User talk:Filll

I'm not a philosopher (and I really don't play one on TV). You're the scientist, so what is this about? Is this a crazy article, or is it really a philosophy? Orangemarlin 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not philosopher either, and there is an awful lot of this kind of stuff here, that is for sure. Seems like too much to me.--Filll 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis

Huh???? I was just walking through Wikipedia, trying to confirm whether I really believe that this encyclopedia is Christian biased, and I'm beginning to be convinced. This article is a travesty! It's not encylopedic, it's unbalanced, and it doesn't even pretend to bring in a literal viewpoint of Genesis. This is frustrating. Orangemarlin 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing discussion

You have to go see this section and read all the links. Incredible!--Filll 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology

Ye might like this Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now with a sequel. I've also used my research on this to update the article, using only things they say themselves. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help required on Edison

We have a big vandalism problem at Edison.--Filll 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently semi-protected, so you're seeing a problem with a user that is already autoconfirmed (i.e., has an account that is at least four days old). The best thing to would be to is politely tell the user that he/she is editing nonconstructively; you may use lower levels of warning templates if you wish, then progressing to higher ones. I see that the issue is somewhat resolved... good luck working on the article, then :) Gracenotes^T § 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, it's possible that you know all or most of this, but I hope that this helps in some way, at least. Gracenotes^T § 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the physics rewrite...

Just FYI, since you've been concerned with non-expert perceptions of articles in the past, a smart non-physicist has offered some comments on the current state of the rewrite at Talk:Physics/wip. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there...treasure ships were real

These religious fundies say the darnest things. :) I'm not sure your controversy over the Zheng He treasure fleet is. There are numerous documentation that the treasure ships were up to and over 350-400 feet. Discuss.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treasure_ship#Factual_dispute

Here is a Natl Geographic documentary that deals with the facts of the Zheng He Fleet, and the unsubstantiated idea proposed by Gavin Menze's 1421 idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXeWmQz8DU&mode=related&search=

-intranetusa

Treasure ships were real, so what's your counterpoint?

Yes, considering they found massive dry docks and massive rudder posts, along with the historical textual evidence (in China, India, and the Arabian ports the fleet visited), yes I can say the treasure ships were real Btw, they found the rotted parts of a gigantic wooden palace-barge built by a Roman emperor. So what's so hard to believe about treasure ships? The evidence is there.

-intranetusa

We will never be able to show this conclusively for sure. But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take a look at some of the big wooden ships at List of world's largest wooden ships.--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take "

Yes, but the treasure ships were built in the 15th century. Also, The largest Roman ship was "supposedly" the Caligula's palace barge, which was just suppose to float on a lake. Ocean going vessels such as treasure ships certainly could have been bigger, with a steeper draft. Yes, I've already looked at that wiki topic. That was one of the topics where I responded to your post. What I find funny about the article is that they lumped Treasure ships with Noah's ark, Syracusa, and Isis - when Isis, Syracusa, and Noah's ark have no shred of physical evidence whatsoever except "testimony."

-intranetusa

PS: Even if we dispute the size of the treasure ships, at least it is confirmed that Zheng He did make diplomatic journeys all the way to eastern Africa.

We have no reason to believe that the Zeng He treasure ships were any more real than any other purported ships for which people make claims of immense size. There are some documents with doubtful measurements that refer to the Zeng He ships, but many of the claims about the Zeng He expeditions are very hard to swallow, frankly. They might be true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say. Where is the clear physical evidence that is unequivocal and beyond dispute in the case of the Zeng He treasure ships? It really does not exist. There are no physical hulls that still exist. At least the Caligula palace barge and other large ships were dug up out of the mud, so we know they existed. In the case of the Zeng He treasure ships, a few timbers found in the mud and some claims that mud flats contained dry docks of immense size at one time really do not cut it. Show me a long keel. Show me a buried hull. Show me something more substantial, and you might have a case. Without physical evidence, it is very hard to say anything conclusive that supports these incredible sizes. I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. This might have happened, but it is tough to give it much credence with our evidence at this time, as near as I can tell. Sorry.--Filll 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources, ranging from the National Geographic to the History Channel to USNews to the Economist, all featured articles regarding the treasure ships of Zheng He (size ~400). There is no treasure ship remains because the treasure ships were ordered to be burned. However, they did find massive dry docks that would've been used to create ships of immense size, and a 12 or 15+ foot stern post rudder. However, you're still correct that we have no direct physical evidence of the ship's size, so the size is still up for debate.

"I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. "

The diplomatic journeys themselves are well confirmed by direct and indirect evidence. Ranging from historical documents (from the kingdoms of India, Arabia, etc) to Ming porcelain & other goods. Also, I'm sure you've already seen the Ming painting of the man with the giraffe from Africa... Intranetusa (Talk) ?, March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here's an interesting article (skeptical, neutral viewpoint): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/archeology2.html

But we get back to the fact that it is not verifiable. Unless the Chinese had some miracle materials (and verifiability doesn't do so well with miracles), it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size. The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest, but we need to see it. I think this is a myth, but I don't have any proof either. But my job is not to prove the negative (that they never existed), the burden of proof lies with those that think they existed. Orangemarlin 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size." They addressed this point with features such as separate bulkheads.

"Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest" Not exactly. The treasure ships are actually not very well known and the claim that the Ming treasure ships are 400+ ft are Ming historical records.

"The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. " Actually, there are plenty of written evidence. Just do a quick google search and you'll get millions of hits. The problem is that there is no direct physical evidence. Intranetusa (Talk) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. It is hard to know how to evaluate these claims with no good direct physical evidence. So it is somewhat of an interesting mystery. However, our more modern and well-documented experiences with large wooden ships gives us a bit of pause with these claims of incredibly large ancient wooden vessels. That does not mean they did not exist, and that the claims in the documents are not correct. However, it does mean that the claims have to be ascribed a lower reliability than if we had better evidence. And for me, I would have to rate the probability of these incredibly large wooden treasure ships as quite low.--Filll 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The measurements come from Ming dynasty historical documents.

Actually, some time ago a mast was discovered in the ancient Nanjing shipyards (where Zheng He's ships were built) which was consistent with the stated sizes of the Treasure Ships. However conclusive physical evidence, in the form of a sunken ship etc, is, as you say, lacking. --Sumple (Talk) 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any material about a large mast recovered from archaeology from the Zeng He shipyards. However, I am not particularly convinced that a tall mast would necessarily prove that there were 450+ foot long 9 masted treasure ships being constructed for deep ocean expeditions (some have even suggested that there were treasure ships that were 600 feet long). A calmer analysis is provided by the article at [2] which relies heavily on assorted Chinese sources and scholarship. It appears more likely that any larger ships were more like barges for river travel only. It also appears that the length of the shipyards do not suggest long ships, but facilities for constructing many shorter vessels side-by-side.--Filll 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted from User talk:Intranetusa)

Hi, the info comes from Ray Huang's Macrohistory of China. On checking it up, it wasn't a mast, but the rudder. In the Chinese version, the sentences are on pp 185-186. He also mentions that the largest boats were 440 feet long and 186 feet wide, and the smaller ones were 370 feet long and 150 feet wide. He mentions that these giant ships are found in books but not in physical specimens.

IMO, Ray Huang is sufficiently established as an authority on Ming-dynasty China for referencing. But if you are planning to reference this, the (original) English version might be more suitable. Citation: China: A Macro History. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1988. 277 pp. ISBN 0-87332-452-8. --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. He does not come from the Jewish perspective, and he seems to be following me around and looking for ways to harass me.

Now here is an amazing coincidence. I see that you had planned to start an article on the Caltech biologist Norman Horowitz. I started one several weeks ago! He was one of my Dad's favorite teachers. I met him as a child. I was planning to add an additional paragraph and some references about his work on sidophores, but you are probably much more knowledegeable about that. --Metzenberg 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at your Norman Horowitz article. I did not get much beyond the information collection stage, so I might not be able to add much. I will look at your other articles too and see what I can do, but it can be very difficult to deal with a disruptive editor I am afraid.--Filll 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Filll, this one is a real irritation: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Consist of a lengthy discussion of the "God Delusion". Basically a series of book reviews hand picked to condemn Dawkins. But the part that really got me was the side article created on H. Allen Orr. A brief statement of who he is then an epistle on his "book review" of the God Delusion.

It is an encyclopedia not a forum for exposing your world views... the primary contributor seems to have forgotten this: BNeal, I stumbled across this on a discussion page

"Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run John Polkinghorne's web presence) and the reason I think the 747 Gambit should be kept is that it is a very bad argument which has been rightly criticized by notable commentators, even some sympathetic to Dawkins. The people who want it deleted are Dawkins supporters who want to shield their Guru from criticism. If that encourages you to change your vote I'd be very grateful, though of course it's your decision. NBeale 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pastordavid"

Thought you might be interested.

The evolution intro is withstanding the test of time ... I assume a hallmark of a solid article. Some rather big guns have protected it ... so it must be passing muster.

