User talk:Erich168

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Vsmith 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I strongly suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to The Origin of Species, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. dave souza, talk 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question you've raised on my talk page, my bias is towards supporting policies. Repeatedly adding misinformation is vandalism: if you want to invert statements in articles you should meet WP:V in showing Wikipedia:Reliable sources for your position, and in this instance comply fully with the particular requirements relating to science. Your bias appears to be towards pseudoscience, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ covers that in more detail. These are points you can raise on talk pages, but simply making unjustified changes is not the way to proceed. ..dave souza, talk 07:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I would ask you again to please review the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. After reading this, you will see that the original contribution was opposed to the NPOV policy. Your constant edits fall under the vandalism category.

First, here is an original quote: Although the ideas presented in it are supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and are widely accepted by scientists today, they are still, in some parts of the world, highly controversial, particularly among non-scientists who perceive them to contradict their own view of the facts and various religious texts (see Creation-evolution controversy).

1. Show me the “overwhelming scientific eveidence”. I can provide “overwhelming” scientific evidence for creationism. There is some evidence. But, it is NOT overwhelming.
2. The statement “particularly among non-scientists who perceive them to contradict their own view of the facts” is obviously meant to persuade the reader that creationism is not based on any scientific evidence (again, this is opposed the the Wikipedia NPOV)

Second, the statement that Modern DNA evidence is consistent with the idea that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times is also a biased statement (not based on fact). The DNA contribution on Wikipedia does not even suggest that this statement is valid. At best, modern DNA evidence in inconclusive. That is why I made that statement. Thank you, Erich

Erich, make sure you have read the NPOV policy, especially this section and the one below it. In any case, if you have NPOV objections make them on the talk page of the article. However demanding evidence is not going to get you anywhere (we operate under WP:NOR as well). In any case you are about the 10-millionth creationist to come along and try and push a creationist POV in the evolution articles. From a purely practical standpoint I can say that you are probably just going to be wasting your time. --Fastfission 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission, I have read the NPOV statement four times in the past 2 days. Just to make it clear, I have NOT added any creationist POV in this article. I have only edited the previous wording to comply with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The NOR policy does not give contributors to use this platform to propagate their own agenda and bias. Again, it is clear that my edits show more of a neutral point of view than what was published previously. Thank you, Erich… 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of my bringing up NOR (it means that Wikipedia is not the place to hash out "truth"), but in any case, again, if you have NPOV concerns raise them on the talk page first. Otherwise you will be reverted (as you have been for every edit you've so far made in respects to evolution) or the article will be protected. --Fastfission 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission, I must admit, you have me stumped… What criteria are you using to justify reverting my edits? I understand that “truth” should not be hashed out on Wikipedia. My edits are clearly based on a NPOV. They do not promote a creationist agenda. However, the previous contribution that you keep reverting to DOES promote an evolution POV and mocks the creationist POV. Wouldn’t it be better to remove opinions such as: “particularly among non-scientists who perceive them to contradict their own view of the facts and various religious texts? Thanks again, Erich… 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, bring it up on the talk page if you want to discuss it in detail—you've been reverted by multiple editors here, not just me. I do not think that sentence is an "opinion"—in fact I think it is not off the mark at all; if you'd like a citation to support it, you can request one. I think it is pretty hard to dispute though that most opposition to evolution comes from non-scientists and is motivated by conflict with religious texts (even the few scientists who object to evolution admit to being motivated by the latter concern). It is simply not true that there is real scientific dispute about evolution—all of the "dispute" is generated by Creationist think-tanks and a handful of scientists they have under their employ. I don't think stating this widely recognized fact is at all non-neutral, and I do not think that pointing out that the Creationist POV is considered non-scientific and religiously-based is the same thing as "mocking" it. Your edits, on the other hand, misrepresent the "controversial" aspect of it and from where that controversy comes from—it is not scientifically controversial. --Fastfission 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you are almost over the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Anymore reverts to Origin of Species and you get blocked for 24 hours, no exceptions. --Fastfission 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastsission & Dave,

I appreciate the discussions regarding the contributions to The Origin of Species. Fastfission, you stated that my efforts to present statements with a more neutral point of view would be “a waste of my time”. Well, after reading all the past discussions, posts, edits, & reverts on this subject, I have concluded that you are absolutley correct. Your extreme bias in this subject makes it a waste of time to discuss. It also makes it a waste of time to attempt to improve the article when neither of you are interested in NPOV.

