fork any more than moral relativism, moral absolutism, moral realism and moral objectivism are pov forks of ethics. this page describes a particular point of view in particularity. further, if it is a pov fork, then it should be incorporated into the topic from which it forks. perhaps you would be willing to help me integrate these views into anthropology?

Redundancy: where are the contents of the many cited and linked articles on creationist anthropology covered? Bits and pieces are covered in many different places, but where are the specific issues covered on this page covered elsewhere?

I pause to point out, schroeder, that you might have discussed these things on the talkpage before vfding out of the blue. but i know that tactically, it's easier to get things deleted when you can change your arguments every 10 minutes and collect votes based on an inferior, earlier version of the page. So i would expect no better of you. Ungtss 19:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cited and linked articles on creationist anthropology covered? Bits and pieces are covered in many different places, but where are the specific issues covered on this page covered elsewhere? --> The substantive stuff in the article isn't all that new: the myths from Genesis, Christian doctrine of the soul, the tower of Babel, etc. are all things found elsewhere. The only novel idea is that this page is a POV-essay for creationists and by creationists to present the ideas as somehow associated with scientific anthropology. This is an inappropriate POV inclusion to the encyclopedia. We don't need to have a manufactured "creationist anthropology" page for creationists to wax eloquently about what part of the Christian canon they want to see included in anthropology. They have the pages on the Christian canon to do that. That's what is the POV-fork. Joshuaschroeder 22:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your words demonstrably hold no link to reality. there are seven links at the bottom of the page documenting the existence of "creationist" and "christian" anthropology, that have absolutely nothing to do with me or my "manufacturings." your "pov fork" argument would vfd thomism because it is a pov within philosophy. a pov fork would be "arguments that bush is a good president" and "arguments that bush is a bad president." NOT "republican party platform" and "democratic party platform." your sole and very obvious intent here is to delete views you wish creationists would stop "waxing eloquent" about so you can wax eloquent about your religion without any competition from reason. Ungtss 03:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find any number of links for "Nation of Islam anthropology", "Jainist anthropology", "Zoroastrian anthropology". None of these articles are encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. This article is a rehashing of arguments, it is not a description of a unified or codified platform that anybody holds too, except for Ungtss.