I have been following some of your “discussions” … you are ruthlessly efficient with the written word. It is like reading a good book. You have become somewhat legendary among my 'gifted' students who pop in and out on the evolution page. --Random Replicator 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I have not been as active lately. I think Dawkins is a bit too aggressive for my taste, but they sure do like to attack him. I think his views should be presented fairly, at a minimum. Glad to hear your students like to see me rip one or two of these luddites and flat-earthers a new one from time to time. Some of these guys definitely deserve it.--Filll 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill please note this: The 747 Myth. Orangemarlin 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Controversy

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks! Gnixon 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Genetics

I noticed you had a lot of criticisms of the Genetics article. I've rewritten it, let me know what you think. I also rewrote the history section of the article. -Madeleine 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with EB?

Hi Filll,

How've you been? We haven't crossed paths lately. :( You especially might be interested in the equipartition theorem article that I've been fixing up the past few days.

I have a more important favor to ask of you, though. I've been working pretty diligently on the Encyclopædia Britannica article, which is now a featured article candidate. It's received a few excellent reviews, but overall surprisingly little attention. Could you maybe look it over and think up ways of improving it? Thanks muchly! :) Willow 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading through it and I see a few places where I might have a suggestion or two for you :). A list will be forthcoming.--Filll 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Filll, you're great! :) I've got to run now, though, so don't be surprised if I don't answer right away. Talk to you soon, Willow 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it!--Filll 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refeature Evolution

Do you think Evolution is ready to be re-featured? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would check with User:Silence.--Filll 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An outrageous set of religious videos

Just take a look at [3].--Filll 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! I especially enjoyed the bit that compared Merv Griffin to Pol Pot. Thanks for posting that link! PS - I'm glad to hear that you stepped away from the article Black people...I'm afraid it's a lost cause. Besides, kicking ass on neo-Nazis is even more entertaining : ) Doc Tropics 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity

Hi there. There is a lot written on this topic, which is why I think Silence's resistance to discussing it is unwise. However, I'm trying to stick to the peer-reviewed sources and academic reviews, otherwise we could have a lot of dubious stuff added to the article. TimVickers 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right

Just watch this one: [4]--Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember why I stopped going to church. Wikidan829 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Intelligent Design

I'll work on the article, but I think you need to pick up Chapman's book, 40 days and 40 nights about the Kitzmiller case. I think you'll find more references to this issue. Orangemarlin 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution FAC

As a contributor the the FAR discussion, your input to this FA nomination would be much appreciated. Thanks. TimVickers 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy

This article became totally polluted and still needs to be worked on and watched.--Filll 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomes

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, Filll! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Orangemarlin
Edit message

I am chipping away at a few of these articles. Some of them are in awful shape and have been in awful shape for several years.--Filll 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few articles I hopefully have helped include Adjaran, Anastenaria, Ackley, Iowa, Giant Drop (drop tower), Sauerkraut Days (disambiguation), Sauerkraut Days, Henderson, Minnesota, List of Iowa railroads, Fifty50, Parcent, Alive Bible Club, Hans Ragnemalm, Finnish language, Sinitta, Atkinson index, bolster, Chiastic structure, Dalida, Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Art, Saint Irene etc.--Filll 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, about Rapid-Decay theory and Baraminology...

I haven't been following Creationism pages that closely, but I was under the impression that all articles already in Category:Creation Science wern't supposed to also be in Category:Pseudoscience because of redundancy, since the Creation Science category itself is in Category:Pseudoscience. Just wondering if something has changed is all. Homestarmy 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I will follow consensus, whatever that is. Point me to the place where this was decided.--Filll 18:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Creation Science" supposed to mean? Wikidan829 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well creation science is a type of pseudoscience where supposedly scientific methods are used to "prove" the literal truth of the bible, including the formation of the earth in 4004 BC.--Filll 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suppose God put light in motion to deceive us into thinking the universe is really millions of years old too ;) Wikidan829 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Filll, think about it, there's a whole slew of editors who watch the pages you added the pseudoscience category to, and a great many of them who would agree that all Creation Science and most anything it is related to would be categorized as pseudoscience, so why wasn't the category already on those pages? The person removing the category on Baraminology for example seemed to think it was redundant too [5] because Creation Science is already in a sub-cat, but i'm not that familiar with how category policy works, the person who removed the category seemed to of left a reason for it on This talk page, it might of been some reorganization thing from the looks of it. Homestarmy 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are some of the topics in both the creation science category and the pseudophysics category, which is a subcategory of the pseudoscience category?--Filll 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't know much about how Category policy works concerning this, (The only thing I absolutly remember is that articles aren't really supposed to have any categories in them who's placement on an article is disputed, but as you may of noticed, some categories seem mysteriously immune to that part of the guideline) i'm just saying what I know :/. Offhand, maybe pseudophysics isn't as disorganized as the pseudoscience category was, or maybe nobody is taking care of the pseudophysics category as much. Homestarmy 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Hi,

Though I totally understand your frustration regarding the creationist viewpoint and intellectual cheating, edits like this one aren't really in keeping with the civility policy or the 'no using talk pages for a forum' either. We'll have to keep destroying the creationist arguments with reliable sources rather than wit.

WLU 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMSP

Filll, I'd suggest not bothering with him anymore -- trying to reason with him is like trying to perform dentistry on a chicken. Jim62sch 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to the same conclusion. He does not make any sense. Oh well.--Filll 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionism

I'm surprised I didn't see your name in these edits. This article is a travesty of POV. Orangemarlin 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a piece of slop. I started editing, but it needs almost a complete rewrite. Jim62sch 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have chopped away at it some, but every time I look at it, it looks worse than before. I do not know how this piece of trash grew right under our noses. Now it is a huge mess and has to be cleaned up. Ugh.--Filll 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we all missed it either, but we did. I'm not so sure we wouldn't be better off reverting back to this version [6] Jim62sch 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do we catch this crap in the future? I found it completely by chance, but that's not going to help. It was an old article too. Orangemarlin 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teach Both Theories

Teach Both Theories--Filll 21:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love it!!!! Orangemarlin 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

You've started a lot of articles, some of which deserve to be GA's. Maybe one or two an FA. One thing frustrates me about your articles is that you don't use standard wiki referencing. Go to WP:CITET, and give it a read. It's kind of difficult at first, but now I have all the coding memorized. It standardizes everything, makes it easy to click on links, and gets rid of odd numbering, where a reference will have a reference within it. I want to tackle some of your articles, but that's a lot of work, so i would like you to start out clean. Just a suggestion. At least I'm not asking you to say only 2% of mainstream scientists believe in the tooth fairy. Orangemarlin 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to learn about Harvard referencing or some other method of referencing. I will get around to it, I promise. For the moment, I am just making articles, or moving some very crude stubs towards real articles. I do mean to go back and push a few of these towards GA or FA status at some point, however. --Filll 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need assistance

User Yqbd might need a block for violating the 3RR rule. He has been uncivil, and has just deleted any warning on his page and copied them back on my page, as can be seen above. He has been warned a total of 7 times on his talk page, several times in the edit summaries of various pages, as well as on talk pages of the articles in question. I do not think he is understanding the consequences of such aggressive behavior. Thank you.--Filll 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! trcole123 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yqbd was blocked for 12 hours at 17:23 for a 3RR violation at another article. In the future, you should consider reporting 3RR violations yourself, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Remember that the fourth revert must occur after a clear 3RR warning. (It doesn't matter how much earlier, or even if for another article. And if the user has a 3RR block on his/her record, as Yqbd now has, then you can simply assume the user was warned prior to that block.)

Regarding removal of warnings from user talk pages - this is acceptable, per Wikipedia:User page#Removal of warnings; please do not repost warnings should a user delete them. Keep in mind that removal is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning has been read. The warning is still visible via the history of the user talk page, which is where administrators always look, so deletion does not actual hide anything. (And I suggest that you delete the bogus warnings that Yqbd posted on your user talk page, with an edit summary to that effect; they're confusing to others who don't take the time to research the matter fully, which you don't want to make casual readers do when they arrive here for other reasons.)

I'm going to leave the "help me" up because an administrator might want to add to the block of Yqbd based on incivility. In general, you can report egregious acts of incivility at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do ya need help with, Filll? --A legend 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what to do next time for someone like Yqbd. He has been temporarily blocked and I think that if he does not learn his lesson, he will get increasingly longer blocks. Thank you very much.--Filll 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, I've removed the {{helpme}} template from your talk page since you seem to have been helped already. Please let me know on my talk page if you still need assistance with something.--Chaser - T 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Draft: Beyond Intelligent Design

Please take a look at this: User talk:Filll/beyondintelligentdesign--Filll 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some welcome suggestions by User:Orangemarlin, this article has been launched as Beyond intelligent design and a few links made to other articles. It is still fairly rough, but it is a start.--Filll 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd

Well this was strange don't you think? Good job on BeyondID. I'll need to look at it more. Orangemarlin 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that her edit which accidently "coppied" many pages of unauthorized and uncredited material from another author seems a bit peculiar, however computers can do very strange things sometimes and have to be watched carefully so they do not dump all kinds of nonsense where they are not supposed to. Thanks for the assistance on Beyond intelligent design. I have heard about 10 of this guy's radio shows and a couple of interviews with him, and I decided that his unique viewpoint had to get a bit more airing here. I think Mulder is a perfect example of someone who objects to intelligent design because it is not radical enough, and really is not understanding the fairly transparent strategy the Discovery Institute is pursuing. His beliefs hardly even need any rebuttal since they are so baldly outrageous. Of course, I still have not got the references down, but eventually I will figure that out.--Filll 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd best respond here since its a pretty big rant off-topic

