User talk:72.224.189.211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Jessica Lynch are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Falcon8765 (TALK) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Talk:Human_evolution#Why_is_this_not_labeled_as_a_Theory.3F[edit]

Look, you are equating the same level of veracity of the theory of human evolution(a process that theoretically took place millions of years ago), to that we have noses on our faces. Do you seriously not understand how ridiculous and intellectually dishonest this is? Give me a break.

Just FYI, no, I am not equating those levels of veracity.

I think it would help you to first define what you mean by the word "theory"?

Normally, in scientific literature, the word "theory" has become veracity-neutral. (It refers to well-articulated conceptual models, usually either in order to distinguish them from imprecisely-stated hand-wavey conjectures, or from raw uninterpreted data. It has no implication as to the applicability or otherwise of the model to the real world.)

Normally, in common English, the word "theory" implies low-veracity, in order to distinguish from "practice" or "fact". Now this is confusing (and seems to have caused miscommunication with you). On any topic for which there exists a fringe opposition (as exemplified by topics of knowledge rejected by creationists), people come to the article and try to make the term "theory" more prominent. Doing so creates the impression with average readers that the topic has lower veracity than it really has (even if the term isn't invalid when applied in the technical sense).

This is just one of many ways to be dishonest/disinformative without writing a bold-faced lie, and is not unique. Such disingenuousness is unconstructive and counterproductive to an encyclopedia.

Clearly, noses have even higher veracity than human evolution, but human evolution still has amply more veracity than many other things we ordinarily would call "facts", overwhelmingly more veracity than what commonly is called "just a theory". If you feel the article on human evolution is failing to address its own veracity, we can happily rectify that (you may already be aware of the article evidence of common descent), but crying "theory" is not intellectually honest on your own part.




(By the way, you made some other statements that basically imply that everything has low veracity if it requires expertise to analyse and occured in the past, and despite my counterexamples you have not refined your point. Perhaps you would say what criteria you judge veracity on?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I repeatedly made the distinction. I am sorry you don't understand it. There is a MAJOR difference between phenomena we can observe and repeat and measure its effects, (such as gravity), or even ancient Roman civilization, for which there is overwhelming evidence for, and theories of gradual processes that are claimed to have taken place millions of years ago. If you're not willing to make that very clear distinction, YOU are the only one being intellectually dishonest, no matter how you wish to sing and dance around that. I don't know why you keep bringing Creationism into it, but that seems like an underhanded tactic of belittling your opposition.

The school of evolution has made a plethora of mistakes throughout the years, yet the university system insists they've Got it Right this time. Seriously, What A Joke. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, this makes the discussion more interesting, you say that there is overwhelming evidence for ancient Roman civilisation but imply there is not for evolution (and your strong reaction to a tangential mention of creation suggests you wish to base your view on none other than hard evidence). So let me point out some of the evidence:

  • Linnaeus (long before Darwin) noticed that all animals can be naturally ordered into a structure, and that structure is a heirarchy (the head of which is essentially bacteria and certainly not humans - which Linnaeus identified as belonging in the ape clade). This structure is highly suggestive of a family lineage, of common descent from simpler ancestors.
  • Fossils are separated into different layers, and the successively deeper (earlier formed) layers contain fossils which are clearly recognisable as species belonging to successively earlier stages of the aforementioned heirarchy. (Birds, horses, and whales are supposed to be particularly well documented examples.) This verifies that the above heirarchy is indeed the result of common descent with modification over time.
  • Molecular biology and DNA sequencing allows us to compare genes between species. This invariably reveals another heirarchy consistent with the one before, again indicating that different living species descended from common ancestors (and a good example is the karyotyping of chromosome 2 of humans compared with chimpanzees). The differences that arise are clearly identified to be the type that arise from random mutation plus natural selection (i.e. the types of mutation are only those that occur due to known natural processes, and the frequency with which these changes survive down the lineage is highly dependent on whether the change is of the kind that alters the animal or not). By counting the mutations that have occured since past branchings of the heirarchy (and comparing the rate at which mutations enter species today) we can measure the dates over which evolution occured (for example showing that we diverged from chimpanzees a few million years ago).
  • Radioisotope analysis allows us to date the layers of fossils, independently confirming the dates established above.
  • Geological rates also allow us to date fossil-bearing rock structures, by extrapolating from the rates at which physical processes occur today (a particularly good example is plate tectonic movement). This turns out to provide a third independent confirmation of the dates over which the present species arose from their common ancestors.
  • The theory of random mutation plus natural selection explains a great variety of observations today. One example is the convoluted paths taken by some nerves and other conduits in the body are clearly not optimal (if designed from scratch), but make perfect sense considering that they are precisely where they had to be in order to develop gradually from where they were in previous ancestors. Another example is the unique patterns of species inhabiting isolated islands, which makes perfect sense recognising that even though there are similar niches on each isolated land mass, all these niches can only be filled by animals which have evolved from the more limited group of ancestors that were able to get on that landmas (which leads to many niches that would each normally be filled by something else, instead all being filled by unique diversifications of one family of animals on one landmass only).
  • By using telescopes our astronomers can extrapolate long-period orbital cycles of the planets and stars, and use this to independently provide a fourth confirmation for the dates determined above. For example, previous ice ages (which leave records in polar ice cores and, more permanently, by where the tracks of mega-glaciers intersect other geological structures) correlate with periods of weaker sunlight (with notable exceptions such as those that instead correlate with the dates of massive craters, or that instead correlate with the recorded human industrial extraction of fossil carbon). This not only corroborates geological dates, but also (since associated changes in sea level alter whether particular land masses are isolated from one another, and do so specifically at times when particular ancestral species were living) can be used to corroborate timescales of island speciation, for example.

All that's just off the top of my head. No evidence, you say? How hard have you looked, I ask? Listen to all these things I have summarised, which anyone can repeatedly go out and measure and observe for themselves, and especially take note of the concordance between several completely independent lines of evidence. Now what say you? Let me know if you have more specific doubts, cheers for now.

PS: If you think evolution may be untrue then, to clarify for me at least, please do suggest for me what you think could be true instead.. but beware that so far no other suggestion has been able to survive anything remotely like the same barrage of testing as evolution has. Seriously, it's as if you were to totally abandon Newtonian gravity just because of the plethora of very minor corrections which have been recognised since then. Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

OK

- Linnaeus says you can order animals into a hierarchy. Good for him. This is not evidence of evolution.

- You're referencing different fossils as some sort of proof they descended from each other. Logic behind this?

- You're referencing DNA and chromosome similarities as evidence of a common ancestor. Again, any evidence other than they appear similar?

- Carbon-dating is inaccurate at best. It has been documented to age living specimens as dated thousands of years old. It is not reliable as proof. Professor Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch falsified radiocarbon dating data for years while promoting human evolution. Not looking good.

- You're now using one theory (Plate Tectonics) as evidence for another theory (Human Evolution) Would you like to add any more?

Your last two 'points' are mere observations and suggestions.

In your long-winded, seemingly intelligent response, you have not listed one shred of evidence. It's ALWAYS the same with you pseudo-skeptics. You throw up a wall of text, just hoping your audience will be dumb or impressionable enough to accept someone who can type that much on a subject as an authority. If you get down to the nuts and bolts of any of your arguments or supposed "evidence", it falls into a pile of dust. Which is why you always resort to obfuscation or censorship. You have no other choice.

72.224.189.211 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Why else would animals naturally be organisable as a heirarchy, if they did not arise through common descent? Certainly human inventions do not neatly fit into a heirarchical scheme.

2. Take Ardi for example. It's traits are obviously someplace closer to the middle of a spectrum between present day humans and chimpanzees (it's precisely the kind of fossil that was predicted to exist based on that heirarchical organisation). The fact that this type of fossil is only found in a particular layer, and modern humans are found only in more recent layers, and that neither are ever found among the fossils in older layers below, is evidence that humans developed through intermediate stages over time from a common base as other apes.

