Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Moved from main page

"I think I sense a chip on someone's shoulder..... It is general. Get it? General. You want sex? There are plenty of articles on here about evolution of sex, including a couple that are in horrible shape. In fact, I wonder if you might be the author of one of those horrible articles which appears to be nothing but complete gibberish from the experts who looked at it." This isn't just my perception, this is belittling another editor. There is no reason to speculate about me and a potential "chip on my shoulder" in a discussioni about an article. Please don't tell me this is anything other than what it is: a diversion from the topic in an attempt to personally cast me in a poor light. The speculation that I wrote bad articles and probably wrote gibberish because this person disagrees with my comments is the same thing. It's bad enough to see this written about me, but for you to come and defend it as not being "evidence of incivility," confusing to you that I see it as such, and "alarming" is even more offensive. Not even on Wikipedia should discussions about a topic diminish to personal speculation about the person. Please don't. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no facts to back up your attack on other editors. There is not only consensus, but it's pretty much a great article. Provide diffs if you've been attacked. Otherwise, chill out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide diffs? What's that? My attacks? I quoted from the talk page. Why don't any of you tell people to chill out when they start accusing others of writing "gibberish" and of having a "chip on their shoulder" instead of joining in the attack? --Amaltheus (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Diff Here we go.[1][2]

"Oh well. He is angry and spewing. But to be honest, I think he would be anyway. He is just angry angry and frankly, a crank.--Filll (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" chip on shoulder all the rest

It's personal. Particularly continuing it after I withdrew. There is no need for others to come here and say it is not what it is. Wikipedians have long histories with other editors and interactions and seem to take these out on newcomers to an article. It's amusing, I guess. But it's a waste of time. Other editors will come to this article when it is a featured article and will be met with the same hostility and personal attacks. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>It is unfortunate that a disagreement over a minor edit, expanded to the point of making anyone feel unwelcome. In fact, I may have been less then open minded on the suggestion. But, I really feel that such injustice would best be addressed through different avenues. This page is not the place to strike back via an oppose; regardless of any insults received. Here we discuss the merits of the article itself; not the editors. In some defense of my actions; there is no history of edit wars – remarkable considering the topic. The only reason my name is all over it is because I am incorporating the ideas of others. I hope you will consider holding back on a position on the quality of this entry until nerves have settled; then I encourage you to return to voice a support or oppose based on the article itself. Please consider my logic.--Random Replicator (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly arguments would be more interesting if they were that. Discussing evolution and others' views is fascinating. It's been hijacked by the creationists everywhere to become these boring off-topic discussions where ideas are shoved down each others' throats. I love to have people challenge my ideas, but when the level of challenge is: "I think you wrote gibberish," it's not a challenge, but an admission of not being able to challenge the ideas offered. Still, it has been an entertaining insight into Wikipedia. This is enough of the issue of this article for me, though. It's clear the article does not have the support of a variety of editors working on the subject to gain consensus but rather a small group pushing various ideas while name-calling others.

