128:
footnotes #'s 75, to the SciAm article, and 76, to the text of Darwin's The
Descent of Man. I would not want to misrepresent SciAm, but I object to their misrepresenting Darwin. As Nerdseeksblonde said, if we can't complete the quote SciAm mined from the original, we should just drop it. But I think if I delete it, Dave will restore it. No point in that. That's why I'm going to try to go up a level. I still cannot for the life or me understand why a primary source is banned, unless maintaining political correctness is a greater goal than accuracy and truth. For example, in the Wiki article on George Washington, footnote #32 leads to Washington's original writing, not to a book or magazine or newspaper. That's all I'm requesting.
185:
same page and in rebuttal to a hostile review of the movie. Obviously I'm not the only person who is aware of this inconsistency in Darwin's legacy-protectors who also serve as Wiki's and every other PC organ's gatekeepers. What is ironic to me is that I fully understand Darwin was speaking from his time and the knowledge available to him, and am clamorous that a man must always be judged by his times. Nor do I pin his mistakes on
Dawkins or Provine or Dave Souza. However, it is true that the eugenicists did build on Darwin's foundation, and Darwin was very much aware of his cousin's arguments and to a point agreed. But, as Shoemaker's Holiday informed me, that will never fly at Wiki.
189:
just as
Christianity, being pervasive in the common culture for the past millennium, kept a tight clamp on scientific investigation and conclusions, being an actual "conspiracy" only infrequently, so today in our post-Christian world the pervasive humanistic common culture controls the media and to a great extent, the purse strings of scientific inquiry. I had hoped for better, but as Darwin concluded, "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." Might makes right. Or at least preponderance defines the flow of the mainstream.
184:
would be disallowed because the quote comes in a reply from one Alan Niven whom I can find online only refuting evolutionists. Yes, I myself would disallow this being introduced into the article. I pass it on to you in case you are interested--it does have "my" quote--Darwin's full passage--on the
131:
Is the difference between the
Expelled... article in Wiki and the one in George Washington that one is a movie review? No, can't be--the reviews of Mary Poppins and Secondhand Lions, for two examples of Wiki reviews, are not so carefully footnoted. This is what leads me to the conclusion that it is
188:
This has been a great education for me and has convinced me that my friends who believe in a left-wing conspiracy are not as loony as I had thought. There's no organized conspiracy, of course, except perhaps by a few nuts--certainly not by any of the evolutionists appearing in Stein's film. But
298:
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is
127:
Marc--Hello! Thanks for chiming in. You wrote, "For that particular section, the main reference is the sciam article, and because scientific american didn't include the entire quotation, we cannot, either." When I came across the article, it already had the two references that are still there,
314:
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an
163:
I believe Dave is latching onto a NPOV rule--also known as grasping at straws--to prevent me from including the full quote. I don't see him doing backflips over at Mary
Poppins or Secondhand Lions because they are improperly
250:. It's typically the decision of the original article writer of which style to use. However, we don't change from one to the other without good reason such as to make the page uniform in one style; IOW your rv was good.
262:
Thanks for the info...I suppose it's similar to the
British/American English thing...it should be consistent in the article, but doesn't have to be wiki-wide. What would you have put in the summary for that change?
132:
to protect Darwin's legacy at the expense of suppressing what he wrote. Just take a look at Dave's talk page to see what a champion of Darwin and opponent of creationists he is.
379:
316:
299:
designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at
292:
304:
177:
I would add it to the article, except I've already appealed to the mediation cabal. Besides, I have no desire to argue or get into an edit war.
174:
The quote is in a text box about a third of the way down, and the movie is cited in the third paragraph of "Criticisms and controversies."
