Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 27 March 2007

Welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Srleffler 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'm interested in how Wikipedians will balance formalism and jargon vs. readability for the novice in articles on technical subjects. I'm also curious whether the quality of certain technical articles can be maintained in spite of their popularity (e.g., quantum mechanics). --Gnixon 03:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is an undecided issue. Articles on scientific topics do tend to get quite technical. As a physicist, I find this useful when reading physics articles, but sometimes frustrating when I read an article on, say, mathematics. There may at some point need to be decisions made about the appropriate technical level for an encyclopedia. Quantum mechanics is actually an interesting example, in that it has spawned a less-technical Introduction to quantum mechanics article. Perhaps that's the way to go.--Srleffler 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ellipticity and polarization

I replied to your comment at Talk:Polarization--Srleffler 04:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

{{NPOV}}

Tagging articles should be used as a last resort, not as a starting point for discussion. Only when there are legitimate concerns which cannot be resolved through discussion are such tags appropriate. Guettarda 17:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (This is incorrect. See below. Gnixon)

Could you point me to a page that explains that? Gnixon 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is one. Hence the explanation regarding usage. Guettarda 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I hoped you would show me a page illustrating consensus on usage of the tag, rather than just explaining your personal preference. Gnixon 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, although it is short. Joelito (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joelito. That's what I was looking for, but I'm not sure it addresses my question yet. I've added a comment asking for clarification. Gnixon 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD addresses the question. Gnixon 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC) I quote:

In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Evolution NPOV

Roland, I'd like to take some of our discussion about NPOV issues in the Evolution article off of the main talk page. I feel like when you say stuff like "I'm just trying to make the point that every single creationist scientific claim is a misunderstanding" or "I know it casts a bad light on creationists..." or "If this article offends people, so be it," then it becomes clear that part of what you want the Evolution article to do is to prove its case against the creationists. I'm personally very interested in how to convince creationists that evolution is correct, but I don't think Misplaced Pages is the place to do it. Don't you think we can phrase the article so as to explain what the theory of evolution says without arguing that it's correct? Gnixon 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it is correct because that is the major POV about evolution. NPOV does not say that one must not state one extreme or the other. Rather, NPOV states that each viewpoint must be expressed and properly cited. Now, the scientific community views evolution as a valid scientific theory (the article shows that) and that's the driving force behind this article (as that's the major view point). Plus I have never argued that evolution is correct, rather I have argued that creationists use misunderstandings about evolution against the modern synthesis (a viewpoint that I have heavily backed up by now). I agreed with you, after some discussion, that the intro was too forcefull and too focused on creationists. So I rewrote the intro. The one sentance about creationism that remains has three good and respectable references in it. I think that's more than reasonable.

"becomes clear that part of what you want the Evolution article to do is to prove its case against the creationists." Not at all. My point in all those quotes was not the validity of evolution or creationism, but my belief that Misplaced Pages articles should NEVER EVER be bound by political correct. If a fact can be shown to be true (in the sense that it is published in some form or another) then it goes in the article. The fact about creationists using misunderstandings is such a case. Now of course, creationists will take offense at that, but by no means does that have to do with anything about NPOV.--Roland Deschain 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote to you before the most recent revision (w/ 3 references). I think the intro as written now is excellent, as are the references used. We may still disagree as to exactly what constitutes NPOV, but as long as we can agree on the final product, I'm happy.  :) Gnixon 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I take offense. . . (LOL) Gnixon, this is directed to Roland, not you.