Claiming that someone else is going to wax eloquent about their religion is not an excuse for doing so. If you have evidence that I'm waxing eloquent about my religion, please indicate it. It's interesting that Ungtss thinks he knows what religion I am and that obviously must influence my edits. The Ungtss doth protest too much. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creation anthropology is basically a page stating what parts of Christianity are "supposed" to be included in anthropology according to the opinion of Ungtss and his chosen group of references. It is fascinating that someone who is so obsessed with "reason" cannot admit that the title of the page and the contents he created was manufactured out of his own mind and not subject to anything other than his own opinion about the topic of anthropology. Joshuaschroeder 00:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Btw, when I said merge, I meant delete. Unscientific, and even preposterous, positions can be accepted of course in WP when enough people hold them, so there is no reason that they should not be known. But when the tactic, as seen in Ungtss arguments, is clearly to organize an invasion of just one idea by multiplying the approaches of it, articles after articles (I suppose the next article will be creation cooking recipes I see it as abusive and as an obvious npov propaganda. WP is not a place for proselytism. The line has to be drawn --Pgreenfinch 07:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I repeat that this article is a collection of cited summaries of articles by creationists on the unique topic of creation anthropology. This covers ideas and a point of view covered nowhere else -- it is neither a tactic nor proselytization, but an npov description of a point of view you find distasteful. it starts off with an article about "christian anthropology." The topic exists. It is widespread. The information is covered nowhere else. The article is written in npov style. your slippery slope argument is baseless -- this article is NOT entitled creation cooking recipes -- it is entitled creation anthropology, and is based on a number of articles discussing the topic. as such, there is nothing in wikipedia policy to justify your vote but your distaste for this point of view. Ungtss 13:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking for the right term, you are right, qualifying this article as a slippery slope article would be perfect, thanks. --Pgreenfinch 08:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies where there is no causal link between the page in question (creation anthropology -- which exists) -- and your parade of horribles -- creation cooking recipies. your argument is a logical fallacy. Ungtss 13:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You will never win here, I can find scores of cognitive and emotional biases which are at the base of your theories. Do we start with anchoring and framing? But the question is not here, you are entitled to fish for whatever explanation of the world, reason and facts are optional, it is about your tactic of accumulation to push it down people's throat. --Pgreenfinch 15:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason i will never win here is because people like you refuse to acknowledge your biases, confuse them with reality, and delete all pov's that do not coincide with your particular dogma. this page doesn't force anything down anybody's throat. it documents a widespread pov. you're the doing the forcing. you're deleting without the slightest pretense to policy justification. Ungtss 16:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good show of rhetorics, except that you are dodging the accumulation tactic bit ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 16:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that argument defeated itself. your fear of "accumulation" is another way of saying, "we don't want your ideas around here. If people read them, they might feel forced to believe them." that's an argument for mere censorship, and it certainly sells the reader's critical faculties short. The page merely documents the salient points of a relevent pov. noone has to read them if they don't want to. you're simply depriving them of the opportunity to read a cited summary of a relevant pov. I'm afraid you're dodging the rest of my argument by labeling it mere "rhetoric." Ungtss 16:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I love your circumvolated interpretations, Thinking about it, it is difficult to say if they are more accumulative than rhetorical, or the other way round. But you might be a bit overconfident in thinking that they would make the article valuable for the critical reader, seeing what 15 of them already stated ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The majority is not always right. the test is policy and reason. your arguments so far have been slippery slope, parade of horribles, proof by majority, and ad hominem. all fallacies. those above yours are no better, insofar as they blatantly misapply policy. the majority is absolutely wrong in this case. Ungtss 21:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line, Ungtss, is that you don't get a page dedicated to your personal take on anthropology (and no the citations don't mean anything -- I could cite any number of unworthy topics). Bensaccount 22:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this isn't my take on anything. This is a summary of cited views on a topic. There's not an original thought in the piece. it's all essays, books, and bible stories. Ungtss 22:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You chose them didn't you? Bensaccount 22:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

that doesn't make it "my take." it makes it a report of other people's takes. Ungtss 13:42, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It makes it a synthesis which is defined in the POV-fork as problematic when it is basically manufactured, as you have done. It is "your take" because the references are made as someone might reference a personal essay on how, say, Boston Red Sox fans should approach eating a hotdog. It might be easy to find seven references on the subject, but that doesn't make the topic any less POV-pushing because the person would have to be pushing their own agenda in that regard. Joshuaschroeder 15:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. A synthesis is not a pov-fork is not basically manufactured. all wikipedia articles are syntheses -- they are only personal research if they are a novel synthesis -- which is page is not. it is not a pov fork, because it does not treat an issue covered elsewhere in a different way -- it treats the issue of "creation anthropology" in an npov way, in the only place it is treated at all. it is not manufactured. it is cited and sourced. your false analogy regarding hot dogs requires no response. it speaks for itself. stick with your telescopes, please, schroeder. Ungtss 15:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, personal research: "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This qualifies. Joshuaschroeder 17:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

