This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Reverting my edits

These comments are in reference to this user's recent edits to the Psychopharmacology article.

Please don't revert my or any other editors good faith edits. See Help:Reverting. Not only is it incredibly rude, but it is also primarily used to combat vandalism.

I do understand your reasons for restoring the list of medications, however, in my opinion, they fit much better in the Psychiatric medications article. But, to prevent an edit war, I'll leave the psychopharmacology article alone. Chupper 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

Such reversion would have been avoided if you had consulted other editors of that article on the discussion page first before making such large edits. It is extremely rude to delete an "entire text" based on an uninformed opinion. In fact, it is very much akin to vandalism. I make no apologies for making the reversion. mezzaninelounge 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I apologize. I'm just trying to help Wikipedia and these mental health articles. As I said, I understand your reasons for bringing the content back in. Sorry you feel my edits are vandalism. Chupper 17:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I in turn apologize if I had caused any offence. mezzaninelounge 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User Neurobiologist

A tag has been placed on Template:User Neurobiologist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User electrophysiologist

A tag has been placed on Template:User electrophysiologist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

mezzaninelounge (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected template at Talk:Organ (anatomy)

Hi. I removed the editsemiprotected template from that talk page. I'm not sure why you added it in the first place; the page isn't semiprotected and you are autoconfirmed and could edit it even if it were. Your previous edit had been to revert some IP vandalism on the talk page. Were you trying to request page protection? That would be WP:RFPP. Otherwise, let me know what you are trying to do and I will try to help. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Celestra, thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I am trying to request semi-protection. I must have misunderstood the instructions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_protection#semi. The Organ (anatomy) page has been subjected to vandalism, almost daily. Undoing these vandalism has become quite taxing. I would like to request that all edits to this page be made by only registered users. Thanks again for your time. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you made the request and it was declined. I'm not an admin, so I can't help there, but I'll add that page to my watchlist. With more of us watching and reverting, sometimes they'll just go away and sometimes they'll become more active and we can get the page protected. Either way, we win. Celestra (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW - Your request used the {{lat}} template, so it was a request to semi-protect the talk page. You might want to try again with the {{la}}. Celestra (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I suspect that was the primary reason why is was declined. I will change it. Either way, hopefully they stop coming back.mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

m:Global sysops/Vote

Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:

merge your accounts
or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page.

This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I just merged the accounts. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

no worries

I have done it myself, plenty of times - Wikipedia offers lots of such temptations. I'm usually glad when someone steps in and gives me a reason to give it a break; I am glad you don't mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

E-mail response from Eva Lamb re: epigenetics

Hello mezzaninelounge...I recieved a response from both Eva Lamb and Brian Hall about epigenetics. Dr. Hall is travelling and said he will get back to me soon - he said it was timely because he is working on a paper on the history of epigenetics. Here is a copy of the e-mail exchanges between myself and Dr. Eva Lamb:

Subject: Conrad Waddington and epigenetics....

Dear Dr. Jablonka,

I have read through many of your publications and have enjoyed learning about epigenetic evolution through your work. I am a contributor in Wikipedia and recently got into a debate about the etymology of the term epigenetics. I argued fiercely that Conrad Waddington first coined the term in the 1940’s or soon before (this paper Description: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/clear.gifdoi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.06.027, says that he coined it in 1938). However, another contributor pointed out that the term epigenetic appears in an earlier text in 1883 (http://books.google.ca/books?id=IykCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA28&dq=On+the+difference+between+physical+and+moral+law,+Fernley+lecture+%C2%B7+1883.&hl=en&ei=SFJATemFKIu4sQOj7MGyCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=germ%20to%20organ&f=false) – see page 160. I thought I would notify you of this, because it has been falsely reported numerous times over in the literature that Conrad Waddington was the first to coin this term from the Aristotelian term for epigenesis (http://oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/63355). I would agree that Waddington was the first to define and use epigenetics in its modern sense and meaning, but it is irrefutable that the term epigenetic was used in 1883 in the Aristotelian sense. Perhaps you might have some insight to add to this? Were you aware of this etymology?