3. Consider the example of the inactive human yolk gene. It is clearly recognisable as a corrupted version of the yolk gene that our ancestors would have needed if they predated the evolution of mammals (and which is still retained in egg-laying species), and why else would we have this particular piece of junk be in our genome? Only evolution would predicts that the mutations corrupting this gene in humans are to a large extend the exact very same mutations as in the chimpanzee copies of it, and to a lesser extent the same as other primates etc. You can go check this with any gene! It's mostly the same methodology you would use to trace words in germanic or romance languages to their common origins (indeed that inspired Darwinianism).

4. We don't have to listen to exposed frauds. Now, I was pointing out the agreement between radiodating, biomolecular clocks, extrapolated solar-system dynamics, geological process rates, and I should add tree and coral growth rings. Just a coincidence? Or are you claiming a giant conspiracy?

5. Do you seriously doubt plate tectonics, today, when we have GPS? Are you deliberately keeping yourself ignorant of how easily we track the movement from each year to the next?

If you try to read for yourself, there is boundless evidence available for you to study in technical detail. You haven't even suggested what possible alternative there could be to evolution being a fact, nor what evidence would support such an alternative. But for being willing to have a conversation with you, you accuse me of censorship. For presuming you have the capacity to understand the arguments for yourself rather than appealing to any authority, you accuse me of obfuscation and reliance on authority. Is that any way for us to reach closer to the truth? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are claiming different fossils found in different layers of earth is evidence for human evolution? You must have a strange definition of evidence. Why do you consider this to be proof that the fossils are related to each other? Saying "It seems like they evolved because of a hierarchy." Is not evidence. Man's technology certainly fits a sort of hierarchy from working with mud and clay and wood, to creating micro-processors. This is just an observation and would not prove micro-processors evolved from dirt.

Interesting that you bring up Ardi as this specimen was paraded by evolutionists as a missing link for years before being admitted otherwise. I also like how wikipedia conveniently omits any of your growing list of errors.

Apparently we share a great deal of genetic material with bananas as well. Is this really proof that we descended from bananas? Did my new chair descend from my old table because they're both made of wood?

Either radiocarbon dating is accurate when measuring fossil age or it isn't. Stop trying to prove something based on erroneous tools.

Yes "boundless evidence".. I know what that means. Academic Consensus, and shoving as many errors under the rug as possible.

Back to your point about hierarchy, if Academia is based on a hierarchy, and multiple researchers have claimed to have their academic standing threatened if they go against consensus, and if the Peer-Review system has also failed skeptical testing, then what does this say about any claims backed by academic consensus? Is academic corruption created or does it evolve?

72.224.189.211 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Human technology fits in no heirarchy that I am aware of (please disabuse me if you know otherwise). For example, where would you put a smart-phone: is it descended from transistors, or from plastics, or from televisions, or from photography? No, intelligent designs are rife with what in biology would be called horizontal gene transfer. Unlike complex animals. (Usually the only time a heirarchy turns up by design is when the designer wants to give deliberate prominence to the thing at the trunk, but what human would believe that all species were deliberately created for the glorification of bacteria and their fish-lieutenants?)
I'm not sure what you are referring to as "my growing list of errors". But let me list some errors found in Newtonian gravity, since it was proposed. First, it's incorrect to treat extended objects as points. Next you cannot neglect the surrounding planets and asteroids. Next you need to account for the non-sphericity (and then non-spheroidality) of the earth and sun etc. In 1905 they realised that its instantaneity was wrong. In 1916 they realised that all its assumptions about background geometry were wrong. In 1926 they realised that individual particles don't follow single trajectories anyway. In 2006 they realised they had left out an important term in the whole equation. And we know for certain that todays version is still wrong because we can't even give self-consistent explanations covering all tested domains. So why do we still teach Newtonian theory? Because that whole list are better understood as minor refinements, and the sum total of everything we know today still vindicates the central core of Newtonian theory. Likewise, I'm aware that our understanding of evolution has been refined over the years, but I'm not aware of any evidence that has seriously challenged the core of it. (As for Ardi, the refutation of your comments is on that page.)
As for bananas, plants and animals were both descended from a common pool of ancestral single-celled organisms, yes. You can tell because all of the components of the banana genome were not added to it add hoc (in the way that a human genetic engineer takes ready-built genes from various modern species and pastes them together), instead by analysing the fingerprint of each gene... let me give you an example: 1) ADADxDASpopopp 2) iDAsADASpWpOup 3) iDADfDASqopOup . Can you tell the relationship (they are recognisably derived from a common pattern, and 2 & 3 are unmistakably more closely related to each other than they are to 1). This is the kind of analysis bioinformaticists do all the time. And if the results were ever unreconcilably in contradiction with the predictions according to evolution, then the scientist to discover that would win eternal fame glory and the riches of the nobel prize just for starters.
I kind of get the feeling you don't really understand evolution (or radiodating for that matter). Have you considered studying them more closely? If you are right, you will learn how to phrase better arguments such that they will be accepted by and persuasive to other relative-experts, and you will begin to change minds (and those people will work to persuade others in cascade). If you are wrong, then you will most likely correct your own view. Academia isn't really based on heirarchy, it's based more on the desires of academics to prove other academics wrong. Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