300:
288:
53:
326:
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
31:
308:
48:
151:
380:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
378:
An article you have edited List of participants in the creation–evolution controversy has been nominated for deletion. See
227:
58:
295:
and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
353:
38:
27:
320:
65:
387:
139:
69:
251:
95:
81:
73:
43:
330:
181:
334:
383:
349:
194:
147:
34:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
80:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
210:
89:
243:
247:
348:
You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at
291:(MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at
264:
109:
190:
143:
135:
Please show me where I'm mistaken if I am. Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
307:; further information on Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on resolving disagreements is at
363:
216:
246:
that you stated WP preferred CE and BCE. Actually, we have no preference: see
108:
Hey hey! My first comment on my talk page. Now I truly am a wikipedian... :)
303:; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at
84:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place
391:
368:
272:
256:
232:
198:
117:
103:
319:
of the
Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (
169:
77:
182:
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/02/how-low-can-ben-stein-go/
293:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/Genesis
Creation Myth
168:
Here
Knowledge (XXG) links "my" banned quote to the movie:
283:
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning
352:. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at
8:
305:Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Committee/Policy
64:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
170:http://en.wikipedia.org/Social_Darwinism
88:before the question. Again, welcome!
7:
208:Please see the new thread I started
301:Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Committee
39:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
309:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes
215:
30:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
14:
354:Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal
374:creation–evolution controversy
369:22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
238:FYI: regarding dating methods
118:04:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
104:02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
392:08:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
242:I saw in an edit summary on
180:Perhaps this next reference
54:How to write a great article
407:
273:19:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
257:16:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
233:15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
82:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
287:has been filed with the
268:
199:19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
113:
26:Hello, Quietmarc, and
285:Genesis Creation Myth
123:Expelled, Darwin, etc
289:Mediation Committee
350:Talk:The_Mousetrap
341:Spoiler Discussion
49:How to edit a page
32:your contributions
231:
156:
142:comment added by
72:your messages on
398:
254:
244:Dead Sea scrolls
224:
220:
155:
136:
100:
99:
92:
87:
74:discussion pages
406:
405:
401:
400:
399:
397:
396:
395:
376:
343:
317:active mediator
281:
252:
240:
230:
218:
206:
137:
125:
97:
96:
90:
85:
59:Manual of Style
19:
12:
11:
5:
404:
402:
375:
372:
342:
339:
323:for details).
280:
279:Mediation Case
277:
276:
275:
239:
236:
226:
205:
202:
166:
165:
159:
124:
121:
62:
61:
56:
51:
46:
41:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
403:
394:
393:
389:
385:
384:Kaptinavenger
381:
373:
371:
370:
366:
365:
360:
359:Many Thanks
357:
355:
351:
346:
340:
338:
336:
332:
327:
324:
322:
318:
312:
310:
306:
302:
296:
294:
290:
286:
278:
274:
270:
266:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
249:
245:
237:
235:
234:
229:
223:
222:
213:
212:
203:
201:
200:
196:
192:
186:
183:
178:
175:
172:
171:
162:
161:
160:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
133:
129:
122:
120:
119:
115:
111:
106:
105:
101:
93:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
52:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
36:
35:
33:
29:
24:
23:
16:
377:
362:
361:
358:
347:
344:
328:
325:
313:
297:
284:
282:
241:
209:
207:
204:Baraminology
187:
179:
176:
173:
167:
158:
134:
130:
126:
107:
91:siâ„“â„“y rabbit
63:
25:
21:
20:
345:Dear User,
329:Thank you,
138:—Preceding
76:using four
321:click here
86:{{helpme}}
66:Wikipedian
331:Weaponbb7
265:Quietmarc
253:Auntie E.
110:Quietmarc
68:! Please
228:contribs
191:Yopienso
164:sourced.
152:contribs
144:Yopienso
140:unsigned
44:Tutorial
22:Welcome!
28:welcome
17:Welcome
382:FYI --
364:Seddon
248:WP:ERA
78:tildes
388:talk
335:talk
269:talk
221:anaɢ
211:here
195:talk
148:talk
114:talk
98:talk
70:sign
390:)
367:|
356:.
337:)
311:.
271:)
214:.
197:)
154:)
150:•
116:)
102:)
386:(
333:(
267:(
225:/
219:ʨ
217:r
193:(
146:(
112:(
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.