I did look over the pages about featured and good articles, and I think that reaching a consensus on an article of this nature is important. I think also that being able to discuss the topic on the talk page at an intellectual level to show young readers that this is done is very important. This is my personal opinion on the matter, like OrangeMarlin's dislike of textbooks or books. Given the nature of the topic I stand by my strong oppose, others may do with it as they like. A well done article introducing the reader to the topic of evolution is an excellent idea. It deserves to be treated with respect on the talk page. If one writer is calling another names then everyone jumps in to support the name caller the discussion page will not be a venue for discussing the article. An article about evolution will generate discussion on the talk page. I think getting together as editors and encouraging actual discussion about the topic is very important to the high quality of this article. That's my opinion. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate it came to this; we are cluttering this page. But you are not the innocent victim which you claim to be. Below is your commentary that occurred before Filll's response quoted above. You were screaming persecution while the conversation was more than civil and open-minded. "I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above, and the attempt to find multiple contradictory reasons to dismiss me by first saying I'm making it to complex, and now I'm dismissing bacteria (I had left out prokaryotes to respect the tone of the existing article and its emphasis on eukrayotes), and I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. I am more used to discussions about teaching evolution where others' ideas are weighed and evaluated rather than hostilely and aggressively dismissed. This is not a beneficial technique for learning. I will not continue this discussion. There is no need to call others in to dismiss my comments from even different angles, the hostility to sex as a source of variation is evident." It is this that preceded Fillls response; you were claiming persecution, simply because of the disagreeing views. I am not saying you deserved a personal attack; but you were stretching the limits on patience for those disagreeing with your idea by calling them bullies; certainly you were never open minded to an opposing view. That's my opinion.--Random Replicator (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine we can continue. This is Fills' first exchange with me, my comments first, I'll be sure to bold his, too, because I can bold also:

Better, but point 2 is talking about sexually reproduced offspring in general. Bacteria reproduce, and their offspring may be identical to the parent. While clones may differ in minor random ways due to mutations this may or may not be accumulatable, so you should mention sex somewhere. Also, if it is sex, it has parents.--Amaltheus (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For this kind of overview or gentle introduction, extra complications or exceptions really are inappropriate. We have the same problem with this article in general, or the LEAD. We cannot be all things to all people here. That is why there is an article called evolution. Even there, there is argument that the LEAD is too general and does not cover enough exceptions and special cases.

However, if one insists that even 13-15 year olds (the target audience for this article) must hear the fine details suitable for graduate study on their first encounter with the subject, you will destroy the entire reason for the article's existence. We just cannot include all kinds of complications in the overview box. That is what happened to it before (version 2 above). People want to shove so much extra crap in that it becomes worthless. If you want detail, read the article itself. Better yet, read evolution. Better yet, read the references.--Filll (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your response supports what I said about the gang up tendency. You're looking for something to say, it seems, to support Filll's attack of me, anything. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You will likely never view that paragraph as your own form of personal attack. I took offense, when I read it. The accusations of being hostile and operating under a gang mentality were made before things got out of hand. You see nothing in it that represents a personal attack? I must stop now, this is disturbing and destructive. You are welcome to have the last word. I will add no more--Random Replicator (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, both you and Filll have expressed yourself strongly. I shall be asking him to withdraw anything that could be construed as a personal attack, and I hope you'll do the same. From the discussion on Darwin's finches I'd hope that you can work with others constructively, and since you evidently feel that sex is mandatory for this article aimed at 14 year olds, it will be welcome if you can propose detailed changes to the wording to meet your objective, remembering to keep the information concise and simple. Thanks, ... dave souza, talk 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I withdrew my comments and apologized. And frankly, I have to agree with RR here. Your initial several posts to the talk page I found offensive. And if I am attacked enough, I will return fire in kind. I am sorry about that, but try to change your attitude and you might get a better reception. You even wrote that you had been in trouble on Wikipedia before from editors and even bots for your edits. You refused to even suggest constructive changes when asked and asked. And I did not say you wrote gibberish; I said another article on evolution and sex was gibberish and the author had visited us before and caused trouble. Sorry again.--Filll (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it outside, guys. A single editor made snide comments to another, since striken and apologized for. Anyone looking to see this go further needs to take it to dispute resolution. But this FAC is not the place to resolve the who-called-who-names disputes. Today's lesson from the Professor: In any content dispute, incivility will fail to torpedo the opponent, but it can torpedo an article or a FAC real fast, so those guilty of it need to knock-it-off. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Solely in defense of this FA attempt: A review of the discussion pages over the last few months and a quick over-view of the edit history should demonstrate a pattern of compromises which have lead to improvements. This clash does not be-speak of the attitude of the numerous editors. There is nothing in the edit history or conversations on the discussion page that even remotely suggest ownership by any particular individual or group of individuals. This squabble represents a personality clash and nothing more. I hope those who are kind enough to critique are not left with the impression that input is not valued. It is. So I hope we move on to address any problems with the article itself that may account for it falling short of FA. I can assure you that all your concerns raised here; that are actionable will/have been discussed. Any that have been deemed controversial are discussed; often at length on the talk page in an effort to reach a general agreement. --Random Replicator (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my concerns with this article. The ownership gang simply will not let it go. They have now moved on to insulting me personally on Random Replicator's discussion page for my attempt to discuss the article on its discussion page. If the writers are more interested in and concerned with insulting an editor who attempted to contribute to the article by first discussing potential edits on the discussion page this will make the article problematic as a FA. Read what it says on many discussion pages on Wikipedia, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article."

