Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was delete. In present form this is an apparent first time integration of two words to support material that is original research. The only sources cited, as noted, use the words in conjunction to mean something unrelated to the subject of the article. As such, they are irrelevant to the article at issue, which means the article is entirely unverified. The desire to keep on the basis that other meanings exist requires us to consider nonexistent material; that is beyond the scope of this debate. If that inchoate article is written it can and should be considered on its own merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Species integration

Species integration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article creator invented a fake scientific name. The article claims that the term species integration is used by the scientific community to describe the merging of two species into one breeding species. It then proceeds to list two references where the words 'species integration' appear. Upon closer inspection, both articles use the word integration to mean different things. In one, it meant interrelationships between groups of genes that produce some ornamental phenotype. In another it meant the forces which holds a species together, protecting it from speciation. I have since removed these two references. You can see them in the Talk:Species integration page. Fred Hsu 23:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article nominated for deletion was created by user User:Ryoung122, after his article on another name he invented was deleted via the same Afd process. That article, most ancient common ancestor, dealt with similar human species integration theme. See the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor Fred Hsu 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Get subject-matter experts to validate or repudiate the article. Subject-matter experts include biologists and those in similar fields. By getting experts involved now, it should short-circuit similar AfDs in the future. No comment at this time on this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously biological nonsense, as shown by the two references asserted, clearly selected on the basis of title without even reading the abstract. The material on the talk page is clear enough. Left-over idea from the 19th century, possibly related to some equally obsolete racial theories. DGG (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • From the 'hybrid' page: "Plant species hybridize more readily than animal species, and the resulting hybrids are more often fertile plant hybrids and may reproduce, though there still exist sterile hybrids. A number of plant species are the result of hybridization...". 74.237.28.5 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC) User talk:Ryoung122
    • So, it it NOT biological nonsense. Second, even if an idea is 'left over from the 19th century' it would still be significant from an historical perspective. 74.237.28.5 06:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC) User talk:Ryoung122
  • Delete as a "scientific"-term-invented-on-wikipedia for a possibly non-existent phenomenon. Was the creator intending to discuss Interspecific hybrids, which, of course, is a completely valid subject ? Abecedare 02:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is obviously a fabrication, I've seen one or two papers that use the term, but the meaning is different from what is in the article. Its Most ancient common ancestor De ja vu. [1]Muntuwandi 02:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete You know, I'm inclined to say that there's a lack of sources, or that this constitutes original research, all of which is true, but I think the fact that the article states that the concept is rejected by "mainstream" researchers says it all. Calgary 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - hopefully second time will be the charm that stops this nonsense. Before creating another article of this type; maybe it would be best if you collaborated with another editors in the hopes of producing a more successful article. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is OR or a hoax. the original references has nothing to do with the subject as described in the article. As far as I know, the term "species integration" has several other meanings, and I don't know if any of these meanings are used in a widespread manner to justify an article. One of the meanings is what the nom stated, another example is describing interactions between multiple species living in the same ecosystem. In any case, none of these meanings is related to what the article states.Dan Gluck 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - we can create articles for random terms found on the Internet that happen to combine meaningful words? Cool! Oh, hold on, no we can't. Delete for failing RS, OR. WLU 12:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references found in a google scholar search suggest this term is in use with the meaning ascribed to it. The suggested application of the meaning is junk, too. Multiregional hypothesis does not include the hypothesis that modern humans are a hybrid between multiple species from different regions: it contends that the speciation of humans occurred over a wide geographic area, but that there was constant gene flow between these populations, so they were never separate species. JulesH 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • delete, OR/SYN, thanks for spotting this. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the name were 'invented' then why is it being used in scientific papers? Also, a word may have more than one definition...the existence of other uses argues for keeping the article, even if reworking by explaining that the word has multiple meanings (such as scientism).74.237.28.5 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (paragraph moved by User:Fred Hsu for User talk:Ryoung122 who wrote this paragraph)