On the topic of stale Creationist arguments, I have noticed that distinct deficiency in many Creationist websites, but when you're outnumbered in the academic field by like, what, a bazillion to one, I think its to be expected that its a bit hard for many people to keep up. I mean, with other typical Christian apologetics, the thing we're arguing against doesn't change very rapidly, other religions generally maintain their same doctrines for the most part or change them only every now and again, and many criticisms of Christianity are almost as old as Christianity itself, and have been answered over and over like thousands of times, only for the questions to come up again and again, as if nobody has ever even tried giving an answer. Not so with Evolution, it's not like all Creationists get all those hip, popular science magazine subscriptions that y'all seem to like so we can keep up on the latest who-knows-how-many alterations to evolutionary theory, I don't even know how many times on MSNBC i've seen headlines in the science section about "New Discovery/Hypothesis/Theory Radically Changes Scientists Views on Human/Insert Other Animal Here Evolution" or something like that, it would probably still be a tought time for Creation Scientists to keep up even if we had equal numbers with academia.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the many woefully out-of-date websites out there that are sometimes several decades behind, but i've heard plenty of evolutionists (RED FLAG FILLL, YOU'RE TALKING TO A FUNDIE! :D ) who try to defend evolution and themselves are many years out of date or are using innacuratly oversimplified versions of the theory that were given to them in high school or something, so I think for many Creation Scientists, (I'm actually not big on Creationism apologetics myself, it really seems like a terribly roundabout way to convince someone to become a Christian.) its not easy to figure out exactly what they are supposed to be criticizing at any one time. Not everyone out there are as well informed as editors of Evolution articles here, by and large, just about every single evolutionist (OH NOES, THAT WORD AGAIN!!111!1) here really seem to be increadibly in tune with the latest on developments in evolutionary theory and the entire modern theory as a whole, much more so than the general population methinks.

I still remember the first time I made my own sort-of protest on the Evolution article, as I imagine many Creationists before me have done, I was asking somewhere around the beginning of 2006 why Evolution didn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, since many other Creationists seemed to be trying their hand at protesting at the time as well. It turns out that my science books lied to me, can you believe it? My Chemistry teacher confirmed that what User:Slrubenstein said was true, indeed, the law can only really be applied absolutly in a closed system, which the earth certainly doesn't appear to be. However, I look on Answers in Genesis around a year later, and they finally got an article responding to this, the first one i've ever seen or heard of from anyone actually trying to counter this, if I understand it correctly, rather old reply by evolutionists (THERE I GO AGAIN, WHEN WILL THE FUNDYNESS STOP?!?!?) to this objection by creationists, so the disconnect between most creationist apologetics sites and the actual modern theory of evolution doesn't seem to be primarily a problem of Creationists insisting on trying to attack straw-mans even when they know they aren't really attacking evolution, but rather, a problem of lack of manpower to keep up with a field tended to by thousands upon thousands of supposed scientists, (THERE I GO AGAIN WITH THOSE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC OPINIONS OF MINE, WHEN WILL I LEARN????) constantly changing the theory in countless ways probably every day. I know all about how there's supposed to be rapid change in scientific fields when there's reaserch going on, because obviously there's no self-correction of malformed old theories if science can't be flexible and rapidly adaptable, but come on Filll, uneven teams much? You've only got like every major field of academia there is on your side with people ready to fight, and what do we have, maybe a token few Ken Ham's who have some degree of academic familiarity with biology, and then a bunch of volunteers basically, I think we deserve a bit of a handicap in our favor here, sheesh. Homestarmy 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rant is a bit long. I won't get into the numbers game, but there are reasons why the numbers are what they are, nor is giving a bit of a handicap an issue either. Evolution really hasn't changed that much, the basic premisses are still the same, just some of the hypotheses have been tweaked -- which is why it's science, and why creationism isn't.

BTW, I think you mean the 2nd Law of Thermo, not the 1st. Jim62sch 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the imbalance is fairly clear: anyone who is intellectually honest and who studies the controversy for any length of time finds themselves inexorably convinced by the evidence for evolution. It really is a slam dunk. I am not even a biologist, and the more I look into it, the more convinced I am that evolution is one of the great scientific insights of all time. The long long list of laboratory and field observations alone, from new species of Mosquitos in the London Subway, to new nylon eating bacteria species, to new species of bugs evolved to eat bananas in Hawaii, to different species of plants on either side of the Great Wall of China, to hip bones and vestigal rear legs on whales, to teleomeres at the splice site in one human chromosome, to all the laboratory experiments to flesh eating bacteria to bacteria resistance and on and on and on just is overwhelming. The other genetic evidence and literally hundreds of millions of fossils pretty much nails it for me. Even the tilapia, the fish the ichthus is apparently modeled after, shows strong evidence of evolutionary processes. The imbalance between creationists and scientists that support evolution is not because there is some secret society of atheists or satanists in academia, or that there is some plot to drastically change science so fast that creationists cannot keep up. It is not much different than people who want to maintain that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is flat. The evidence just becomes so overwhelming that eventually only a few extremists are unwilling to give up their old traditional beliefs that they believe are based on the bible. (I will note that biologist Joan Roughgarden is a devout Christian but also a strong evolution proponent, and she has written a book that provides large amounts of evidence for evolution using bible passages, because even the observations about farming and herding and the natural world that the bible writers used contain "proof" of evolution in them). The entire "entropy" argument is basically nonsense, because the people making it really do not understand what entropy is, or evolution, or in fact, even what science is or the scientific method. They just know that it is all somehow vaguely satanic and evil because their preachers have told them so, ranting and raving against some phantom foe that they do not even understand. It is all pretty sad, really, and would be comical if it were not so dangerous to future of the US or technology.--Filll 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also funny that there are areas of real scientific controversy in evolution and these are places where there is a lot of scientific excitement. However, most creationists are not interested in that since these areas do not match their preconceived notions of what the problems with evolution are. Creationists have some completely unscientific and unrealistic visions of what scientists should be doing and what the dominant scientific theories should be, that basically ignore most of the evidence that has been gathered over the last few hundred years. They will stand on their heads to explain away any piece of evidence that does not allow a particular literal reading of the bible, ignoring all other interpretations of the bible by other sects or historical interpretations or contradictory passages in other parts of the bible. It is like a massive cult of aggressive ignorance.--Filll 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, i'll take your word for it that you've debated plenty of creationists before, and many of them probably have given better defenses for Creationism using just sciency stuff than whatever I could muster, but didn't any of them point out that basically every one of the examples you gave fit in just fine with current Creationist thinking concerning microevolution? I know that its probably more modern than whatever the Creationist movement thought about all those things at first, but does trying to adapt our theories based on the observations of evolutionists really have to count as deceptively trying to support our own beliefs? Homestarmy 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have heard creationists claim that they do not object to the type of evolution that they realize is impossible to deny (microevolution) and they only disagree with the other type (macroevolution, or whatever arbitrary division they decide to impose). Sometimes creationists claim that the boundary is between species, but then when it is shown that new species have been observed emerging, creationists change their definition of macroevolution. There is no mechanism that anyone knows of that would prevent evolution from stopping at some arbitrary place. Evolution creates variation within species, and then creates new species, and does not appear to terminate anywhere. Fossil records make this incredibly clear, and every time someone claims they have a gap in the fossil record, further investigation produces one or more fossils to fill the gap and complete the record. By the way, the appearance of teleomeres in the middle of one of our human chromosomes is unequivocal evidence for the emergence of the human species from a primate precursor. Is this what you had in mind by "microevolution"- that humans and monkeys had common ancestors? I suspect not. But the evidence is in the DNA. Undeniable. I could give you plenty of evidence of creationist dishonesty, but let's just start with quote mining, shall we? If bearing false witness was an important Commandment, almost every single prominent creationist would be burning in hell for ever and ever. But there are many many other examples...--Filll 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this.

As for "microevoution" fitting in with creationist beliefs, that depends on the brand of creationism, doesn't it? Hell, creationists can't even agree on what "creationism" means. Jim62sch 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive article. You are quite right. Creationists like to pretend that they agree with each other, but a little bit of investigation quickly demonstrates that this is far from the truth. Since there is no objective way to establish some sort of standard account (as there is in science), creationists just declare their own personal fantasies to be the truth, and try to shout down the "evolutionists" and their fellow creationists, determining the "winner" by whoever can be loudest and most outrageous and obnoxious.--Filll 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rant?