I'm not going to argue against your beliefs. It is just so incredibly ridiculous that you're using these ideas as proof for human evolution. I ask you for one piece of hard evidence and all you can do is point to similarities and your own interpretations as to what it 'suggests'. This is why Wikipedia censors and will not even allow a criticism section or dissenting scientific opinion. I was referring to mistakes made by the school of evolution (not yours personally). Any honest theory would openly display their past errors to help other researchers avoid future mistakes. Can you really not see the hint of deceit here? And you are sorely deluded if you don't see a strict hierarchy in the Academic system. If you've been through the school system and have been indoctrinated into this theory for most of your life, I hope you manage to look at it objectively at some point. Consensus is great at providing the illusion that real science has been done. Take care. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It was difficult for me to give you a single satisfying piece of hard evidence, because you declined to answer my request to know what alternate views (about the origin of species) you are comparing evolution against. In science we proceed by lining up competing theoretical models and then selecting specific items of evidence that distinguish among those models. If you won't say what model you want to compare evolution against, I cannot select which specific experiments results disprove your competiting alternative view most satisfactorily.

Remember, I actually gave you a bulleted dot list overviewing a number of pieces of hard evidence (and have referred on this page to many specific items which you could read about in detail on WP). You yourself have not given any evidence to refute evolution (instead displaying that you did not even know that the common descent of plants is part of evolution, that you did not even know that plate tectonic motion is thoroughly confirmed now that we are in the satellite age, and similar lack of understanding of relevant scientific data and concepts).

Let me concede that there are some heirarchical elements to academia. The reason these do not have the limiting effect you insinuate is because of the numerous incentives in play among scientists. Consider climate science: a tenured scientist can sell many books if they deny anthropogenic climate change (and be invited to appear on television all around the world), whereas a tenured climate expert is unlikely to sell nearly so many books (and is never likely to achieve the same popularity). Regardless, I've given you this opportunity for us to discuss the evidence and arguments without appealing to any authority, so you cannot expect me to accept more excuses about censorship and academia. (You're also wrong, evolutionary experts readily concede for example that Darwin was wrong about Mandelian hereditory, that group selection has been contested, and generally that progress and refinement has been available and been achieved over the years.)

I've listened and repeatedly asked vainly for you to share your own view (on the origin of species including humans), so at this point it is clearly your own fault if I am still under any delusions. Eventually, if you are unwilling to try to teach me anything, I am forced to turn elsewhere. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


Human Evolution or Macro-Evolution is stated as a FACT. It doesn't matter what I believe. If you can not refer me to a body of hard evidence, you must concede that there is some level of academic dishonesty taking place. The statement: "Well it makes more sense than creationism" has no scientific value. I've spent months searching for any solid evidence supporting macro evolution. It is not there. Defenders constantly refer to CONSENSUS. There is nothing scientific about consensus. Consensus can tell us 2+2=5.