Sincerely,

Mark D. Thompson

-- Dear Mark,

Thank you for your question. As to epigenetic, the term epigenetic was used adjectively for a very long time indeed ro refer to epigenesist. I think (I an not sure!) that Harvey used it in the 17th century in this sense, and it was a certainly used a lot as an adjective in the 19th century (you may want to consult Dr. Linda van Speybroek about all its usages - she wrote a PhD thesis about epigenesis and epigenetics; she is in the University of Gent, Belgium) . However, I am not aware that epigenetics as a noun was used before Waddington used it. What is important, I think, is that Waddington used the term as a noun and gave it a new meaning..

I hope that this is of some use.

Best,

Eva

Thought I would pass this information along for your future reference and because I thought you would be interested out of curiosity. Take care.Thompsma (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to Dr. Linda van Speybroek's publications: https://biblio.ugent.be/person/801001264895 ...I'm reading through to see what she has to say about this. My French is rusty, but some of it is in English and I can read French slowly, but surely.Thompsma (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for follow up Thompsma. I agree with Eva that Waddington was indeed the first to give epigenetics its modern meaning. But as to the first use of the very word itself, ahhh, that's a different matter. Well, this puts it to rest. Thanks again and take care! mezzaninelounge (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just another follow-up, got a response from others I had messaged on this. I also conferred with Dr. Domann (http://molcellbio.grad.uiowa.edu/faculty/Frederick-Domann) on this - he has published on the history of epigenetics and claimed that Waddington coined the term. He had this to say:

Dear Mark, I disagree; the 1883 text you refer to uses the term “epigenitic”, not “epigenetic”. These are 2 different grammatical constructions of the root words and have not only different spellings, but also different connotations. I do not think the 1883 reference coined the term epigenetics as it is currently used in biology, but rather epigenitics [sic] which, as you point out, referred to the long-debunked theory of epigenesist. Just my opinion. Rick Domann

I realize that the issue is resolved, but I wanted to give a full response as people in the field are sending in their replies. I'll end it here. This has actually given a lead on a potential co-authorship on this topic - I've been invited to assist on a paper dealing with this topic!!Thompsma (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am glad our little discussion has benefited you. Keep me posted. I'm interested to learn more. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Science

If you make a bold edit, as you did at Science, and someone else reverts you, the onus is now on you to go to talk and discuss your addition and try to get consensus for it. This process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and is a pretty common editing pattern on Wikipedia. The key, though, is that you can't insist that your edits automatically stay until after someone else discusses on talk first. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

QWyrxian. I've already done that (discuss on talk page). If you read the page that you sent me, you will see that it says "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can:....." Furthermore, that page is a guideline and not a code of law. So please, spare me the unsolicited wikilawyering advice.

As for editing the science page, I, along with many other editors, have been editing this page for quite a while now. I don't ask for special privileges but I do not just simply edit pages without careful thinking. I am after all, a scientist. And when I do edit a page, I never insist "that my edits automatically stay until...." What I insist is that whoever decides to revert a major edit of mine at least take the time to be thoughtful and provide a reasonable explanation rather than just a short terse comment.

For the record, unless you're trying to be provocative or start an edit war, I don't appreciate you reverting my good-faith edits "on principle." It's actually quite obnoxious and most unfriendly. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.

mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I replied over there before seeing this here. I just don't like the idea that your edits get deference requiring that others consult you on talk first before reverting you--and that has nothing do with whether or not you are a scientist. To me it is presumptuous, and I wanted you to know that if it is a stance you attempt to put forward at a great many article, it will earn you the enmity of other editors. As for WP:Revert only when necessary, you're the first person I've ever seen refer to that essay, and I'd be inclined to say that its acceptance is much closer to a "minority viewpoint" than a "widespread norm". I agree with the idea that we shouldn't edit war; I don't think that has any connection to whether or not we should revert. In fact, I would argue that reverting isn't the hallmark of edit warring, it's the reinsertion of disputed material after it's been reverted that is the hallmark of editwarring. I also know of only one or two editors who voluntarily hold to 1RR.