  • Delete per all above. Being used in a different context doesn't assert notability, it asserts a hoax. Giggy Talk | Review 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete heres the thing, I'm of the opinion that the subject itself should be covered, but the single paragraph of information and theres more talk in the discussion page than the article itself, means that my user experience @ wikipedia has not been satisfied by reading the article. I'm not going on about notability or sources, its just too inconclusive leaving me with a feeling that, well, I learned nothing from it, but more from the discussion page. Otherwise - if it was just that the article lacked sources I would change my vote to weak keep. really, all these people claiming lack of notability might have to go down to the US patents office and register a new widget that does nothing (which will get you a patent) but only when the patent gets challenged in court is where it makes the difference whether the patent is valid or not, and I believe this should also apply to wikipedia, really. Not worth quoting the ABC's and XYZ's of wiki rules like others have. Its just that I didn't learn anything from the entry. All the best. --Achidiac 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Invented term. Or, at least, invented meaning for the term.Bgplayer 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - See here as a good example of academic coverage. Clearly notable, and the incompleteness of an article is not a reason to delete it. — xDanielxTalk 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Finally something credible and at least somewhat on-topic. For now, this stub should be deleted and an appropriately named high-quality, well-referenced article written. If all you want is a stub, then write up a well-referenced paragraph and put it under evolution or some similar topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • PLEASE READ PAPER BEFORE YOU OPINE! This is the same reference which I keep removing from the article. Instead of a PDF file, now we have an html page. I debunked it here on the talk page! The article talks about something completely different. If you want to write a new article about the forces which holds a species together, protecting it from speciation, be my guest. But that reference has nothing to do with the article in question here. Fred Hsu 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Understanding the referenced scientific article was the relatively easy part. Understanding what this stub is about is something else. The stub has to go. Any replacement article, whatever the name and whatever the actual topic, must conform to Wikipedia standards. Among other things, the name should match the topic and another use shouldn't have a higher-priority claim on the name. See my comments elsewhere in this AfD. See also User talk:Ryoung122#Suggestions on how to avoid AfDs in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Fred Hsu 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of the differing uses of the term, but I think it is a mistake to treat them as different subjects entirely. Check out the nanotechnology article as a good example - it is (in modern use) an extremely broad term that has been defined in many ways and used in many very different contexts, but there is a rough theme uniting the different uses. I think if the two uses discussed here can be backed up with sources, we can follow the same path. Admittedly I've never heard "species integration" used to describe multiple species converging, but this article seems to use the term in the context of multiple species, and I'm sure there are more. I only scanned it though, as it's thick material for late-night reading and well outside of my expertise. Perhaps someone else could take a look? — xDanielxTalk 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This paper is mostly talking about habitat segregation and integration of different, competing fish species in a particular water column. I have been keeping fish for a long time (and reading about them) myself, so I know what this paper is talking about. Are you proposing that we keep the article Species integration to accommodate at least 3 different meanings of the permutation of two words, when this particular permutation occurs only 669 times in google (including usages where these two words belong to different parts of a sentence such as in Talk:Species_integration#Ridiculous reference), while nanotechnology appears 3,320,000 times? Should we create an article for flies like an arrow (which occurs occurs some 115,000 times) to mean both time flies like an arrow and flies really do like an arrow, and fruit flies like bananas? Fred Hsu 06:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to suggest that decisions are somehow bound by precedent, but I think my proposal is fairly reasonable and not atypical. I don't know if we should integrate one, or two, or three meanings of "species integration" into the article, but given that at least 1-2 of them have credible academic sources backing their "notability," I think we should have an article which deals with the notable uses of the term. (I use quotes because I think "notability" is perhaps slightly misleading. "Given attention from credible sources" is more descriptive.) If some uses are not notable, then we can forget about them. I don't think "flied like an arrow" has received significant attention from reliable sources, but if it has, then an article might be appropriate (assuming it doesn't violate whatever other policy). — xDanielxTalk 06:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Mr Hsu seems to be holding a grudge and has an axe to grind. The fact of the matter is, 'flies like an arrow' is a sentence fragment, not a word-phrase; an article on 'flies like an arrow' would not be appropriate. However, an article on 'species integration' describes a theoretical concept that cannot be expressed with either word by itself: the word "species" does not imply this concept; the word "integration" could imply this concept but would be much too broad. "Species integration" narrows the focus to the idea being discussed. Therefore, it makes sense to have an article using a phrase. I note, for example, the article recent single origin hypothesis. Is that one word? No! Also note the word 'integration' implies NOT a 'holding together' but a coming together, a merging of parts. Second, whether an article should exist or not should be based on whether the concept discussed has any bearing on scientific theory or thought. We already see that it must be an important idea or you wouldn't be so negatively opposed to it. Given that, despite the best efforts of you to discredit it, it is in fact possible to occur in plants and has been hypothesized to occur in animal species (and more importantly, would have a major bearing on discusssions such as whether homo sapiens/homo neanderthalensis could have 'interbred'), it seems that the idea is important.
  • Perhaps the worst part of this dispute is that those who fancy themselves thinking in a 'scientific' manner instead are responding religiously...defending the 'single recent origin hypothesis' as if it were a faith.Ryoung122 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (indented by Fred)