Why isn't the school of evolution openly categorizing different types of evolution? Why are they lumping mutations of bacteria in with evidence of Humans evolving from rocks? Genetic mutations are not adding any genetic information. Evolutionists counter this by saying Genes can Duplicate. There is no evidence that gene duplication is providing any biological advantages.

Wikipedia is censoring criticism in the Human Evolution article. Why? Criticism in the Talk section is immediately labeled "creationist trolling".. Don't you have any red flags popping up when you see this behavior? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I warmly encourage you to think more deeply on (and respond again to) the bullet points near the top of this page.
I can kind of see where you're coming from: you feel your views are not being heard (and fear admitting them will attract ridicule). But you must also understand that every topic potentially has neverending fringe views which should not all be given voice on every article. Should all the pages on Australian topics be cluttered with the criticisms by flat-earthers who believe people would fall off if they journeyed to the relative underside of the world? And if you've studied the beliefs of many religiouns (with the exception of whatever doctrine you yourself think is true) then you would recognise that, no matter how ridiculous a belief sounds, you cannot tell whether it's proponents are sincere or just messing with us. So at some point an encyclopedia has to draw the line (by some mechanism or another), and not allow fringe views to distract from information. Anyway, in your case, you will find that wikipedia already has numerous designated pages about objections and criticism of evolution (some of which are already mentioned/linked by the main evolution article), and it would be inappropriately off-topic for pages on scientific subtopics to all waste time reiterating such material, just like the soteriology page does not question which particular religion is true and the hamartiology page does not devote its focus to the question of whether sin is a fiction or not. As for consensus, while you're right that matters of fact should always be decided by scientific method rather than by mere vote (although you may know that in your own country there was a recent attempt to change the value of Pi by legislation), still, a near-total consensus among the specific group of people who have spent years studying the relevant topic better than anybody else (and have strong individual incentives to report on flaws in one anothers conclusions) can be worth mentioning simply because it is a good starting point toward easily finding out which way the evidence probably does point (especially if you can't afford the time to research all the details yourself). Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree with all that you've said, with a couple issues.

1. if a topic has "neverending fringe views" that just may be an indication that they are not fringe views. One can not simply throw millions of voices into a "Creationism" box and discard it, especially when they are coming to the table with scientific and logical claims, which they are. Just because the root of those claims goes back to the concept of a God or Creator, which many find absurd, is no reason to silence dissent.

2. your comparison of Creationism to Flat-Earthers is way off, in my opinion. Mainly because the subject is something we all have the ability to observe and study in the present. Macro-Evolution describes an unseen billion-years long process that is believed to have occurred based on someone's observations. Actually I think you would be hard pressed to find another controversy that is similar to Creationism vs. Evolution, as both views are dealing with something that is very hard to prove scientifically either way.

3. I think your making some major assumptions that scientists have strong incentive to report flaws. This may apply in non-controversial issues, but do you really think any scientist in a major university has incentive to question Macro Evolution, regardless of what evidence he's found? You must concede that the theory of macro evolution has made a significant authority of the Academic Institution in general. If a prominent academic outlet came out tomorrow and stated there were major overlooked flaws to the entire theory, it would be tipping over a huge applecart. We can't ignore what kind of effect that must have on the research and consensus. It basically throws any notions of neutrality out the window.

I just have to stress another point that evolutionists are in fact using seriously flawed science to support their theories. Vestigiality being one of them. I would encourage you to look at the wild claims being made about "functionless" organs like the human appendix or blind moles, etc. How is it at all scientific to claim something is functionless when we don't fully understand any complex organisms and are discovering new aspects of their anatomy all the time? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And this illustrates the quintessential creationist. It is not the evolutionist who needs to look at the wild claims of evolutionists more closely. It is the creationists who need to scrutinize their leaders better. Case in point, your mention of scientists calling organs "functionless" - a popular claim in creationist literature, and yet if you look at the biologists talking about vestigial organs, none of them are really suggesting anything is functionless. It is in the imaginations of the creationists.Farsight001 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The theory of macro-evolution should be able to stand on it's own two feet, regardless of any creationist claims. You are the one holding it up as solid, evidence-based science. One does not even have to believe in creationism to point out the glaring lack of evidence and errors made in the Evolutionists theories.