So, upon thinking about it, I probably shouldn't have reverted you "on principle". Instead I should have come here to tell you why your reinsertion of the material was wrong and asked you to consider self-reverting instead. That would have been a kinder, gentler way to go, so my apologies. I do hope you consider my position, and consider modifying your own re-reverting behavior in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I find your tendency to lecture me and selectively impose certain wikipedia policies as if they were code of laws to be very tiring. Last I check, Wikipedia does not appoint police officers. And if you're going to cite policies and rules, at least be fully knowledgeable about them. For example, there are a lot of nuances in the BRD process. It actually encourages other editors to edit rather than revert if possible. Besides, these are just guidelines. What's more important is the spirit of these guidelines.

Also, my comment on needing a discussion was a side one (it was just one sentence) and was not even directed at you. Paine asked for an explanation when he reverted my edit and I gave it. I suspect my comment would have been ignored and the issue would have passed. If he had a problem with my reversion and/or explanation, he can reply or do the revert again by himself. It is quite arrogant and presumptious of you to act as an arbiter or as Paine's legal attorney by highlighting my comment as a problem without even having the decency to ask "what's going on?" or to look at the context and history of edits that have been done to that page.

You can pick and choose/cite any wikipedia policy and I could probably do the same. We can then see which policies represent the majority or minority viewpoint. But personally, I don't care to play this wikilawyering game. Finally, I'm amused at the fact that you have the audacity to size someone up and then tell him to "consider modifying his behavior." Just who do you think you are? If this is how you typically interact with other Wikipedians, then this will, as you say, "earn you the enmity of other editors."

So if you want me to consider your position or to bring attention to a particular process, which I am willing to do, you're certainly not succeeding. mezzaninelounge (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, I'm just trying to give helpful advice. As I said, my revert on principle was wrong—an action done in haste. That was the action of a, as you called it, police officer, and was inappropriate. Giving advice to other editors about editing behaviors, though, I think is entirely appropriate--the goal is to prevent problems down the road. To me, that's the way that we pass on knowledge as a community, rather than relying on journals and conferences as occurs in the sciences and other "learned" fields. I'm not trying to lecture you, or engage in wikilawyering, and I'm sorry if I came off sounding that way. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You can provide suggestions and give advice, that is not the issue. The issue is doing it in haste or in a somewhat authoritarian/condescending manner. It's not what's said but how it's said. Don't believe me, try reading one of your sentences out loud such as "consider modifying your own re-reverting behavior in the future." It sounds like something a disciplinarian would say to a child in school. It may not be your intention, but that is how it comes across.

Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement. Upon reflection, I realized that I too acted in haste when I reverted Paine's edit. I was just furious that I had spent a lot of time combing through the article to "fix it," only to have it undone so quickly. That's fine, I just wish he was not so dismissive or terse, especially since I have accepted his pass edits with little to no fuss. His reversion gave the impression that his edits are fine but mine aren't. mezzaninelounge (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OVERLINKING

In this Richard Dawkins edit, the common English word "science" was wikilinked. Please see WP:OVERLINK.which begins:

What generally should not be linked An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.

I agree that overlinking should not be done with plain English words. But this is not overlinking. Science is not some plain word, just as religion or atheism are not plain words. Science is a major a concept and an enterprise. I recommend that you read the science article to get a better idea of this. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have something to say. Say it. But don't threaten me with "blocking." I have already written on the talk page and you did not respond. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Danielkueh. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your class

Following our earlier discussion, I think the ideal eg of mutation bias as evolutionary mechanism for your intro class might be the evolution of genome size / compactness, as studied in the Petrov refs. It's pretty simple conceptually, and you can teach them about junk DNA while you are at it. Joannamasel (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Instead of the term "junk DNA", something like "noncoding DNA" is better b/c much of this DNA may have a purpose. --Javaweb (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Joanna, thank you for that suggestion! I will look into it. Javaweb, I didn't realize you were also into biology. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Javaweb, you are absolutely right on this 99.9% of the time, but in this somewhat unusual context (confusingly not all given here) what I mean for once is actually junk DNA. Defined as that for which there is little or no selection against the deletion of. Joannamasel (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Are these examples of what you are referring to: 1) Operational but unneeded functions (example:genes for sight in a naked mole rat who lives its entire life in the dark underground 2) Nucleic acid sequence in a part of the noncoding portion that does not affect its function 3) Are there other common types? --Javaweb (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Yes, they are, although 1) is a very transient state, pseudogenes are much more common example that is the next step. Also count long gene-free sections of DNA, often highly repetitive, and often consisting of transposable elements and/or their corpses. Eg, most of the human Y chromosome falls into that last category ;-) Joannamasel (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Professor --03:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Hello, Danielkueh. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jess· Δ ♥ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator. So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your vote at RfA