I believe if anyone was 'ranting' it was you. You are not objective. You want to force people to believe as you do. This is what you said in your 'rant' Octoplus 23:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You have a lot to learn, clearly.--Filll 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I'm slapping you about side the head. USE EDIT SUMMARIES. Grrrrrrrrrrr. It's hard to tell what you did. You can even write, "deleted the biggest bunch of hogwash since Bush won Florida in 2000." Orangemarlin 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just cause I don't use the damned thing half of the time doesn't mean you can get away with it. ;)

Zeitgeist, the movie

Possibly because of the easy available of computerized production tools, and the availability of the internet as a distribution channel has created more and more conspiracy theories. One recent example is Zeitgeist, the movie. I just finished watching it. I have to admit, it is pretty amazing. Some elements of truth are in it, but there are some bits of pure nonsense. Presenting in a compelling way, for sure. Contains some material relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. --Filll 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which bits were pure nonsense? I only got through the first part before my browser choked and died. I thought he was drawing a bit of a long bow with some of the astrological comparisons, but the literary comparisons were interesting. ornis 16:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just a few of the claims from the movie. It is a very elaborate theory that makes some incredible claims:

World War I and II were arranged and financed by the Federal Reserve bank.
Vietnam was also a set up
Since World Wars I, II, the installation of Hitler in power and Vietnam were all the result "false flag" operations, it is reasonable to expect that 9/11 was also a false flag operation to justify the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq
The 1993 world trade center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were financed and planned and directed by the FBI
Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11
Many if not all of the 19 9/11 hijackers are still alive
The bankers plan to put RFID chips in the entire world population
The assassination of President Kennedy was ordered because Kennedy was uncovering evidence of some grand conspiracy of "men behind the curtain" that were connected with the 9/11 conspiracy
There is strong evidence that NORAD was directed to allow the attacks on 9/11
Christianity is a complete myth, constructed to keep people docile so that bankers and other leaders can do what they want
The 1929 crash and depression was arranged by the bankers and government on purpose
The Pakistanis financed the 9/11 attacks
All these schemes and more are linked to the 9/11 conspiracy, arranged by the US government to attack its own people--Filll 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I didn't get that far... wow. They probably should have left it at "...christianity is a myth derived from earlier myths..." and called it a day. ornis 16:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of movies that weave all kinds of strange links together including the 9/11 event. Take a look at 9/11 conspiracy theories and the links at the bottom.

If Christianity is a conspiracy religion designed to keep people like me "docile", they've sure done a terrible job at it, I kind of like this Ron Paul dude, and if he was elected president, that's pretty much the end of the Federal Reserve system. Mike Huckabee also supports FairTax, which would probably also at least hurt the Federal Reserve, since there'd presumably be no more IRS if he was prez either. Homestarmy 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their'd be an IRS no matter who was president -- someone has to collect the taxes and make sure that all revenue due is paid. The elimination of the IRS is a wet-dream at best. Jim62sch 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then who collected taxes before there was an IRS? Homestarmy 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A falsifiability and evolution rough draft

Please take a look at Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2.--Filll 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Raspor?

I strongly suspect that User:Octoplus is a sockpuppet of User:Raspor. Should we check? Here is why I have my suspicions:

endless trolling
badly formed sentences and grammar and lack of punctuation, similar to Raspor, although he is capable of writing clearly
wildly exaggerated indenting on occasion (started when Raspor was chastised for not ever indenting)
Raspor's suggestions that evolution is not a hard science or inadequate because of its lack of mathematical rigor, and Octoplus' allusions to a mathematical proof of the inability of evolution to produce life that uses differential equations
long and frequent posts to talk pages but never any constructive suggestions to change the article
familiarly of Octoplus with the page and the WP rules even though the account is quite new
when frequently invited to produce something, Raspor and Octoplus both decline, and blame their lack of output on some sort of discrimination by other WP editors
both have a similar attitude and seem aggrieved about something
both tried to direct the attention to themselves and remain in the spotlight (when I moved material to Octoplus' talkpage, he deleted it and then claimed he had never seen it). When this was pointed out, he moved on to another complaint, much as Raspor would.

Suggestions?--Filll 12:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy today, and I would like to add another sockpuppet charge to my long list of accurate and successful Raspor and kdbuffalo sockpuppet charges. However, I don't have time today, so my suggestion is you start here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and follow up with a WP:RFCU. Be accurate for the RFCU, or it will be declined for fishing, and the possible Raspor sockpuppet will think he got away with it. Unless he got smart, the checkuser will probably lead back to some small town in Ohio, but we'll never know. By the way, I agree, although Octoplus is being slightly more careful about grammar and punctuation. Orangemarlin 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move on this tomorrow. I'll leave you a note about it. It's suspicious. Orangemarlin 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a message with this evidence at User:SlimVirgin's page as suggested by User:FeloniousMonk since she has blocked and monitored User:Raspor and his sockpuppets. So far, she has not done anything, apparently. I guess a better case has to be built and it done more formally. --Filll 12:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raspor/Octoplus

I agree that User:Octoplus is walking in the footsteps User:Raspor and Everwill. You should raise your concern with the admin who issued the original block, User:SlimVirgin, and if she agrees that User:Octoplus is a sockpuppet of User:Raspor/Everwill, she'll block him as a sock puppet. In the meantime, any long-winded, repetitive objections and rants from Octoplus should be moved to his user page (userfied) or a subpage of Talk:Intelligent design in order to minimize disruption of that page. Also, learn and follow the steps outlined at WP:DE if he continues to disrupt the talk page after the discussions have been moved. FeloniousMonk 14:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Falsifiability and evolution rough draft

I can look at it, but it wouldn't be until Thursday or Friday. I'm kinda swamped right now. Will that be too late?--Margareta 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all. We have waited for months already, after all! I just thought I would think about slowly finishing up a bit of old business.--Filll 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look which brought up ideas which I've added to Falsifiability and could be expanded on here, rather rushed with other things for a bit. One being Bombardier beetle which needed clarification. Incidentally, amongst the sources, one from AiG turned out to be very useful, and appears to be creationists doing real science. An impression helped by the sensible non-conclusion. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, did a copy-edit and added a whole bunch of "citeneeded" tags. For an article like this I think it's important to cover the bases and make sure everything is sourced. Wish I had time to help more with that part now, sorry.--Margareta 21:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. It is slowly moving forward and slowly getting fleshed out. Every little bit helps.--Filll 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Thank you for weighing in with a sensible summary of how the issue of falsifiability/testability relates to the topic, and for reminding everyone there of the basics, particularly ID working from pre-ordained conclusions backwards. ... Kenosis 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under-referenced

The draft is under-referenced and thus open to the accusation of original research. In this case, it is particularly important to avoid synthesising data or arguments from two separate sources into a new interpretation or to advance a novel argument. The best way to avoid people concluding this is original research is to find several reliable sources that directly address this topic. Tim Vickers 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful references might be ref 1 ref 2 ref 3. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is a very rough draft, obviously. We are just starting out to try to scratch together an article on this issue.--Filll 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Time for a little payback. I need your help in getting this article to FA status someday. We all write about a whole host of articles that use Biology as its basis, and yet that fundamental article is nearly a piece of crap. I've started by outline the foundations of modern biology. It needs help from there. We need to have some fun, fighting Creationists isn't interesting day after day.Orangemarlin 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat stunned that it is in such bad shape. The grammar is poor. The writing is sloppy. The organization is almost nonexistant. I am not a biologist but even I can tell there is a problem or two with this article. I am amazed.--Filll 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Not sure if you are talking about the general problem or some specific edit. I'm sure you understand that archiving is a normal part of Wiki procedure. Banno 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about a specific edit of yours which deleted a plea of mine for sanity. However, you reverted your edit. There are some crazy things going on in association with that talk page which I do not understand. I am just honestly puzzled that a fairly minor screwup by an outside editor turned into a miniwar.--Filll 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Crossed wires, I think. My aim is to resolve the archiving problem and get the discussion back on topic. I'm sure yours is much the same. I did revert an edit in error, and fixed it - I hope! I have temporarily blocked one editor, and will block any others who re-insert large pieces of archived material. It's an article that arouses great passion, to its detriment. Best wishes, Banno 21:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you go ahead and block others instead who did the same exact thing as Filll for precisely the same reasons. Wow, I'm impressed. Orangemarlin 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he'll block anyone else. Jim62sch 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a day. I'm still shocked that Fatalis has created a bunch of crap for the three of us, he doesn't get taken down a peg or two for his outrageous behavior, yet Filll and I get warned for being uncivil, and ornis has a block. WTF is going on around here. Oh, and check out what this sockpuppet (I'm convinced) has written. I'm dealing with him tomorrow, because I think I've compiled sufficient evidence. Orangemarlin 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still completely puzzled. I am wondering if this recent mess at Creation Science was caused because we did not aggressively enough block these trolls and move soon enough and this is attracting more trouble or more trolls or more POV warriors or something. I am not sure what the agendas of all these different players are but there seem to be a lot more players involved at these articles. All I have never encountered before. Many are new accounts with users that already seem to know the rules. Several seem reminiscent of past banned trolls. And they seem to want to impede progress and consensus on these articles.--Filll 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a mathematician

LOL Orangemarlin 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good :) --Filll 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor Orangemarlin 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Orangemarlin 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on R's RfA

I read with interest your comments on the RfA of User:R, and appreciated some of the points you made, even though you wound up opposing a candidate whom I nominated and still believe would be a satisfactory administrator. I did want to say, though, that this is the first time I've had one of my nominations analogized to an explosion that killed seven people.... I don't suppose I could call it a personal attack or anything, but it was certainly an arresting comparison. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it might seem a bit peculiar at first glance, but I have enough experience in large commercial and government enterprises to start to understand how and why bad decisions are made, and to see some patterns. I think your nominee might very well be a good administrator, but I am advocating that he be seasoned with a few months of solid article-writing first.--Filll 15:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged edit war on Creation Science

