Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) →Evolution lead: thanks |
|||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
I hope you did not mean that I was using a straw man argument. The intent of my comment was not to criticize the current opening sentence. My question about the older first sentence was a genuine and not rhetorical question and I appreciate your concise answer [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 06:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
I hope you did not mean that I was using a straw man argument. The intent of my comment was not to criticize the current opening sentence. My question about the older first sentence was a genuine and not rhetorical question and I appreciate your concise answer [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 06:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Hi Slrubenstein - the straw man statement was not directed at you, but the user with the IP address who launched the thread. Cheers.[[User:Thompsma|Thompsma]] ([[User talk:Thompsma#top|talk]]) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
:Hi Slrubenstein - the straw man statement was not directed at you, but the user with the IP address who launched the thread. Cheers.[[User:Thompsma|Thompsma]] ([[User talk:Thompsma#top|talk]]) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
Thanks! With long conversations sometimes it is not clear or easy to tell. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 22:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:43, 1 March 2012
Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Please be assured that these are not intended as an attack on you personally, and I congratulate you for having written a thoroughly excellent article. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the meantime there's a new here-we-go-again BS post at the bottom of that talkpage. I'm sure you must have a lot of experience with this stuff. ObsidianSoul responded, I thought pretty well, which of course just resulted in more hysterical nonsense; so my own impulse would be to ignore rather than goading him further. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Thompsma-- I see you've been doing a lot of excellent work on this article. I'm still very concerned about the Evolution as theory and fact in the literature section and its two subsections, where (without having the references) I'm convinced that virtually all of these apparently conflicting statements are addressing semantics of terminology rather than truly substantive issues, and thus give the reader a very misleading impression. There is much dissent and argumentation concerning specific theories of the mechanics of evolution, and this is the real issue, but it seems to me this is lost in the way the quotations are presented. As I've said before, at least Dawkins if not also others appear to be trying to simply purge the word "theory" because of the abuse and misapprehension of its colloquial meaning as opposed to its scientific use as term of art. Some others may be objecting on the ground that evolution stands as a collection of overlapping or competing "theories" rather than a unified and coherent theory in a sense that they prefer. I guess my basic problem is that the quotations in the "fact not theory" section appear to be taken out of context. As it stands, much of this in the literature section seems to reinforce and give distorted ammunition to the "just a theory" crowd by emphasizing an apparent but false basic disagreement on substantive issues as to the status of the viability of the entire concept of evolution. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether to respond here again, or on my own page, where I did, trying to keep the conversation sort of together. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your explanation. I will have a response, but not until later.
- In my experience, most editors follow a rule that "if you post here on my talkpage I will reply here", and sometimes explicitly say so at the top - the thought being that if I post on your page, I will be watching it for any reply. I don't get much traffic on my page, so have copied my original recent post, above, from yours to mine to keep it together - if you won't mind watching mine for responses to this topic heading. Thanks. (Or if it's easier for you, it could all be copied back as a coherent sequential conversation to yours.)
- Or, if we want to solicit others' comments to this specific discussion, the whole thing could be copied to the article's talkpage, and proceed from there. Possibly that would be the best idea. I need to think about all this. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- More at mine. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi- I just want to say I'm greatly enjoying all of this discussion, and hope I may have helped to stimulate thinking - yours and anyone else's - on the direction the article should take. I'm in over my head, but I think you're doing a great job with it. I do still think you ought to go back and rephrase the unfortunately POV beginning of "nope" instead of letting it stand as is. I'm afraid it negatively colors anyone's perception of everything you have said following that. (Since it has been responded to, you should use strikethrough rather than deleting.) Eek! I meant the just plain wrong...incorrect POV. Sorry for the confusion. Title is better now. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- More at mine. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether to respond here again, or on my own page, where I did, trying to keep the conversation sort of together. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Need help with reference
Hey Thompsma, I am a little exhausted trying to find high quality sources for the first two sentences in the history section of the evolution article and I am also tired of debating it. Do you have access to high quality sources that support those two statements? If so, we could just insert them and be done with the discussion. danielkueh (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution lead
I hope you did not mean that I was using a straw man argument. The intent of my comment was not to criticize the current opening sentence. My question about the older first sentence was a genuine and not rhetorical question and I appreciate your concise answer Slrubenstein | Talk 06:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Slrubenstein - the straw man statement was not directed at you, but the user with the IP address who launched the thread. Cheers.Thompsma (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! With long conversations sometimes it is not clear or easy to tell. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)