User talk:Struct/Archive 1-15-2007

ID as a cargo cult science

I'm tired so I'll be brief. I think it is highly innapropriate to add intelligent design and all the related articles, to the cargo cult science category. You did this prior to any discussion and then when you rerverted me you suggestd I should discuss it on the talk page. The only source you have for this currently original opinion of yours is a Wikipedia article that does not even mention intelligent design nor any of the related subjects you linked it to. At this point you have only demonstarted you have an original opinion on the subject and inserted it everywhere.

Compounding matter is the cargo cult science article is suspect in that it is not a black and white subject and a significant amount of it is poorly sourced and reads like original research. I studied cults for 10 years and I can tell you THAT article could use a criticism section.

Sorry if I sound pissed off, but this is a highly irritating manner of inserting an original opinion. Please reconsider your approach and self revert. Afterwards, and if you feel you have a case, please discuss it on the intelligent design talk page. Cheers, Mr Christopher 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted for this user. Look I agree that these organisations have a cult like status and all the other stuff you added. However, such edits are extremely POV, especially the way you did it by adding all your criticisms as a see also. You are not helping us prevserve these articles in a good shape by setting this kind of precedent. There is a talk page to be used prior to adding such See alsos. My bet is none of them would make it onto the page from an encyclopedic view. We are not here to expose such organisations. they do it fine on their own. Such predjidice against them will only serve to help them in their martyr syndrome. Be intelligent in the way you write the criticism, specifically, use material from reliable sources. David D. (Talk) 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to have any spare time until May or June, but as soon as I do, I'm going to bury both of your misguided criticisms in Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science and Psychology citations to the contrary.

Struct 13:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you bury me with reliable sources and reasoned arguments then I'll jump on board. David D. (Talk) 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll need reliable sources in the various Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science and Psychology disciplines who specifically say intelligent design (and all the related subjects you included]] are cargo cult science. Once you have those in hand then I too will help introduce those viewpoints to the appropriate articles. Mr Christopher 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

David_D./contributions

I just noticed the page you created at User_talk:David_D./contributions with the following comments I have cut and paste to here.

I'm retracting my last comment, and I apologize for the implication. Admin work is important and I shouldn't denigrate it just because I'm ticked off that you reverted my contributions. Struct 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Both he and I reverted your unsourced POV pushing "contribution". Ticked that people expect editors to follow Wiki policy? Odd to say the least. Mr Christopher 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I am not an admin. Most of my contributions are to main space. You may disagree but if you check my edits you will find they are from your perspective. I am not trying to defend the creationists but your own edits will not pass peer review and help play their persecution card. As you know they bring it out when anyone mentions evolution, let alone cults. But back it up with reliable sources, newsprint is especially valuable, and you will find many will help you insert this information. David D. (Talk) 16:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)