Too much bias exists in the phrase "creationist's attempt to find scientific evidence that would justify..." to leave the page summary as it currently stands. Removing misinformation and blatent opinions is no grounds for me to be blocked or banned. The only reason for me to violate the three revision rule is your persitence on restoring a clearly biased section of the article that greatly misleads readers.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.117.129 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I did talk about it on the talk page and no one disagreed. The other person is the one who is refusing to discuss the change on the talk page. I have continued both on his talk page and on the article talk page. Removing inaccuracy is important. Who says it is inaccurate? The world's foremost authority. Note that I anm not adding anything. Merely deleting an out of date claim. WAS 4.250 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common descent is true. But there was no "last common ancestor". Plese read http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/173 which is written by the world's foremost authority on the subject. Horizontal gene transfer is also good reading (but see the topmost external link listed in the bottom section. Citizendium's coverage is ten times better than ours.) In pre-darwinian evolution times genes moved between cells like memes between people or species between ecosystems. Cells back then were communities in which seperate genes learned (evolved) more and more complex interrelations creating tighter and more efficient mechisms until genes could no longer usefully move from any cell to any cell and thus species began to exist. There was no first species that everything today evolved from. There was a common pool of co-evolving genes that moved freely from cell to cell. WAS 4.250 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope we can straighten this out and improve the article. It appears to be somewhat controversial and I suspect we can probably build the appropriate consensus to get your changes implemented.--Filll 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution

Hello,

I made my point about removing the book because it was misleading regarding drift, you just need to look in Evolution (talk). I also asked Tim Vickers if he thought I could remove the book on the article (Evolution), and he said yes. "Introduction to Evolution" is only a nontechnical version of evolution, I don't think it would be appropriate to do 2 discussions each time we want to make modifications affecting both articles. In my edit, I made a reference to the discussion in the article evolution. I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I'm not reverting back to my version, but I don't understand the logic of your action.

Regards, PhDP 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Of course, you have to realize that there are a LOT of editors here, and not all of us follow all discussions on this subject on all talk pages.--Filll 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's why I said to look at Talk:Evolution. The section is named Further reading. - PhDP 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the removal, I made the change because nobody was against it. I'm not sure to understand why it's so complicated, given the change was supported in the other article (and I know this is not a good argument in most case, but we're talking about a nontechnical introduction, it's not really a different article in term of scope). But I'm relatively new to this kind of disagreement and I don't want to cause problems, however I would like to understand how it's supposed to work. -PhDP ^(talk) 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheBestIsYet

Please vote of whom he reminds you:

Orangemarlin 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. He sure seems reminiscent of past trolls. I was thinking the same thing myself. He hasn't done anything too bad yet, but the wording, the arrogance, the lack of interest in working on the article, the constant requests for permission to comment or answer our misunderstood viewpoints, just reeks of one or all of the above.--Filll 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor (2nd) Orangemarlin 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust! Tiresome Orangemarlin 22:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False claims of Trolling

Discussion directly related to the merits of an article’s neutrality can by no means be considered trolling simply because the poster (myself in this case) does not adhere to your understanding of the subject, and removal of such discussion under the false charge of WP:SOAP is itself vandalism. If you wish to offer an actual retort based on the article’s neutrality, free of ad hominid attacks and ad ignorantiam fallacies, by I welcome your response. Matthew J. Theriault 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should take place on your talk page. And you can start by answering the 12 points I raised, one at a time, on your talk page. To help you I will repost them there.--Filll 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Creation Science:Talk, you will be blocked from editing. It is your removal of relevant discussion, that constitutes vandalism. Your personal disagreement with a point of discussion does not mean that it violates wikipedia's guidelines. Matthew J. Theriault 10:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that it is our policy to remove soapbox rants from talk pages. It is the consensus that your posts have degenerated into soapbox rants. You have also engaged in what appears to be blatant edit warring, possible sockpuppetry and recieved EIGHT formal and informal warnings about this, resulting in the page being locked because of your attacks. So do not make up fake warnings of your own. Just go to another venue where your contributions will be welcome, or else suffer the consequences of your actions here if you continue down this path.--Filll 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

Please stop accusing me of promoting Intelligent Design like you did at [7]. That is a defaming personal attack. And please stop making claims about how the article would look like if it'd be written by me. That's bad faith. --rtc 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a personal assessment of your tendentious editing. It is not a defaming personal attack. Orangemarlin 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that your posts have been excessively pedantic and singularly unhelpful. This is not a debate club. The intelligent design article is not about philosophy. It is my evaluation, which I might add is shared by most of the regular editors, that your edits are slanted towards the Discovery Institute position, which is the minority position and subject to the wikipedia rules WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Do you deny that your position is not closer to the Discovery Institute position than that of the mainstream scientific community? Well if you feel that this is not true, you should possibly reevaluate the image you seem to be projecting, if this is not your intent. I stand by what I said. If we gave you (and others of your ilk) free reign, the article would soon look like a recruiting brochure for the intelligent design movement. If this is not your goal, I apologize and suggest you think long and hard about your agenda. If this is your goal, it is unsuitable for this website and I would respectfully suggest that you consider the following wikis:

Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting your considerable talents and garnering ill will here, I am afraid.--Filll 22:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is farther away from both the Discovery Institute (or Intelligent Design in general) and the mainstream scientific community than the distance between these two (which is in fact very small). Apart from that, I am not defending any position with respect to the article; I am merely trying to correct it. NPOV doesn't mean majority POV. Stop associating me with the Intelligent design "ilk", that's a serious personal attack and bad faith. Just because someone doesn't push your POV doesn't mean he pushes the POV you oppose. --rtc 07:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Your personal position should not be apparent in your suggested edits, ideally. And our job here is to produce an article that reveals the current status, not to push one POV or another. The current status is:

intelligent design is a legal ploy to get around supreme court decisions
intelligent design appears to have no scientific support from mainstream science
intelligent design is an attempt from one small well-funded group to change the definition of science for religious purposes, by their own admission
intelligent design has so far lost in the legal arena and in the scientific arena

The article must describe this current status if it is to be useful. If the article describes something else, it is unfair to the readers and we have not done our job. If we produce an article the way the Discovery Institute wants, for example, we have not done our job. If we produce an article the way the Answers in Genesis group would describe intelligent design, we have not done our job. If we produce an article the way Mel Mulder (Beyond intelligent design) would, we have not done our job. If we produce an article written with tiny philosophical nuances, we have not done our job. It does not matter if the average scientist is a philosopher who is too stupid to know any philosophy. It does not matter if the average scientist is engaged in empiricism instead of empirical science as he thinks he is. If it is so complicated to describe what intelligent design is, or should be, that the average scientist, let alone the average reader, cannot understand it, then I put it to you that it is not helpful. Wikipedia is not some postgraduate textbook in philosophy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ideally aimed at around the 10th grade level I would say. If you cannot gain any consensus support for your ideas, I would suggest you drop them. I have repeatedly made suggestions on many articles which were not accepted. I did not throw a tantrum and get into pitched battles over my ignored ideas. I let my ideas drop, since I did not have consensus. Sometimes, my ideas are adopted later. Sometimes not. No one person here can dictate the path that WP will take. If you want to be productive, then try to go with the consensus, even if you think that the consensus is wrong, or has been made by lesser beings than yourself, too stupid to understand reality. Because believe me, the average reader will have a far harder time understanding your arguments than we will, in general, and if you cannot convince us of what you want, or even make us understand its value, then you have a problem in writing an encyclopedia for a general audience.--Filll 11:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You in fact seem not to have understood me. I never claimed that anything of what you call "current status" is not the case. Neither did I claim such things as scientists being engaged in empiricism instead of empirical science. Please carefully read what I write and don't read such nonsense into it. While you may have understood properly to distinguish science from creationist pseudoscience, you are not able to distinguish their pseudophilosophical teachnings from philosophy. As I see it, anything philosophical you see now seems dubious to you, as if you only ever saw pseudoscience and now suddenly see science. You'd be skeptical, too. Real science somehow looks like pseudoscience, of course, but it isn't pseudoscience. And in the exact same way, real philosophy looks somehow like pseudophilosophy, yet is not the same. --rtc 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is important to you, I would humbly suggest you write your own article on Intelligent design philosophy or something similar in a WP:Sandbox, and then let people examine it and review it. If they like it, then it can be turned into an article and linked in. Otherwise, you will just be swimming upstream.--Filll 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:rtc

Sockpuppet of Raspor? I think because of [this edit]. Raspor was also obsessed with Popper. Same writing style. Orangemarlin 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. The pattern seems to be there:

Obsessed with Popper
Excited about mathematics but doesnt know much about it
Can write well if he has to (but still slips atrociously)
Thin skin
Aggrieved attitude
Knowledge of WP procedures immediately
Editing only a few articles in a certain subject area
Edit warring
Amateur philosopher
Desperate not to be cast as an ID or DI or creationism supporter, all evidence to the contrary.

