User talk:Ed Poor/Aspects of evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion about ending this project

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was userfied to User:Ed Poor/Aspects of evolution. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Aspects of evolution

This is not a Wikipedia project. It is a platform created by User:Ed Poor to promote his ideas about evolution. This was made to get around the vote for deletion for the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of evolution. --ScienceApologist 18:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • (after edit conflict) I suspect strongly that the nominator believes your division of evolution into three facts is itself POV. The nominator is correct, imo. Nevertheless, Keep. Mr. Poor's occasional unilateralism aside, he's a valuable member of the community. This is a project about a valid encyclopedic topic, meaning anyone (including debunkers) can add their views to it, and Mr. Poor can use it as a place from which to advance (rigorously, one hopes, and non-disruptively) his views on the matter. Xoloz 18:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy, this is a project to add Ed Poor's original research to Wikipedia. Gazpacho 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy - How is this a WikiProject? "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing". This page is not a "coordination" of any sort, so I suggest this be moved to Ed Poor's user space. LordViD 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy, per LordViD. This isn't really a project. Friday (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- POV fork. Certainly not a WikiProject. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems to have been an invalid attempt to get around the article Afd result. Vsmith 21:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- WAS 4.250 21:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NPOV rule means you shouldn't try to create POV-pushing projects. We had a similar thing a while ago when Ungtss (talk · contribs) did a similar thing; the aims were so watered down to be NPOV compatible and he found himself joined by the biologists. — Dunc|☺ 22:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is becoming surreal. - RoyBoy 800 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though my sincere thanks to the editors who cleaned out the page between when I first saw it and now. It actually made me laugh when I first read it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-09 23:37:45Z
  • Delete or move to user space. This is not a WikiProject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Not a WikiProject. B.Wind 01:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. It isn't a WikiProject. -Parallel or Together ? 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy per practically everyone. David | Talk 15:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, per B.Wind. Stifle 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion

Oh, and which ideas are these? I've asked you a dozen times to put up or shut up: which "POV" do you allege I am pushing or promoting? If you refuse to answer, it can only mean that you know it is not true. Uncle Ed 18:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ed, you are promoting creationism from the perspective of a "balanced" Unificationist point of view, perhaps not intentionally, but nevertheless it is clear by those who are familiar with the subject that this is exactly what is coming across in your continued insistence in keeping this "information" which amounts to little more than your own original research. --ScienceApologist 18:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have never promoted Creationism in a Wikipedia article. Please show even ONE diff which shows a pro-Creationist edit.
[1]
I am completely unaware of a "balanced" Unificationist point of view on anything. The Unification Church takes specific, dogmatic stands on many things. I have no idea what you mean by balanced unless it's an anti-Wikipedia objection to NPOV.
I have asked you many times to tell me what "original research" you allege I am presenting. But you refuse to answer. Are you aware of the difference between (1) presenting accurate, properly-sourced summaries of research or views which non-Wikipedians have presented and (2) reporting one's own research or views? If you think I've violated NOR, please show it; don't just keep accusing me groundlessly of it.
Ed, your summaries of "research" are neither accurate nor properly-sourced. As such, they represent a unique point-of-view that is your own. That's the definition of original research. --ScienceApologist 14:43, 10 December 2005 (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.

[edit] Other discussion about this WikiProject

This project is an outgrowth of several attempts I've made to distinguish between various usages of the word "evolution" in Wikipedia articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Many of these articles have been destroyed, either by reducing them to redirects or AFD'ing them. I suspect that the destroyer(s) either:

  • are deliberately trying to censor opposing POV (i.e, they themselves are POV-pushers); or,
  • do not understand the fine distinctions involved

If it's the former, admin action may be required to squelch their disrpution. But I'm hoping it's only ignorance, because that's curable. Uncle Ed 19:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like an article

Ed, the project page reads like an article, not a wikiproject. What is the goal of this project? What you have written reads more like an article. (Do we have one on this question or is it appropriately covered in some existing article?) - Tεxτurε 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It can't be had both ways: if it reads like an article, then it should be put back in article namespace but NOT deleted.
If it's not good enough to be an article, then it should remain in Wikipedia: namespace and be used to guide article collaboration. Uncle Ed 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • More to the point, the goal is to gather information pertinent to the PURPOSE of clarifying dozens of instances in which the word "evolution" is used unclearly. The lack of clarity has to do specifically with confusing one aspect for another. Did you read the project page?
  • Anyway, I was hoping you and FeloniousMonk might join the project - even Dunc, why not? - and help me make the terms clear.
  • People keep using evolution to mean one thing while other people use it to mean another, and their statements are mutually unintelligible. (That's for those writing in good faith)
  • Then there are those advocates (Creationists and "evolutionists" alike) who deliberately confuse or confound these meanings, to gain a propaganda advantage.
Hell, there's even Kent Hovind, who has made up SIX different aspects of evolution, only two of which even fall under the field of biology. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The goal of the project is to help contributors make the articles touching on evolution clear to our readers. Uncle Ed 20:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Was it deleted? Under what name? I'd say this info is important. However, I don't expect a consistent use of a term that is in dispute. I think the most I would hope for is that the dispute is mentioned each time an articles uses one variation of the term's meaning. - Tεxτurε 20:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It was already deleted: Aspects of evolution