  • I hate to explain jokes, but... See the end of Syntactic_ambiguity#Examples section on "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." It's a well known example in every Natural Language Procesing text book in computer science. Now back to our topic: it's clear that you really do want an article based on your own whim, even though no actual paper supports your interpretation of these two words. Your 'keep' seems different from Daniel's 'keep', if I am not mistaken. Fred Hsu 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me use another example which more closely resembles our current situation. Try this search on animal interaction in google scholar. It yields 1,860 hits. Should we create an article for this permutation of words to cover all possible ways scholars have used it in their papers? I can clearly see a "rough theme uniting all of them". Fred Hsu 06:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that we should document all unique uses of the term "species integration"; I said that we should include them if they can be explained and established as notable by adequate sources. If some uses of "species integration" are not notable, then fine, we can forget about them for the purposes of this article. If "flies like an arrow" or "animal interaction" constitute notable terminology, or are useful ways of organizing notable and sourced information, then sure, they can have their own articles too. I do not think that that is the case; certainly not for the former. You seem to be neglecting the distinction between a term of art and a random string of words. That isn't to say that all articles must be predicated on terms of art (lists are an obvious counter-example), but "species integration" clearly is such a term, albeit perhaps a vague one. If sources exist to support the notability of the term of art, then it should have an article. And if multiple sources exist to support highly different uses of the same term of art, then they can share an article, or they can be divided into separate articles if appropriate (probably not in this case, considering brevity). — xDanielxTalk 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The new paper you found is a 2007 master thesis titled: An Experimental Study of Vertical Habitat Use and Habitat Shifts in Single-species and Mixed-species Shoals of Native and Nonnative Congeneric Cyprinids. As I read elsewhere in other AfDs, people who vote to keep should be prepared to rewrite articles according to their own recommendations. Would you be willing to completely rewrite this article, if it were kept, to show how we can contribute to further our knowledge with the three references people have found so far for the permutation species integration, even though none of them talks about anything remotely close to what this article was created for? If I created an article called animal interation to describe how different animal species talk to one another by sound, would you be willing to completely rewrite it based on some notable papers out of the 1,860 references I found in google scholar? Thanks. Fred Hsu 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fred, the fact that certain editors (myself included) are not able or willing to write a comprehensive article on a subject does not mean that that subject does not merit an article. I don't know anything about the suprachiasmatic nucleus, so I let others deal with it. I think it's better to leave an innocent stub intact than to delete it such that the next curious science student who stumbles along gets driven away by "this article has been deleted" messages. — xDanielxTalk 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Daniel, if you don't know anything about "species integration", you shouldn't be voting here. If you have background knowledge and are able to understand the current article and the 3 irrelevant references, and you still recommend that the article be kept for reasons I cannot fathom, you should be ready to rewrite it in the way you recommended in your previous comments. No one else except Robert voted to keep this article, so who do you think will take up such useless task? Please don't say that you will again just put the irrelevant references back to the article, because I will promptly remove them again. Fred Hsu 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't I be voting here? I gave valid reasons for keeping the article, and "I'm an expert on the subject" wasn't one of them. Species integration is a borderline term of art; if only those with comprehensive knowledge on all uses of the term were permitted to vote then there would be one or two votes at most. I don't know what the role of a suprachiasmatic nucleus is, but it's evidently notable and clearly merits an article. Threatening to start a revert war really isn't appropriate for an AfD. — xDanielxTalk 03:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • <undent>Comment I'm echoing Fred Hsu - the page as is, is bogus, and all the references happen to use the two words in conjunction, each time with a totally different meaning. The fish article seems to mean the physical mixing of different species of fish within a waterway, and has nothing to do with genes. The bird one is about the integration of colours to form display features. The plant one is about how species are kept together and prevented from speciation. The article created by Ryoung122 is about a non-term, possibly a neologism, 'justified' by scientific references which have nothing in common aside from happening to use two words in context. There's no article that defines 'species integration' in the way used in the page. It's not a minority scientific position, it's at best original research. Regards Young's comments above, if 'a word may have more than one definition', that makes the page a definition, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. WLU 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Nanotechnology has a definition as well. In fact, it has many definitions. Does that mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia article? — xDanielxTalk 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Daniel, the nanotechnology article is NOT just a definition page. It is a long and complete article. As I said before, there are 3,320,000 hits in google for this. On the other hand, "species integration" produces very few random hits because it is just a permutation of two words. I am afraid I don't get what you are trying to convey by equating "species integration" to nanotechnology. Fred Hsu 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This article doesn't have to be a brief definition either. Regardless of what editors decide the word means, if one or more meanings can be discussed meaningfully sighting reliable sources, then the article satisfies notability and should be kept. That condition has evidently been met. Content disputes are generally best settled on the articles talk page; the AfD forum really isn't for "this article is too short"-type complaints. — xDanielxTalk 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo Talk 03:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as the current article has no sources to support it. If somebody wishes to create a second article with a different meaning then we can debate that at the time. But it would be inappropriate to debate both this existing article and a hypothetical possible other article simultaneously. SilkTork 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by original author of the article, User talk:Ryoung122