This one has not engaged in the ridiculous indenting that the others have. But still...the pattern is there I think.--Filll 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Raspor (3rd) Orangemarlin 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind watchmaker

Not a great book and probably not a fine-grained or completely accurate presentation of current evolutionary theory, however it is quite well-written and approachable. Reasonable as a general introduction, but not something I would recommend as a source for specific statements. Tim Vickers 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be valuable as a text for someone without any training in biology; that is, a complete newcomer like we would expect at Introduction to evolution?--Filll 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I think you should spend some time at RfA. There are a bunch of admins lately who have applied but have little editing know-how. I keep hammering on the point that there are too many policemen and not enough editors who know how to gain consensus, how to step in with contentious articles, etc.Orangemarlin 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cause everybody wants to be a cop. Except me. Can't be bothered...but I try (ocassionally) to pay attention to the RfA's; but much of the time I'm busy reading Filll's reallly looonnnnggggg paragraphs. ;) Jim62sch 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are very loooooooong. But I always enjoy the little gems of wisdom (and attacks on the bad guys) hidden within!!!!!!! Orangemarlin 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will notice, I did step in on that pretty outrageous RfA for R, a junior high school student. I think I might have been a bit too heavy-handed, but my goodness...And yes, I sometimes write too much. Oh well...--Filll 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were heavy-handed, you were just stating the obvious (with a lot of words). OK, you can cyber-smack me now. Jim62sch 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

I need to get some sleep, and I don't want to violate WP:3RR. Can you clean up the POV crap that was edited back into the article this morning? Thanks. Orangemarlin 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, you've got to read this Orangemarlin 08:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm this is going to be difficult I see. He thinks a rant against medicine is NPOV? I can see some discussion of the shortfall of allopathic medicine, particularly 150 years ago. But this article is pretty biased. And I notice it does not even mention hormesis, which is at least one process which might validate some of the homeopathic techniques, although obviously not at such low doses (such as diluting substances down so far that no molecules of the active ingredient exist in a dose). Just an advertisement for the homeopathic industry I guess. I don't mind discussing their reasoning, but science has to have a say in this as well: this is an encyclopedia, after all. --Filll 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this regard, one of the editors (User talk:Peter morrell) is using his own blog as a reference, and has also edited articles like anti-science and Scientific imperialism. Hmm..--Filll 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I have not edited into this article my own articles or blog as you call it. If there are any references to my work then it was placed there by others. Your friend, both in his actions and in the absurd comments he makes, is clearly unsuited to edit an article upon which he has such prejudicial and strong views. Nothing placed back into the article this morning is crap or POV it is neutral and factual and well referenced narrative...I have not edited this article for about 12 months and in that time it has been steadily left more or less intact. All of the paragraphs I replaced today have been there a long time and it is not good editorial judgement for someone to come along and remove whole swathes of stuff purely because they disagree with the subject. The article has suffered from repeated vandalism and so it is no wonder it reads bad as you stated...I have reported this morning's vandalism and edit warring to a respected editor and administrator who will check it over. please therefore be patient, thank you Peter morrell 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my edits. I don't have to have neutral feelings toward junk science. There are NO, not a single one, peer-reviewed scientific article that supports homeopathy. My edits will stand. Orangemarlin 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite disappointed when I read the article. Even if one is a proponent of homeopathy, it is poorly edited and poorly linked and the grammar sucks. The references are poor. It is missing big blocks of relevant information. It is not very encyclopedic.--Filll 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just a not to say that, although Peter and I share almost mirror-image views on many medical subjects (although I suspect we have very similar views on the Bush administration!) he is a good editor to co-operate with when he does not feel that he or subjects he is deeply involved in are being attacked. Indeed, his academic background usually makes him quite open to careful argument and calm discussion. As somebody who has worked productively with both sets of editors here, if you find any difficulties that you can't solve yourself, don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best, Tim Vickers 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. I am just a bit disconcerted to find a major subject article in such a mess. Even if it is pseudoscience, we have to write it so someone can read it and understand it. I would have thought that the supporters of homeopathy would have put some effort into producing a readable article.--Filll 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passion is required here. Junk science in Evolution, just means some Creationist will be happy and win points at the Church of Anti-Science. Junk science in any medically-oriented article means people are harmed or even killed. Developing consensus in a Creationist article may mean the Creationist will save his soul. Coming to consensus in junk science means someone will probably die. Someone with an academic background implies to me someone who should figure these things out. Fill, this is where I need your passionate vilification of the anti-science crowd. Orangemarlin 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do is to fix the references and link it properly so people can tell what is being claimed, without a bunch of obfuscation and mumbo-jumbo. For example, that some people think ground up bits of the Berlin Wall will cure you of disease is worth exposing. And so on. Then after that, weasel words can be introduced in the right places, and outrageous claims countered. And hopefully the article trimmed down or detailed information farmed out to another article or two so that it can be read easily by the average person.--Filll 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for what you've done. I'm not in the mood to deal with the POV fighting. Usually, I'm the one trying to calm you down!!!! LOL. Orangemarlin 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am more objective about this subject so I don't get so worked up. I think if I just lift the curtain and let them see the little man behind the curtain, that will go a long way to exposing these charlatans. The problem was, the article originally was written with all kinds of undefined terms and mumbo jumbo so you couldnt tell what was real and what was nonsense.--Filll 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

slight problem

If you are going to use wholly pejorative terms like 'expose these charlatans' and 'mumbo-jumbo' then you are little better suited to complete this task any more objectively and neutrally than the previous hack-job person, so I have serious doubts about where your edits are actually heading, other than more future edit warring. However, what you have done so far is interesting, innovative and inoffensive. Maybe you can say if you have a clear idea at this stage how you are going to 'expose these charlatans' and deal with their 'mumbo-jumbo?' Do you have a clear idea of how you see this article at the end of your edits or are you just making it up as you go along? Peter morrell 13:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would be lying to pretend that I am not pro-science, having 2 undergraduate degrees and 4 graduate degrees in science and mathematics, I believe that the final result will be helpful and useful to all concerned, or at least that is my goal. I obviously do not agree with the entire premise of homeopathy. It violates everything that I know about physics, chemistry and biology. It does not satisfy standard rules of evidence used in empirical science. I have no problem in making this clear to you. In this, I agree completely with Tim Vickers and even, yes, dare I say it, Orangemarlin. However, I believe that the field of homeopathy should be carefully explained, the reasoning behind the treatments described carefully and in a fashion that is readily understandable, the references reasonably well formatted (although I will not claim to be a world expert on this, I can at least make improvements on the format I see now), and even links to relevant related topics like nocebo, Arndt-Schulz rule, hormesis, Hueppe's Rule, Burgi's principle, and so on be introduced. It might even be useful to link up with more of the new age articles such as What the Bleep Do We Know!?. I want the reader to be able to explore related concepts in science and in new age thinking. I also want the reader to have access to the contrary opinions and evidence found in standard allopathic medicine. The history is atrocious, to be honest, and I think that moving it to a separate article will enable it to be fleshed out much better. The main article was getting very cramped at 89K or so, and so trimming it down by farming out material to subsiduary daughter articles is clearly called for. This will make the main article easier to edit and maintain, and to make it more readable for the average reader, so they do not feel they have to wade through interminable rows of text. I want to move out the international discussion to another article as well so that the main article is not overwhelmed with legal minutae and details. Then, readers can more easily understand what homeopathy is and its history and claims. Readers can also easily see the statements of the medical community as well. There will be room to discuss the fascinating history of homeopathy in more detail. There will even be more room to talk about the specialized techniques in homeopathy. To avoid the impression that we are promoting or advertising or shilling for homeopathy, I will place a boilerplate paragraph in each introduction, as has been decided by consensus on the main article. Hopefully this will avoid the complaint that arose before that these daughter articles are just a means for homeopaths to avoid scrutiny and opposing views, and to advertise their businesses. Clearer?--Filll 13:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you yes it is clearer, to me at least, but as you saw I was alarmed at your 'foul language' in places above which often reveals more about a person's deeper motives than polite exchanges. I have no problem with you editing and farming out stuff to daughter articles, fine no worries, nor did I see that there was any advertising going on previously, but all articles can be policed. The article is mainly a mess, as I said before, because it has suffered from repeated bad edits and folks hacking stuff out they did not like, and it was as you say too big. I have no problem with what you are doing and am happy to lend a hand or make suggestions. I don't envisage doing much editing myself and am happy to leave it to you. thanks Peter morrell 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss empirical science until you are blue in the face but right now I think your editing is good and should take top priority. I would like to suggest you focus on that at the expense of getting side-tracked by other topics/folks. I resisted the temptation earlier to intervene on some similar thread but right now I think your editing of the main article is good to excellent and so the thing to stay focused on. If you see what I mean. This is merely a polite suggestion, of course, up to you how you get on with other topics and other folks. I agree with that guy and by implication, as you have admitted, homeopathy was originally a largely theory-free empirical science. Sadly that cannot be said today about ANY science. Much modern science is indeed theory-driven. Sorry, I digress... thanks Peter morrell 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Wight

Cheers. Thought it needed knocking into shape. Tried to do it like Cornwall, with all the categories nicely structured. I hope i'm doing the right things, i'm new to this. Don't even know if you will see this!