Roland, you seem to ignore the fact that evolution is put forward to a rather large extent by shoving other arguments aside, arguments that never have been ( and in my opinion, never will be). Evolution is stated in museums and schools as correct. It isn't explained why evolutionists are evolutionists, it's only said ( basically) that creationism and those who belive it are dumb. If it's so dumb, dont say its dumb, give an argument that discounts creationist's arguments. I am sick and tired of having our arguments dismissed instead of answered. Not that I don't know why y'all do it. I know very well that you can't get around the bombardier beetle, or the woodpecker, or the differences between reptile and bird eggs. I know you can't explain how the giraffe's neck valve evolved to keep its brain from being smashed by blood pressure when it gets a drink. I know you can't explain how organic materials that were supposed to have happened by chance are often so much stronger than materials we've designed. I know you can't explain why only humans invent things. (Please don't refer to apes here, they never use a new tool. . .) I know you can't explain why fossils of complicated creatures are found al the way down with the "simple creatures". And you can't explain how the Bible stated scientific truths long before scientists descovered them. I could go on, but I only will if I am requested to.

Zantaggerung 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

evolution

I am sorry you think I was rude and apologize for the offense. I still think you misunderstood and misrepresented GetAgrippa's point. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; apology accepted. I spent a good amount of time reading through Dmurtegx's original post and follow-ups, especially the references he gave, and I thought he was very clearly arguing that scientists debate evolution itself, which is of course at least a gross distortion of the truth. I understand your point that natural selection isn't the only mechanism of evolution, but I don't think that was the point under discussion. Maybe a better phrase would be something like "...evolution occurs, driven by natural selection...." Gnixon 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging on Nazism

Thanks for your comment on my talk page about use of the NPOV tag. Tags like NPOV in my experience are usually added when it is clear that there is considerable debate about a section or article and not just (as in the case I reverted) because of dissatisfaction about one edit. These things are never as clear cut as you propose on WP in my humble experience. MarkThomas 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun, but premature removal of the tag is a pet peeve of mine. I must admit I didn't look carefully at the edit you reverted. Nevertheless, I think in almost all cases its best to leave the tag until a discussion on the talk page reaches consensus to remove it. Best regards, Gnixon 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Where is 'Evolution Debates'?

Hello Gnixon. I sympathize with your desire to remove inappropriate threads from Talk:Evolution. You mentioned something about 'Evolution Debates' but in the archive box that appears to be a red link. Did I not look in the right place? EdJohnston 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone deleted it. I asked Silence if he knows a way to find a record of the deletion. By the way, I like your hat/hab idea. Gnixon 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:Pschemp on 15 March, with the comment 'fork of Talk page'. (I just went into the screen for re-creating the file, and there's a button to press called 'Deletion log'). If you still think it's a good idea to have a special archive, you could open a deletion review. Actually I'm not sure about that, because then you would actually need some kind of consensus as to which items get moved to 'Evolution Debates', which leads to further debate, etc. If an editor chooses to insert a hat/hab, by comparison it seems less intrusive, since the insertion is quite easy to undo and it's also easy to display the boxed content. EdJohnston 15:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think hat/hab is the way to go. Maybe I'll try to have someone dig up the deleted text so it can be put in the regular archives. Gnixon 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution statements

The evolution argument is not settled. There are 2 and only ways it can be settled: 1 side admits they are wrong, or both sides admit there is not enough tangible evidence to teach everyone either of these as a scientific fact. ( I am contacting you about your statement to oddball 2002 on the evolution page) Zantaggerung 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)zantaggerung

Hi Zantaggerung. In the past there have been many debates on that talk page about how to present evolution in the Misplaced Pages article, especially considering that many people strongly believe that evolution is wrong/untrue. The reason that Objections to evolution are not given a more prominent place on the page is that most editors see the article as a science article, and virtually all of biological scientists agree that evolution is correct---in fact, it has been described as the cornerstone of biology.

None of this means that evolution is true, but if the article is about a scientific subject, then Misplaced Pages's policy is to base the article on what the scientists think, without giving too much space to other viewpoints (see WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT). The evolution article does have a section on social and religious controversy surrounding evolution, and a link to a very good article, Objections to evolution, which discusses in great detail many of the issues that don't make the Evolution page.

After considering all these things, particularly Misplaced Pages policy issues, editors have reached a consensus that the Evolution article should follow the dominant point of view of biologists, while only briefly mentioning objections to that point of view and linking to longer articles about them. In the archives of the talk page, you can follow long discussions where that consensus was reached, and a FAQ on the talk page summarizes that consensus.