Ok, Vestigial is little to no function. You're still just arbitrarily labeling organs Vestigial. You claim the human appendix is little to no function, yet it serves a function of immunity. If it serves a FUNCTION, on what grounds are you labeling it Vestigial? Can you not see how ridiculous and unscientific this is? Also, have you ever thought that one may discover another use in the future, you know, like biologists are discovering all the time with organs they previously were mystified by?

^^^ If you can't understand this one simple point, then you are lost somewhere beyond the realm of logic and we have no reason to continue this discussion. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm arbitrarily labeling organs vestigial? I didn't mention any organs. I didn't claim anything about the appendix. And as the definition of vestigial is simply that it has reduced function, the fact that it still has a function and the fact that it is vestigial are not exclusive to each other. Yes, people might discover another use in the future. If that happens, they'll stop calling it vestigial. But based on what we know now, which is not arbitrary or an assumption, but the result of decades and decades of testing by thousands of scientists and doctors all over the world with so much research it could fill an average house top to bottom, it is vestigial. Glaring lack of evidence? there is no glaring lack of evidence. There's evidence you don't understand and haven't seen. But seeing as how there is an entire wing of the rather large library near me filled wall to wall with nothing more than scientific papers on evolution, and seeing as how this library is one of the smaller reference libraries out there, I'm not going to simply cover my eyes, deny it's existence, and say that there is a "glaring lack" of anything. You are free to do so, but that's on you, not anyone else.Farsight001 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Vestigiality is part of what Evolutionists are using as evidence to support their theories. As you have conceded, something one believes is Vestigial, may simply be because they don't understand it's function, rather than it having little to no function. SO DON'T USE IT AS EVIDENCE. And especially don't label things Vestigial IF THEY HAVE A CLEAR FUNCTION. (not directing this at you personally, but Evolutionists in general) That is just one example of bad logic, bad evidence, bad science that Evolutionists are using. A 10 year-old could figure that out.

Judging by your comments on amount of literature on the subject, you seem to be too impressed with Academia to be able to properly and skeptically review the claims made. Consensus should never be used as evidence. There are too many social factors impacting consensus. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't say it was "simply because they don't understand it's function". I said that there are thousands of studies that show evidence that there is no function. That is a far, far cry from "simply" anything. Why not label something vestigial if it has a clear function? Our tailbone has a clear function, but it's function is reduced from what it used to be, thus it meets, EXACTLY, the very definition of vestigial. That's not bad science. That's common sense. Look at the wiki article here about vestigiality. The best I can gather is that your creationist sources have convinced you that it is something it never was. A vestigial organ can most definitely still have a clear function.
As for my mention of the literature - it was not to impress anyone or anything. It was to help show to you how wrong it is to suggest that there is, as you say, a "glaring lack of evidence". That is simply not true. It's got nothing to do with consensus or social factors. It's about the literally millions of experiments and studies that have been performed by hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world over the last century. Experiments don't lie. The results of these experiments consistently support evolution, and consensus is derived from that. No one is starting from consensus and working backwards here. That's just not what people do and it's a gross misunderstanding of the very nature of science.
All this aside, the point is, if you believe that your position has merit, then do experiments of your own and test them, and re-test them. Argue them at scientific symposiums, publish papers, and fight for your idea. It took evolution over 150 years to gain the acceptance it has. The concepts you espouse have been around for 30-40. It's got a lot of time to go and it's no use sitting around complaining about being silenced or complaining of bias all the time. Roughly one in 50 papers submitted to academic journals get published in them. ID/Creationist advocates have submitted just 12, and actually succeeded once, so statistically they're well above the curve here (though of course sample size prevents statistical significance). And yet they have all but given up in trying, complaining of bias and unfair treatment. Well, quite obviously, that's not it at all.Farsight001 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum[edit]

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Additionally these might be useful:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not using it as a forum, but critiquing an argument for the removal of sections of the article. Please read comments more carefully before sending these out. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)