I'm impressed that you work on the IOW pages, you must be 4000 miles away! I go there a lot, it's a beautiful island, very rural but with the advantage of being by the sea. Yellow, blue & green, a feast for the eyes.--Debnigo 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it seems sort of exotic. I have never been there. It is also a bit of a challenge finding out about such tiny places, so far away.--Filll 10:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great attack on evolution

Just read here--Filll 12:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How depressing. Interesting that it is a strikingly Aryan student who defeats the swarthy, curly-haired and large-nosed professor. I don't like those kind of undertones. Tim Vickers 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have blasted me over and over for this, but most of these people who push this anti-evolution agenda are antiSemitic, antiCatholic, antiBlack, antiGay, antiGunControl, antiAbortion, proWar, etc. --Filll 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is scary. The professor looks, well, Jewish. The kid is definitely an Aryan proto-Nazi. And I didn't know there were 6 theories of evolution. I must have missed that in our article here. Orangemarlin 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to amuse you here. Thanks to Jim! Orangemarlin 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He actually kind of reminds me of Salman Rushdie. ornis 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of why we have to be careful

I went to find out some more information about the Arndt-Schulz rule and i went to the International Biopharmaceutical Association website, where I found that the definition they are using comes from our own Wikipedia article! [8] Oh brother...--Filll 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to peter

That user abridged has gone mate, he's left wiki behind in disgust, so your words were wasted. sorry about that some folks just can't stay calm, please continuew ith your good work and just get on with it basically. thank you Peter morrell 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter. I really appreciate your help. I understand that he was upset with the intermediate products, but we have to just keep our noses to the grindstone here and completely this transition from one article to 1 main article and 3 daughter articles, which will be an immense change. Hopefully when all is said and done, people will be able to read about the fascinating history of homeopathy more easily, and be able to judge its merits and demerits more easily since they will be able to read the material. If I have to deal with massive rewrites while I am still moving stuff around, it will just be incredibly difficult. If he had wanted to be productive, he could have helped me with wikilinks, or making up new articles for the redlinks that exist in these 4 articles so the reader will be able to follow this story easily. I want the reader to not have to go outside of wikipedia to find out about psora or isopathy or vitalism. I want them to be able to just click on a link, especially since many of these articles already exist, but were not linked in properly.--Filll 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK I am happy with your work and if he/she had been a bit more patient and not interfered I guess they would have been too...let's just stay with the task, I vote for that. If you don't mind, I request that you just soldier on mate! thanks Peter morrell 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a certain bad editor and friend of yours has returned to the homeopathy article. I would suggest to you that he best stay away, because he pushes all the wrong buttons and is way too OTT in his prejudicial amendments and bad language. He is the cause of the problem and not part of the solution. If you want my continued support for your good editorial skills then please ask him to desist. thank you Peter morrell 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I never use bad language in public. 2) I agree with you on Abridged (so see, we're in synch on something. 3) Don't threaten me, this isn't a dictatorship. 4) Yes, I'm prejudicial on Homeopathy, but I've been asked by nice people to work with you. If you're willing to, I will. 4) I can read, so I see you're asking me to desist. 5) What's an OTT? 6) I cause no problems. Orangemarlin 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with Orangemarlin for months and jointly authored several articles with him. He might feel a bit sensitive about this subject, since it is close to his own background and interests, but I have found him to be scupulous about enforcing NPOV in many cases. I have often seen him revert edits of those who went too far, even if those edits were in a direction that were in accord with his own POV. I think that if you give Orangemarlin a chance, and work with him, you will find him to be more than fair and a gentleman usually (although both of us have been known to get a bit heated on occasion).--Filll 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this person has ANYTHING whatsoever to offer this article other than hateful disbelief and snide blather, which is all he has offered it and placed before us so far. So I have no intention of working with him. I'm sorry if that sounds uncooperative but tell me: what does he know about homeopathy, what does he care about it and what can he offer this article? the answer is nothing whatsoever. He calls it dangerous pseudoscience. Where do you go with that? A qualification in allopathy in no way qualifies anyone to comment meaningfully on another branch of medicine. Quite the contrary, his mind is filled ONLY with hatred and prejudice for this subject. Count me out, if he stays. Peter morrell 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you missed the parts about my science and medical backgrounds. Since you and your type claim Homeopathy is science and medicine, I should be able to help. :) Orangemarlin 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count me out, if he stays. I wouldn't make promises like that if I were you. ornis 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimVickers has also worked with Orangemarlin and I am sure will agree with me that he is quite reasonable. I know that Orangemarlin is a bit strident sometimes, but so am I and Orangemarlin has had to keep me in check numerous times; in fact, it is far more common for me to be the one who is uncivil and lashing out and for him to be calming me down. This is a bit strange for the shoe to be on the other foot! I am sure that Orangemarlin does not believe that ALL homeopathic activities are dangerous, but I am sure we all agree that some homeopathic treatments might be, particularly in the case of irresponsible fringe practitioners and lost opportunities. Of course, we all know that conventional medicine screws up from time to time as well (look at the tremendous toll of iatrogenic illness that was documented in a recent report). I think you guys just got off on the wrong foot. Peter is clearly well versed in this area. He has had special academic appointments in the area of the History of Medicine. He has written a wide range of well-regarded articles. If you just take a deep breath, you will find that you have the same goals here, and we can all work together productively. It is fairly clear to me that Peter does not want to misrepresent the skepticism that homeopathy faces, as that other editor seemed to want to do, which is the source of all the potential conflict. So I am appealing to both of you to try to accept each other.--Filll 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story"

Dear Filll, this upcoming Wikidocmentary film article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review on today, because a recent decision to retain it on Wikipedia has been appealed and it is in progress in reaching an ultimate consensus. You may wish to contribute to the review. Since you had involved in it before, so do help out and try not to hesitate to voice out your advocated opinion! Pole Heinz Tower 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Arafat Refs

Hi, Filll, I converted the external links throughout the article into footnotes and I was wondering if you would take a look see at the article's Reference and External links sections. Should we just get rid of the External links section? Al Ameer son15:34, 13 July 2007

I think that is a good start. You might consider what I did on reference 31 and see if you like that. I would suggest that is more scholarly and gives the reader more information that they do not have to click on the link to get. This text is part of a Human Rights Watch Report, what is the subject and date of the report, etc.--Filll 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw what you did on reference 31, and I tried doing that with all of the refs I edited. However, for some reason I couldn't manage to do anything for references, 36, 43 and 48. Maybe you should have a look see and try to fix those ones as well. As for the dates, many of those links are not direct or perhaps expired so I was not able to attain the dates that they were published.

On another, but similar note, I was wondering what we should do about the External links list, now that we have almost all of them converted to references. Al Ameer son 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the external links if they have been converted to regular references. We might want to eventually migrate to an even more advanced reference system which I have not yet mastered as well. I will look to see how things are.--Filll 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what I did on reference 33. I think we might have to go to Wikipedia:Citation templates eventually, but that will be easier once we have all the necessary information I think.--Filll 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to do to ref 29 what you did for ref 33, however I think we will have to begin on the Wikipedia:Citation templates because we simply cannot achieve what we did to those two references for all of the references. -- Al Ameer son 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if you think the Wikipedia:Citation templates will help you, by all means use them. I find them sort of annoying myself, but eventually I will have to use them. I just have been quick and dirty to make it look reasonably good with a fair amount of information available to the reader. It is important to give the full title, author if available, date, date accessed, volume etc. --Filll 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought you were pursuing them, because I think they're could be other solutions, and tracking all of the dates and other necessary information will be near impossible since the bulk of users who added the info, added it from News websites which for the most part, keep them in archives or in some cases with French News websites, expire. I also thought I could use Said K. Aburish's biography on Arafat From Defender to Dictator, at least on the Tunisia, Palestinian Authority and peace negotiations, Political survival, marginalization and controversy sections as I did for the previous sections. The only reason that is the limit is because the book was published in 1998. Perhaps, I can use the Wikipedia:Citation templates for those references -- Al Ameer son 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be tedious, but that is what needs to be done to push the article towards GA or FA status.--Filll 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should go ahead and use the biography to reference as much of those sections as I could then? -- Al Ameer son 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