I would suggest you refactor your comment. Referring to another editor as "simpleminded" is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. I've read the specific guideline on what constitutes a personal attack on WP:NPA. I concluded that my comment does not violate WP:NPA. Besides, if people want to become administrators in a public organization, then they should learn to grow thicker skins. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't get to attack people purely because they are taking part in an RfA. I am sure Qwyrxian does have a thick skin, but that doesn't mean you can violate NPA or CIVIL. Now, please refactor your comment or I will refactor it for you. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't. It's a not a personal attack but a comment. The language is perfectly legitimate and is used in every day civilized discussions. If people don't like it, they can simply ignore it. And who are you again to be making such a demand? mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone "simple-minded" is generally indicating that you believe they are mentally subnormal (have a look to see which Wikipedia article simple minded redirects to). You are quite allowed to say that you believe them to be "brash" or "authoritarian" because that is clearly your viewpoint; casting aspersions on their intelligence is however not allowed. If you mean "simple-minded" in its less common meaning of "unsubtle" then it would probably have been best to say that. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not calling the user "mentally abnormal (whatever that means)." Last I checked, simpleminded is not listed in the DSM. This is not a clinical diagnosis but a description. It is no different from brash and authoritarian, which are "mental acts." If simpleminded does redirect to mental retardation, then it is clearly wrong and shoud be deleted. I used the term as defined by Webster's. That is the only definition I see listed there. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you will note that Webster's also gives "foolish" in its initial definition, but you will see the other alternatives here, for example. Perhaps this is a regional difference in usage. Certainly, I would say it is not the best way to express that particular character trait due to the opportunity for confusion. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do see the word "foolish" listed there. Like foolish, simple minded is not a word that is typically used for personal attacks. It is merely used as another adjective such as "silly, unsophisticated, obtuse, etc." I am only aware of the definition given in Webster's and the Oxford English dictionary. The other sense definition that you cited is listed as the third definition in the link that you gave, perhaps indicating that it is not very common. I concede that there is potential confusion. But I'm not worried only because the sense definition that I'm using is the most prevalent. On a separate issue, I would like to propose that simple minded no longer redirects to mental retardation. I don't know what is the best way to do that. To convert it into a DAB page or just tag it for deletion (what would be the best tag?).mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Difficult one, that. It's clearly a valid redirect (as you can see from my response above - where I am "simpleminded" always means what I thought you meant), but it's also clearly not the only valid one. Creating a dab page might be the best way of doing it, but nominating it for deletion would be reasonable too, as it's only ever going to be a dictionary definition. Probably the best way of proposing it for deletion would be WP:PROD. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just tagged "Simple minded" for deletion. I'm glad we resolved the misunderstanding of the word. Cheers. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU INSANE, Black Kite? You can't tell him to restate why he opposes the editor's nomination. You ask people to freely vote, and yet here you are telling Danielkueh how to think and express his reasoning for the way he voted. That's his reasoning, so leave it alone. By the way, Danielkueh, thanks for your courage to speak your mind--I may be banned soon, but I spoke my mind (Wikipedia revolves around censorship) (Copy to Black Kite)Diligent007 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your participation on my RfA
	Thank you for your participation at my RfA. I will always try to keep the human aspect of the project in mind as I perform admin actions, not sacrificing good work or good people to an abstract set of rules. If you ever have concerns, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new role. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution article