This FAC is the place to say what I said. I stand by it. The "retraction" of insults was merely a move to a new venue for continuing personal attacks against someone who thought there was meaning to discussing articles on the talk page. The attacks continue:

[3] Now I'm being called not sane: "those of us who are sane ... are always willing to debate things in a calm fashion." I'm guilty of endless badgering[4] for making a comment. I'm guilty of trying to "shove sex and frantically promote sex"[5] because I suggested sex should be mentioned once in the summary box. I'm just a "person who wants to have disputes ... dictate to everyone else."

The editors are more interested in badgering, belittling, attacking, and insulting editors who want to discuss the article on the discussion page, who disagree with the content by raising issues on the discussion page first, the article will be a problem because of the owning editors. This looks bad for Wikipedia. Really bad that editors not only cannot discuss the issue with an outsider (many outsiders will be attracted by the FA status) but continue badgering and insulting the editor who dared to speak up. If this is what will happen to anyone who disagrees with any content of the article, if what happens is they become the target of malicious multi-venue on Wikipedia personal insults, it will detract from the article and from Wikipedia limiting its value as a FA.

This is the place to mention this, at the FAC, if FA status ultimately puts other potential editors, particularly kids, in the path of these editors and the article they own. As long as the editors continue to attack me on Wikipedia for disagreeing with them I cannot more strongly state my opposition to putting this article in a place where others could become targets of this malice. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence for article ownership is not there. Amaltheus (talk · contribs) has made one contribution to Introduction to evolution‎ which was this on 5 Jan 2007. The edit was accepted. There was no edit war. The user has made no further edits although the editor has edited on the talk page. No one has blocked the editor from editing. On the contrary, I've invited the editor to make contributions to the article on the editor's talk page: see here Unfortunately, the editor has claimed 'ownership problems' on other articles: see here, here, and here. The editor wrote in an edit summary here, "Removed comment unread. Unnecessary with the length and opening shot. Familiar already with desperate protection of articles on Wikipedia". Seriously, I doubt any of these are real ownership disputes. Certainly, there has been no edit warring on the Introduction to evolution article in several weeks. I invite the editor to edit the article and contribute to make this a truly good FA article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no seen no evidence of WP:OWN on this page over the past few months that I have been copy editing and reviewing it. Quite the opposite in fact. I have offered several comprehensive reviews and each time the editors have been eager to embrace my suggestions to improve the page (or politely decline them!). Awadewit | talk 03:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The "diffs" from a respone to Filll advising me that acting like him is the way to go on Wikipedia and threatening me that I won't last long unless I act like him or if I do act like him. The last part isn't clear, but when people are unclear about what others say, they should lash out and attack, deny what they've said, and gang up on other editors relentlessly hounding them away.