to justify your conclusion, please point to one "novel narrative or historical interpretation" on this page. I think you'll just find a description of a widespread point of view, cited, and summarized, with not a WHIT of unique or creative thought in the entire piece. Ungtss 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is novel narrative to assert that the topic "creation anthropology" exists. Joshuaschroeder 19:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any topic on which articles can be cited from a number of sources existed before i had anything to say about it. Ungtss 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By your own admission, the articles cited were from sources that contained the words "Christian", "creation", and "anthropology". Hardly evidence that the articles were written on the topic. Joshuaschroeder 20:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From that search, I selected a number of articles explicitly on the topic of anthropology grounded in genesis, as evidenced on the page. Ungtss 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you selected commentary on anthropological ideas from a creationist perspective. That's a POV-fork pipedream. Joshuaschroeder 22:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, a summary of 7 online sources, all repeating each other does not meet the requirements for and encyclopeida article. This isn't repoted anywhere of note because it isn't a recognised field within theology or religious studies.--nixie 13:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • One of the links is a course outline on the subject. Another is a list of books on anthropology as a subset of theology. Ungtss 14:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Course outline from the Assembly of God seminary? The list of books is hardly about the subject as outlined on the page. So I remain convinced that this is a total manufacture of your own whimsy. Joshuaschroeder 00:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see that the subjects of courses taught at seminary are to be excluded from wikipedia, and that because such topics are taught there, the reporting of what they teach is merely a "manufacture of my own whimsy." thank you again for demonstrating such fantastic reasoning, schroeder. the fact that you despise christianity does not justify its exclusion from wikipedia. Ungtss 13:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to report what they teach at the Assembly of God seminary, why not report it on the Assembly of God page? They have classes there in everything from parenting to dealing with addiction. Are you going to start pages on creation parenting and creation drug counseling with those as resources? The point is, the seminary course is designed to be a perspective of a denomination on an issue. This article is proporting to be about a unified idealization of the way creationism should act with respect to anthropology. The views of a teacher at an Assembly of God seminary would be relevent in an article about the Assembly of God, but they do not represent a basis for this manufacture of yours. Joshuaschroeder 15:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AG is a subset of creationism. naturally creation anthropology with reference AG. that doesn't mean that creationism can only be described on AG pages. Many others besides the AG ascribe to creation anthropology, as indicated by the references, including Bible.org. It is a unique issue best described in its own article. Ungtss 15:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AG is a subset of creationism. --> Are you claiming that this denomination is a subset of creationism? A denomination that defines itself based on Pentacostalism that is totally independent of the definitions of creationism? I think it reasonable that the things described in the Assembly of God's seminary are POV of the Assembly of God and belong in an article discussing the beliefs of the Assembly of God. It's nice that you have created a subject to which a large number of groups are automatic subscribers, even without vetting your personal research essay on the topic, but this idea that it is a "unique" argument just won't cut it. It's as unique as any POV-pushing argument ever made. Joshuaschroeder 17:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am claiming, schroeder, that to reference AG on the issue of creation anthropology in the context of other non-ag writers on creation anthropology does not make this an AG issue -- it makes AG one of the groups who holds VIEWS on this particular issue, and are therefore useful in describing it. The rest of your paragraph is mere proof by assertion, so i'll let it go. Ungtss 17:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Assembly of God holds positions on many issues, but that does not make a personal research essay such as this legitimate. The point is that this is a view of the Assembly of God about anthropology. It is not anything more than that. The creation anthropology article is simply a sidetrack. Joshuaschroeder 19:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More proof by assertion. this is not personal research (as it is cited, not original and widely held), nor is it solely the view of AG (as many of the other linked articles are not AG), nor is a sidetrack from anything but what it describes, objectively, in npov style. Ungtss 19:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is that this reference could be used to support an article on AG's view of anthropology. However, creation anthropology is your coined-term and idea that cherry-picks citation that agree with your opinion about the existence of the manufactured topic. Joshuaschroeder 19:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All i did was Google "Creation & Christian & Anthropology." What you see is what I got. I cherrypicked nothing. i did no original research. i summarized a widely held opinion on the origin of man. you're vfding it. Ungtss 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All three of those terms you Googled belong in Wikipedia. Any "widely held opinion" on the origin of man belongs in the article first man or woman. Joshuaschroeder 20:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. as do widely held views on the main topics in anthropology grounded in the biblical account of creation -- which describes the content of this article. Ungtss 20:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly redundant, the points of the biblical account of creation are supposed to be in creationism. They can have implications for all sorts of disciplines. They shouldn't be in an invented new article. Joshuaschroeder 22:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any useful content with Creationism. Sjakkalle 11:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and POV fork. Jonathunder 15:39, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
• Delete. This is absurd. BJAODN, anyone? — Davenbelle 07:09, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

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