Talk:Talk.origins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk.origins article.
Article policies
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

Just a note: using an earlier draft from Wesley R. Elsberry, I have made an article for the Archive. Any help with it is appreciated. JoshuaZ 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] FAQ copyright issues.

I'm thinking of moving the FAQ copyright section here to the page on the Archive. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 06:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Hi, Dave Greig here (moderator of talk.origins) figured I'd add some content. --D.

[edit] TrueOrigins link

"True.Origin was founded as a young-earth response to talk.origins. [2]" was added to the main article. I think that this is, at best, something that should be in the links section. In looking at the treatment of various young-earth creationist pages here, there may be a reference to the TalkOrigins Archive in a secondary section, but I haven't seen it used in the primary section of any yet. I think this mention of TrueOrigins in the main section of the talk.origins article is simply advocacy for enhanced link placement. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 08:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link existed in the link section previously. As per the discussion on the Talk.origins archive page it was removed as being non-notable. --Davril2020 13:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And, as has been pointed out, this article concerns the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins, so the idea that the article should include links to antievolution websites is pretty dubious. There might be an argument that links should point to some antievolution Usenet newsgroups, but then one would have to weigh notability of those newsgroups. --Wesley R. Elsberry 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Links section?

A section was added to this article called "Creation Links", with Hugh Ross's "Reasons to Believe" as the sole link in it. I suspect that this is simple self-promotion, since RTB doesn't have any direct relevance to t.o. as a concept. Is this section needed at all? --Wesley R. Elsberry 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. If it were arguably related to TO in some way I'd be inclined to keep it in but it really isn't. Furthermore, we have had a lot of spamming related to Ross that last few days. JoshuaZ 23:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another creation site link appeared in the article's "External Links" section, added by "Zephyr axiom". I don't see the relevance of the link to the talk.origins newsgroup. --Wesley R. Elsberry 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see the relevance. Unless I hear some objections, I will remove the link. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Origins and Deception by Omission

I think the article entitled Talk Origins: Deception by Omission should be added to the links section. 136.183.146.158 03:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...an article that attacks TO for using the standard scientific definition of evolution? I think the deception here is on the part of the author of the article to which you linked. Guettarda 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The website talkorigins.org is unaffiliated with the *newsgroup* talk.origins. The article is about the latter, while this wikipedia entry is about the former. Dave Greig 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-reviewed publications

I suggest that the italicized portion of the following be deleted:

"Apart from the fun, however, the group is noted for its detailed and reasoned rebuttals to even the most unscientific creationist claims. This is a result of the one rule the group does seem to have, that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal. However, peer-reviewed publications are not real evidence in the sense of that provided by the scientific method, and consequently cannot be regarded in the same light as observational and experimental evidence. Peer-reviewed publications are only as good as the opinions, beliefs and vested interests of the author and the peers. "

Peer-reviewed publications are the communication medium of science. The italicized rant is not verifiable knowledge and is simply an extreme POV inserted into the article. --Wesley R. Elsberry 12:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are genuine debates to be had about the merits of the peer-review system. Of course, like evolution, they're generally about the details, rather than the system as a whole. The point is, though, that the Peer review article is the place to get into those issues, not this one. Joe D (t) 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The text inserted into this article bears no resemblance to any actual debate over the merits of the peer-review system. --Wesley R. Elsberry 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture Wars and t.o. Culture

A recent edit by Yoda921 struck a goodly chunk of the "Culture" section, citing "formality". What was left was also edited, changing

Apart from the fun, however, the group is noted for its detailed and reasoned rebuttals to even the most unscientific creationist claims.

to

Apart from the fun, however, the group is noted for its alleged detailed and reasoned rebuttals to creationist claims.

We shouldn't simply be bouncing from one POV to another. I suggest that we trim this back to something simple:

Apart from the fun, however, the group is noted for its detailed rebuttals to creationist claims.

There is nothing "alleged" about the detail; that's verifiable. --Wesley R. Elsberry 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, we need a reasonably reliable (secondary) source stating that. Do you have any idea? The TalkOrigins archive has a lot of independent endorsements, but do we have something similar for the newsgroup? --Stephan Schulz 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost all the material on the TOA originated as posts on the talk.origins newsgroup. If you are willing to accept the independent endorsements of the TOA, then part of the credit should be apportioned in turn to the newsgroup. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit removing "alleged". The rebuttals exist--that is not to say that one has to accept the validity of the rebuttal. Incidentally, if you go to the article on rebuttal and then click on Counterargument that takes you to an article that uses evolution and creationism as its main example. It also makes clear that "rebuttal", used in an informal sense, does not necessarily entail acceptance (and capitulation) by the other side of an argument. Col pogo 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)