Comment. I find it disturbing that in a world that is supposed to be fair, rational, and open-minded, such attempts are being made to stamp out any alternative viewpoints. The deletion of the previous article is simply a prior example of the same bias. Both concepts can be found from the multiregional hypothesis page. However, to argue that only one article is needed is simply biased.74.237.28.5 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It should be noted that, at least, some ideas here are close to the 'point' of the article...past 'racial' theories have argued that the various 'races' of 'man' were each individual species. In that case, the race-theorists may have confused 'interspecific hybridization' for what they considered to be 'intergeneric hybridization'.

However, the point of the article was not exactly that. If one is to argue that homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis...two separate species within the same genera...hybridized to form just one species, this is an example of 'species integration.' Even if the idea is false, researchers have been debating the issue for decades, and thus an explanation of even a 'discredited' idea is warranted. For example:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/061030_neanderthal_hybrid.html

In fact, we find 54,000+ articles for the concept:

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 54,300 for humans+neanderthals+interbred. (0.11 seconds)

Human-Neanderthal Hybrid?"They intermixed, interbred and produced offspring." ... remains and living humans indicated that Neanderthals did not interbreed with the modern humans. ... cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Humans and Neanderthals Might Have Interbred | LiveScienceAnthropologists find evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred as humans spread across Europe. www.livescience.com/health/061030_neanderthal_hybrid.html - 35k - Aug 4, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

News in Science - Neanderthals & modern humans may have interbred ...New evidence suggests that Neanderthals and modern humans were not distinct species as previously thought but evolved together and probably interbred. www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s272265.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Neandertals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study SuggestsAncient bones from a cave in Romania add fuel to the theory that modern humans absorbed Neandertals through interbreeding instead of out-competing them to ... news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061030-neanderthals.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Neandertals, Modern Humans May Have Interbred, Skull Study SuggestsThe new skull find also shows that humans continued to evolve after reaching Europe some 40000 years ago. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070116-neanderthals.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

Humans and Neanderthals interbred | COSMOS magazineSYDNEY: Modern humans contain a little bit of Neanderthal, according to a new theory, because the two interbred and became one species. ... www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/814 - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Skull suggests humans, Neanderthals interbred-Health/Science-The ...WASHINGTON: A skull found in a cave in Romania includes features of both modern humans and Neanderthals, possibly suggesting that the two may have interbred ... timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1230744.cms - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred - Health and ...Doctor-produced health and medical information written for you to make informed decisions about your health concerns. www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=77210 - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred HealthDay - Find ...Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred from HealthDay in Health provided by LookSmart Find Articles. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmhea/is_200610/ai_n16917492 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

GeneticArchaeology.com - Human Neanderthal Interbreeding (11/8/2006)Neanderthals died out about 35000 years ago for some unknown reason. Some scientists have suggested that they interbred with humans, and "bred" themselves ... www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Human_Neanderthal_interbreeding.asp - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Thus, we can conclude:

--such an idea is not a hoax --such an idea has been well-discussed in the media and scientific literature, even if not the 'most popular' version --such an idea of 'species integration' is NOT 'interspecific hybrid.'

Ok, isn't the article on 'hybrid' enough?

In regards to the first argument, there is a different 'angle' here. Suppose two similar species of plants 'hybridized' to create a THIRD species...but the first two original species still existed. That isn't 'integration.' However, if the two species A and B 'hybridized' to create species AB, and then A became extinct, and B and AB integrated into ABB, then there is now only one species...an integration of two. Further, the 'hybrid' article deals with mostly a scientific phenomenon on a 'current event' timescale...species integration argues for a viewpoint from an evolutionary timescale74.237.28.5 06:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. People are so quick to fling around insults like 'hoax' and 'nonsense'...only at length will they realize that they know less than they think about things. Until very recently scientists believed that parthenogenesis in higher-order animals was impossible...until the 'virgin shark' gave birth. It turns out those who thought they knew it all were, in fact, those were were being both small-minded and, in a word, WRONG.

Likewise, I could explain why the need for an article on most ancient common ancestor...however it was deleted when I was away, and so there was no chance for discussion.