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I want to be clear about what I meant when I asked people not to ignite "long-settled debates." I certainly didn't mean that evolution's validity or whether we should teach it in schools is "long-settled" within society. In fact, I grew up in a community with very strong objections to evolution, and I went to a school where students are taught that evolution is wrong. I'm well aware that the issue isn't settled! On the other hand, the debate over how to present evolution in the Misplaced Pages article *is* long-settled, and it's unproductive to rehash that debate over and over again.

I hope that makes sense, but I'd be glad to discuss the issue with you further. Best regards, Gnixon 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for clearing that up. I see what you mean now. I was probably jumping into action on shorter notice than I should have been. Will tell oddball 2002 what you said. Zantaggerung 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I put your page on my watch list, so I'll just get to you through that.

By the way, would you please take a look at my page and respond to what I have posted there? I copied the statement of belief from oddball 2002's page (with his permission),we believe very similarly. Zantaggerung 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your statement of belief, but I'll have to pass on responding to it---I'm just here to help write encyclopedia articles. It's perfectly appropriate for you to post and discuss such things on your user and user talk pages, but please remember that the rest of Misplaced Pages's discussion pages are just for talking about how to improve articles. If you'd like to discuss your ideas about creation and evolution with other people, you might be interested in the talk.origins website. Gnixon 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think you are doing a good job on wikipedia

Zantaggerung has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep it up!

Thanks! Gnixon 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Evolution lead/Mandaclair

Hi Gnixion, I certainly hope I wasn't owning the Evolution article with my revert of Mandaclair's rewrite. I hope you'll tell me if I start to do act that way!--EveRickert 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't mean you; just speaking generally. You know I'm anxious to keep the article from turning into a jargony textbook. Let's not scare this guy off, though.  :) Gnixon 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, sorry (though he seems a little thin-skinned for this place, but I do hope he stays). BTW, reply to my comments on my talk page; I generally don't watch other users' talk pages.--EveRickert 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi. I realize what Misplaced Pages is and how Misplaced Pages works; but the gigantic weakness, it seems, is the free-for-all structure where anyone and everyone with an inquiring mind can chime in and complicate the discussions to reach consensus on topics they may not know a whole lot about in the first place. No offense to anyone here (at all) -- and I realize that Misplaced Pages is often an educational journey and a wholly different type of knowledge-base -- but perhaps it might be more educational (and informative) if there was less "discussion and consensus" standing in the way of information that anyone working professionally in the field could provide.

I guess what I mean to say is that ANYBODY working professionally as an evolutionary biologist for more than 5 years (not just me) could provide some significant improvements to the current Misplaced Pages article, but those professionals often don't have the time to debate, argue, and convince. I don't want to seem arrogant or discourage the wiki-process, but honestly, the tangled spaghetti of "discussion" and "consensus" (among individuals who may not all have the same background or experience) can be really discouraging to people who might have a lot to contribute -- and frankly, nobody I know in my field really has the time to deal with all of that.

This is nothing personal against the Evolution article community. I am aware that all of Misplaced Pages works this way, and again: I am willing to offer help and feedback on this article, but I am not necessarily able to spend a lot of time or energy on the discussion/consensus process, as rewarding as it may be to some.

Kind regards, Mandaclair 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I can appreciate everything you're saying. In fact, I think it's Misplaced Pages's biggest challenge, and I've been very discouraged sometimes by the "tangled spaghetti." The problem seems common to all articles on popular, technical subjects (e.g., Physics or Quantum mechanics), but Evolution is particularly bad because of the creation-evolution controversy. There's no need for you to get deeply involved in the discussions---just make good edits, boldly, and try to briefly explain major changes. Your help will be appreciated, and others can fight the good fight on the talk pages (probably while desperately avoiding some unpleasant bit of real life work). Gnixon 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)