It appears that you both have an agenda to promote this theory as scientific law. It also appears that allowing biased comments are fine as long as they agree with your opinion. Thanks for your time. I will no longer attempt to contribute to this subject.

Erich, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't anything on there that tries to promote it to "law". You are likely dealing with an incorrect definition of "theory" of the sort that Creationists like to abuse. See our article on theory for a full explanation. In any case, the "waste of time" comment, as I said before, is purely from a practical standpoint. Creationist POV-pushers just never really seem to accomplish much on here, and I figured I could save you a little bit of wasted effort. If you consider my approach to this—to adhere to NPOV policy correctly and not misrepresent things—to be "extreme bias", then you wouldn't have gotten very far on Wikipedia anyway. Again, I thoroughly presented you with the options by which you could pursue any legitimate NPOV complaints, which you seem to have not pursued, favoring instead a little edit war. Your choice. --Fastfission 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission, I do understand the scientific definition of theory. Don't get me wrong, evolution is a good theory. However, it is a flawed theory and therefore can/will never be proven. As far as NPOV; the paragraph in question would be changed immediately if it were in some other (non-controversial) subject. The current wording is an obvious attempt to promote a specific opinion. I do thank you for presenting some options. However, as I said, after reading all the discussion on this subject, it does seem like a waste of time. Finally, you chose to participate in the "edit war". Couldn't you "talked" about it instead of reverting the edit? BTW, I have appreciated your pleasant attitude during our correspondence. Thank you,--Erich168 19:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When multiple editors have reverted the same or similar addition the burden of proof rests with the person trying to make the comment to prove their point more than anything else, especially in regards to controversial changes to controversial articles (as anything evolution-related easily qualifies for). In any case you have not made a point at all for what you consider to be biased about it, only that you think the wording is an "attempt to promote a specific opinion." That in and of itself is not a POV problem. You'll have to be more specific: what opinion do you object to, why do you think the article text is wrong, what relevant POV do you think it is leaving out, etc. That particular sentence is just a way of saying "within the scientific community this issue is more or less uncontroversial at the moment, but outside of it there are people who consider it controversial, primarily because of their religious inclinations; see this other article for more information on this."

I'm suprised that you'd take issue with such a statement. Even the most "official" of the scientists who attack evolution can usually acknowledge that (i.e. Behe's testimony in the Dover case). The most sophisticated of them try to claim that scientists themselves play games of commitment by adopting strict methodological naturalism, but since that argument is basically that science should also study the supernatural, most people don't find that very compelling, despite it being strictly true. Creationists (of all stripes) generally acknowledge that 1. within the scientific community there is little dispute, and 2. the reason the Creationists oppose evolution is because of their religious beliefs (and, on the other side, the reason the scientific community supports it is because of their own beliefs). Are you taking offense at the notion that evolution is not considered controversial scientifically by almost all professional scientists? Or that the nature of the dispute is religious/cosmological in nature? You'll have to be specific, because frankly I don't quite see what point you are trying to push. Your edits make it sound like you want the article to read that there are significant scientific disputes—this is not true, and no, our NPOV policy does not require that we treat "Creation biology" as mainstream science.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I disagree with your changes—I think they make the paragraph highly misleading—and we probably don't see eye to eye on other things either. But I'm happy to discuss things as long as the discussion sticks to the issue of article content and is clearly a good-faith effort on the other side (i.e. it is not trolling). (By the way, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion in three places at once...) --Fastfission 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]