I have no clue where you are going with this article? The undue weight given to its efficacy is ridiculous. You're a mathematician....there is no shot of a single molecule of anything getting to the human body--unless water counts. This is a dangerous therapy, and because you are a "scientist" you're giving credibility to the article. I'm lost as to your goals. Orangemarlin 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is no good present scientific evidence that this treatment works. There is also no known accepted theory from chemistry or physics that could explain any putative cures by these techniques. Just as User:TimVickers (another PhD, but this time in biology) has done, I am trying to make this article easier to read. I think that homeopathy started out in a reasonable fashion, for its time, but the original efforts to do empirical testing somehow did not continue, or at least were somehow focussed in the wrong direction. If one looks at the other work of Hahnemann, he anticipated many techniques in allopathic medicine, so he was not a nut, at least compared to his peers in medicine. Of course I am biased in the direction of science, but I think that if a reasonable description of homeopathy is produced, together with criticisms and references from sceptics, the reader will be able to determine for himself or herself how to evaluate it. If you look at the main homeopathy article, it contains a huge chunk of material that expresses opposition to the concept. Half of the LEAD, as well as sections 5, 7 and 8 are all dismissive of homeopathy. Also, I have broken out a lot of the material to 3 daughter articles, which I have insisted also include material that makes it clear that there is opposition to homeopathy (much to the displeasure of one editor here with all of 770 edits or so who got his nose out of joint). Even in the material that is supportive of homeopathy, the very description strains credulity, at least for me. Grinding up bits of the Berlin Wall to use as medicine? Diluting things to concentrations as small as 10^(-30) or more? Claiming that strength increases with decreasing concentration is just beyond belief. When I was a boy, my father delighted in making fun of homeopathy. My mother, who was a nurse, and very proud of conventional medicine, was equally dismissive. I am definitely NOT pro-homeopathy. But I am pro-information, and I think that a reader who has access to all this information, in the clearest possible language, will be well-served. I think that a poorly written article is not good for the readers, is not good for Wikipedia, and if anything will be used by the unscrupulous to obfuscate the true nature of homeopathy and confuse the public with fancy undefined words and terms. We can perform a great service here by defining everything carefully and clearly, and providing all sides of the story. That is what I am doing. I hope you will join me in this. And we can do the same thing on other articles like herbalism as well. --Filll 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, you're missing my point. A historical treatise is fine. Providing information is fine. But the article is giving undue weight to facts that are clearly wrong. The Lead gives equal credence to this pseudoscience as it does to the fact that it is pseudoscience. This is the same problem we have with any pseudoscientific article. Go back to Creation science, which in essence, is the same thing, relying on faith or spiritual (or whatever) to counter science. There isn't one single verifiable reference that gives credence to the "claims" (and I'm using claims in the medical manner) of Homeopathy. If anyone goes to the article, and dismisses standard medical care to try this pseudo-medicine, then we have harmed another human being, because they will reject what may actually cure them. I'm disappointed in the direction you have taken the article. However, JoshuaZ, whom I know is a research scientist, has involved himself in the article--I'm hoping he balances your POV. Orangemarlin 05:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin, I have not removed anything that is critical of homeopathy. I have just taken the article as is, and pared it down by farming out material to 3 daughter articles. I have made sure that there is information about the opposition to homeopathy in each of the daughter article leads. As this process progresses, I would expect these 3 daughter articles to be modified and negative material blended in better. In fact, after removal of material from the main article, the ratio of {explanatory homeopathy material)/(material opposed to homeopathy) in the main article has actually decreased, since I left the denominator alone and decreased the numerator! All that I have done is try to improve the wording of the first 3 sections of the main article so far (Lead, sections 1 and 2) so that it is clearer what the authors are trying to say (at least in my opinion). I think that being clearer benefits EVERYONE, detrators and supporters. Later, after the wording is clear, and the material is better organized, and gaps are filled in, we can argue about whether the articles are too favorable to homeopathy or too negative. For now, I just want to keep most of the present material in there and write it and organize it carefully. For example, if the D, C, L, X and M potency scales are not well explained, then we have not done our jobs here. If you are a detractor, then knowing for sure what the potency refers to and the concentration etc, will do nothing but bolster your arguments. If you are a supporter, it is valuable to explain this clearly. The average reader benefits because then they know what is being said, instead of fighting their way through wordy unclear text. All medical claims are, or should be, qualified in some way. Contrary evidence and opposition should be discussed. JoshuaZ messed up one reference, put in an unverified sentence in a place that broke up the paragraph flow (when there was plenty of that same material one paragraph later in more detail) and removed a paragraph that, as outrageous as it was, still belongs in there. The outrageous paragraph belongs there for 2 reasons. One, Peter agrees that it is accurate. Two, it demonstrates what homeopathy is really about by making some outrageous claims. I say, if you want to discredit homeopathy for making outrageous claims, then make it clear what the outrageous claims are. Do not hide them or cover them up. That will not serve the reader well. As Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.--Filll 06:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so wrong. And to have the support of someone whose seems to rely on personal attacks is beyond comprehension. You do what you need to do, but you do not have my support on it--you are the only one of the pro-science group that has given this article credence. I'm contacting others for assistance in this matter, and to deal with the personal attacks from your one supporter. You are also not using Brandeis correctly--sunlight were facts. This article deals in perverting facts. Orangemarlin 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. There is something I am not understanding here I guess. I have asked TimVickers for advice, because I am not sure what to do. I believe Tim Vickers to also be quite pro-science. If one looks at the history of the article, other pro-science people have worked on it as well. I have to check their contributions, but I think they have similar motivations to mine, and similar approaches, but I will stand corrected if this is not true.

To me, the article is like an article on phlogisten or the caloric theory or the ether, but with a twist. It is an idea that was fairly mainstream at one time, but which is now abandoned by most mainstream practitioners. It is an idea that has no clear evidence for it, and has been superceded by other ideas which are clearly supported by evidence. Like phlogisten or the ether, it is an idea that some still hold onto. The twist is that this theory is about health, and therefore is potentially dangerous to people's health, from opportunity cost if nothing else. So we have to be more diligent in dispelling any misconceptions about it, and revealing the actual beliefs. That is all.

I think that this discipline from the history of medicine has been left behind and now is more properly regarded as pseudoscience. I think that revealing ACTUAL beliefs held by homeopaths , such as the idea that grinding up the Berlin Wall remnants to make medications, or capturing a thunderstorm in a medication somehow, are quite revealing. It is factual that they believe these things and dispense them to the public, is it not? You and I might disagree with these beliefs, but homeopaths do believe them and dispense them, correct? That is a fact. It should not be hidden. It should be revealed. The sheer outrageousness of these kinds of activities, with no obvious underlying reasoning or evidence that these activities are of any value or do what is claimed, puts these practices clearly in the pseudoscience camp, if you ask me.

However, in addition in the article, there are large chunks discussing the lack of evidence that homeopathy works in all kinds of tests and analyses under rigorous conditions, using double blinds, etc. Possibly more links are necessary to more studies; we can do that. Possibly more weasel words like "claimed", "allegedly", "controversial" etc are needed to caution the reader that we are not dealing with a current scientifically verified, medically approved set of treatments; we can do that. Definitely the sentences have to be made more clear, in any case. Should it be categorized in the pseudoscience category, if it is not there already? I would claim that since it appears on most pseudoscience lists of organizations like the NAS or other scientific bodies, to put this article in the pseudoscience category is preferable so that it can be found easily. Should it be classified in the category of "Obsolete medical treatments"? In my view, it probably should if it is not already, since it was clearly more mainstream 200 years ago, but is clearly not mainstream today, having been left behind.

There was even a form of empirical testing that "supported" some aspects homeopathy (albeit quite primitive), which was not particularly standard pratice in many other kinds of medicine at the time (this in itself makes it quite interesting from a study of the history of science and medicine). Unfortunately, I think the empirical testing applied mainly to choice of treatment, not to the results of the treatment, if I understand correctly. This is not brought out well by the article, however.

This is the kind of sunlight I am talking about. Show the beliefs and practices for what they are. Show the lack of modern studies showing any clear benefit. Discuss the weird unverified reasoning behind the treatments. Explain the big words, so a person reading it is not buffaloed by a bunch of jargon and possibly mislead to believe it is real science or real medicine. To me, this is sunshine. These are facts. These facts are making it clear what is going on, the lack of evidence that supports it, the opinions of major reputable authorities, etc. How could this be bad? I am very dismayed at what I see on all sides, and in the nonsentences and confusion in the article itself.--Filll 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shown your true colours then huh? you have no place editing this article orangeman and never will, the above rant is pure BS. standard medicine what are you talking about? there is no such thing. everything you say stinks. Peter morrell 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeoopathy

You said: What exactly does this sentence mean and is it properly placed?

This modern approach also harks back to the ancient 'doctrine of signatures,' which Hahnemann definitely rejected as uncertain guesswork.[29] --Filll 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you have no idea what you are doing. leave it in it is of course highly relevant. Please also put back in a long paragraph removed by JoshuaZ who clearly knows nothing about this subject but, as with the orange hack-job, he insists on interfering. It is highly relevant material. The doctrine of signatures: well, why not try to learn what it is instead of removing good stuff? educate your self about the subject you hack to pieces!

I repeat, stop interfering with the valid content of this article on homeopathy. you are overreaching your actual knowledge now and deleting good stuff. Peter morrell 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I do not want to remove anything that is meaningful. Please keep a careful eye on it to make sure I do not remove anything important. I am trying to word it carefully so it can be understood, but if I make any mistakes, please be sure to tell me so I can correct them.--Filll 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article lacks balance

The article is too long because about 55% of it is the long diatribe stating its alleged dangers. If anti-homoepathy folks are going to trim the first half of the article and delte much of its neutral factual content, then homeopaths will also want to trim much of that other stuff. The stuff on vaccination is garbled nonsense as it reads god knows where that comes from...and the james randi stuff is completely unnecessary as with some of the alleged dangers section. If the bias continues in this fashion the article will not be about homoeopathy any more, but about what the antis people think about it. That is just no good. It will not survive in such a state, so I suggest you address these issues head on now, before the whole thing goes swirling down the pan. I'm borderline out of this anyway by now so please bear this in mind. I hope you can balance the article up a bit. thanks Peter morrell 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do, but this is a very delicate balancing act. I need someone like TimVickers or maybe a few others to help me here.--Filll 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise that...it's OK and you have help on all sides and peace has broken out thanks to Orangemarlin contacting me... so let's see what we can do together as a team? i feel a bit more positive now. Tim is onboard too, so I reckon I can now go out now with my kids and leave you guys to it!:) I will check in again later....Peter morrell 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]