I note that the article on 'hybrids' admits that some plant species don't just 'hybridize' to form sterile plants, but can become a new combined species. It has been theorized to have taken place in birds and even between humans and neanderthals. Likewise, the multiregional hypothesis argued that initial 'founder' populations of homo erectus led to humans evolving into separate species (i.e. Peking Man became "Chinese" people). EVEN IF AN IDEA IS WRONG, I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR READERS TO UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH IDEAS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE. For example, Lemarck argued that giraffes 'evolved' longer necks by having to 'stretch' to reach the leaves. Even though this idea turned out to be basically incorrect, it is still important from an historical standpoint to note past, failed ideas...call it 'historical science.' To not allow room for such articles is basically akin to saying 'no articles on dinosaurs' because 'they don't exist.' 74.237.28.5 07:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public comment by nominator

Robert,

Your writing style makes your comments extremely hard for people to follow, and it does not help you. Please make your comments more concise. You should indent them properly to show conversation flow. When you quote text, please use proper tags to indent them. Many people have mention this to you in your User talk:Ryoung122 page. You will not gain any sympathy towards your endeavor among wikipedians by not following rules. I moved and formatted your comments to make this page more readable. It is tedious work and I do not enjoy it. Please make your comment more accessible so we can have a proper discussion on this page. Fred Hsu 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We are debating your use of the term species integration here. We are not debating whether modern human and Neanderthals interbred. I am sure there could be articles to accommodate the latter. But it is not on this article you created with a name you invented. You added the two references back to the article, and I promptly removed them again. They are not lost; they are still on the talk page where they belong. Thanks. Fred Hsu 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrids

Greetings Fred,

Perhaps a sub-section could be added to the 'hybrid' article or this could be renamed. Would that make you happy? Or, the entire article could be 'rewritten' to conform more closely to the 'use of the word phrase' from the articles published. I didn't invent the term; I ran a Google search for articles on the idea and saw it being used. What is more important, process or getting this right? "Winning" a vote or ensuring that the next generation of readers have a fuller, more open understanding of the evolutionary process? Note in this article, some 30+ years of 'mainstream-establishment' thinking has been overturned:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1245222007

The concept exists and is notable; what seems to be debated is the 'name' for it. Note this has more to do than simply human evolution; it impacts all evolution. Note that Darwin observed how birds, breeding in isolation in the Galapagos and descended from the same species, eventually evolved over time into slighty-different, separate species...caused by isolation. If the primary cause of the diffentiation was a differential environment, then it stands to reason that a reverse scenario could also happen. These species are genetically similar enough that it is possible that a few simple genetic modifications toward analagous structures can lead to a 'species (re-)integration.' No one is proposing that humans and whales will soon become the same species. It should be noted that the article which allegedly discussed how species 'hold together' seems to be saying more than that: it identifies a force which runs counter to the tendency of species to diverge into separate species. As such, a concept such as this is important, just as 'anti-matter' is important when discussing 'matter.' The name need not be the issue here. In any case, the concept is discussed (but not at length) in the 'hybrid' article (and is barely mentioned). Who added the concept there? It certainly wasn't me. I don't know who put that there or what the sourcing is. If anything, I have identified a 'hole' in Wikipedia that needs to be filled. Whether that hole is filled by a new article or a single paragraph in another article is irrelevant; what is relevant is that Wikipedians reading about various (unproven) hypotheses can follow Wikilinks to explanations. Given that the vast majority of initial voters for deletion didn't even know that such a process was possible suggests a need for such an article. Whether this article survives or not, a fuller and more complete understanding of the evolutionary process (and that is it not as cut-and-dried as many think) is what I am really attempting to accomplish with this and other articles. I have created over 50 articles on Wikipedia and if two out of 55 or so are deleted, so be it.

Please note that I am a 'fan' of Richard Dawkins and we should be on the same page. I realize you are an expert on the subject, but you seem to be zealously guarding your turf and not allowing room for 'niche' articles that would be of interest to those who are interested in understanding evolution.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 06:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert, the news article about habilis and erectus has nothing to do with your theory of hybrids, if you bother to read it. The new findings seem to suggest that unlike previously believed, erectus is not quite a direct descendant of habilis. They may have lived side by side for some time, suggesting that they probably shared a common ancestor earlier. Besides, we are not debating your ideas here, but I can't resist. Mainstream scientific ideas are being overthrown by new evidences every day. I don't know why you are surprised by this news. After all, it is how science works. But wikipedia is not a scientific journal; it's an encyclopedia. Our job is to summarize existing scientific views based on best available evidences. Then, as new findings are reported, we update articles. I must have said this 5 times already to you in the past few weeks. Why can't you sit down and think about it for a moment? Fred Hsu 21:17, 9 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.