I think you're right that I should try to follow the example you and your friends set so I can fit in. I will accuse other editors of "endless badgering" when I disagree with their viewpoint,[6] I will accuse other editors of trying to "shove crap" into articles when they want to add a single line that I disagree with,[7] I will speculate about the "reasonableness ... of trying to frantically promote sex" or any other agenda if someone brings up something I disagree with,[8] I will accuse people who make a couple of suggestions about an article that I disagree with of "trying to dictate to everyone else just because everything they suggest is not going to be adopted and they want to have disputes,[9] I will accuse people I disagree with of being bullies and wanting to throw tantrums I will accuse other editors I disagree with of being obsessed with their topic (sex really threw you for a loupe it seems, sorry about that, I realize it's culturally a difficult topic in places, but not that it would so hard for an article about multicellular eukaryotic evolution),[10] I will accuse people who disagree with me of "being here only to fight," because, after all, if they don't agree with me, they're here to fight me, no one ever discussed an issue on Wikipedia, I will have my friends gang up on an editor I disagree with then bait them to make them even more of a target (you go Wassup, that was a brilliant stroke of temptation!)[11] while I mock them for being "obsessed with sex"[12] I will accuse people of wanting to alter a single line of text in a summary of trying to add "fine details suitable for graduate study in order to destroy the article by trying to to shove so much extra crap in that it becomes worthless,"[13] then when they respond my friends and I will take off like we're at target practice shooting them down on the article talk page, shooting them down on our discussion pages, belittling them, attacking them, lying about what they said and denying everything I said all over the place, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. I will accuse my opponent of "having a chip on their shoulder"[14] and speculate they write "complete gibberish" for Wikipedia just for the hell of it.[15] Then, just for fun, I'll start going to their discussion page and saying, even though I said they had "a chip on their shoulder," "wrote gibberish," "endlessly badger" other editors, that they're at Wikipedia "only to fight" that the problem is all them for failing to learn more about Wikipedia.

The editors of this article cannot leave someone they disagree with alone.

The evidence for article ownership is clearly present in Filll's and friends' relentless continuing attacks and personal insults against me for asking that sex be included in one line of a summary box. I assume the offensive issue is sex, that this is a charged issue for Filll for some reason, but sex will be discussed with eukaryotic multi-cellular reproduction and evolution. One can't offer an article and hope that the readers' minds will contract. The issue may be brought up again for discussion on the discussion page. It will lead to what it has led to here, hounding someone who raised an issue that is personally unpopular with one of the article's owners.

I do love the threat by Filll on my discussion page, that if I act like him, my time at Wikipedia will be short. It contradicts Filll as an example.

The continued hounding and denial of it are the ownership. I discussed the article on the discussion page as suggested by Wikipedia, and this, according to the articles' owners is wrong. This article has to be discussed a special and unknown way, or contributors will be personally attacked. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know or care what is going on here but what I have seen is a ton of violations of WP:NPA that has consumed and taken over the FAC page forcing me to move this text to the discussion page. If it continues my blocking finger will start clicking. That is an official warning to all parties involved in the above dispute.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG... I've been away for a couple of days, and then I come back to find this. I haven't time to read all of it in detail, but on the basis of a quick skim-through it strikes me that: (1) The "very strong oppose" from Amaltheus originated, as far as I can see, in a minor disagreement about the wording of the summary box and whether to cover just eukaryotes in the text / in the box. (2) The "very strong oppose" seems to be based on a grievance at the way Amaltheus feels he/she has been treated, rather than on the article itself and whether it's worthy of FA status. (3) I cannot see any substantive reason given by Amaltheus to support the opposition - and whatever about the recent unfortunate spat, the accusations of WP:OWN, and the fears that the article will inevitably be subject to edit-warring, are completely unwarranted. (4) Like Amaltheus, I care about the article's continuing value and accuracy. But what it does not need is this sort of nit-picking attack. And sorry, it is nitpicking. This is an introductory article. It is bound to blur a few fine distinctions and skate over a few details. In summary, I can see no justification for writing "very strong oppose" on the FAC page - and I invite Amaltheus to reconsider it, looking at the article itself and setting aside any sense of hurt arising from the perceived attitudes of other editors. Snalwibma (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)