Hi Danielkueh...I was editing with you at the same time in the same parts on the evolution article. I will go over your edits and incorporate your changes in with mine. Thanks for the assistance. I hope to get this simplified and truncated even further. I didn't want to expand on this section, but previous versions didn't explain things well and contained misinformation.Thompsma (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed the edit conflict. Not a big deal. I hope you don't mind that I take a back seat to all this. I'm just a little constrained by time. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

species and evolution

Daniel, I k now you acted in good faith but the sentence Thmpsma deleted had been in the article for several years. He needs to reach consensus before deleting it. I di dnot just write it, I restored a consensus version from a week or two ago that thompsa preemptorally deleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it has been there for a while. While I understand your perspective, Thompsma does have a point. Plus, it is controversial at this moment. If we are to discuss the statistical concept of species, I recommend that we go for conventional sources. I am not disputing Menand's importance as an academic and scholar. But at the moment, I'm just not convinced that the interpretations from his book are the best sources for this issue. danielkueh (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I do not want to go into detail about what I think about the Menand quotes because my views - our views - are not supposed to enter into articles. You raised an "accuracy" flag and I am the first person to admit that my writing may not always accurately represent the view expressed in a source. But I have provided page citations as well as two quotes, so if you can rephrase the summary of Menand's view so that it is a more accurate account of his view, I welcome your help.

With all due respect, I do not think you understand the way research in the humanities is organized. Please take a look at recent edits to the Evolution article:

Evolution is currently applied and studied in various areas within biology such as conservation biology, developmental biology, ecology, physiology, paleontology and medicine. Moreover, it has also made an impact on other disciplines such as agriculture, anthropology, philosophy and psychology. Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.

So the fact that someone has a PhD in medicine or paleontology would not I assume signify to you that the person is not an evolutionary scientist. So is it truly that hard for you to imagine that the Humanities may also have fields of overlap? I assure you that many important works of history - especially intellectual history (because of the nature of the sources) - are not written by people with PhDs in History, or who do not teach in History departments. All that matters is the source and the source is a book that is accepted as a scholarly work of intellectual history.

Yet you say that the view is "false." This is very much about NPOV: NPOV tells us to include views we believe to be wrong. I assure you there is much content in WP that I do not believe to be rue but that I have not deleted, because it complies with policy.

And ... you say that the views are false but if you do not mind my asking, are you a historian? From what position to you judge them to be false? Thompsma has provided his own answer and frankly, his response is just a violation of WP:NOR.. Thompsma has clearly read a lot and on that basis has his own views about this history of evolutionary thought. I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that our policy is we do not put our own views into the article. We have the principle, "verifiability, not truth" precisely to prevent us from stacking articles with our own views, and removing views that we do not like.

Now, if you know of other intellectual historians who take opposing views to that of Menand, the Wikipedia-way is to add the other views from other verifiable sources. Why delete, when you should be adding the views of whatever historian you know who holds another view?

You suggest that you think this edit conflict is disproportionate. Had I added a couple of paragraphs to the article, I would take your concern very seriously indeed. But we are not talking about two paragraphs or even one, but one sentence. I have to ask what kind of prejudice is so great that it cannot tolerate even one sentence of a view it does not like.

You have asked me to consider my actions and I promise you, I have taken this time to write to you (1) because I respect you personally and (2) because this is meant to illustrate how much I have thought about the edits.

I courteously ask you to reflect on your own feelings and actions here. You do not need to respond on my talk page - I think you have expressed yourself at length already and believe me, I have read what you have written. It is having read what you wrote that leaves me with these questions about your position. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that there are overlaps between disciplines. I can assure you, I am well aware of that. Menand is known primarily for English literature, and so we should describe him and his work as such. He is not a historian in the way of John Keegan is. And if you want to include the views of historians, then why not someone like Thomas Kuhn for example?

Look, if you would like to describe species as moving away from essentialist archetype, that is fine. We can work on that. In fact, why don't we? That is not the issue. The issue is all the other terms and baggage that you would like to include such as "statistical, views of natural scientists, Enlightenment, part of a movement." These are fantastical statements that are not verifiable. Plus, you are quoting from a book, whose primary focus is not even the topic that you wish to further. That bit about Darwin was just a commentary. If you wish include Menand as a source, we could do that as one of many sources. But to devote several sentences from one non-scientific book on a very specialized scientific topic is just not good practice. Regardless of what field this is, science, humanities, or otherwise.

Again, this is nothing personal. But it is very difficult to support your edits. Even Dave Souza has expressed doubts. I urge you to instead focus on talking about the change of viewing species from one that was essentialist to one that is not. I also encourage you to use sources that have dedicated a lot of intellectual capital to this. That would seriously help move things along. danielkueh (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, did you not notice that the last two versions of my edits that you deleted did not have the word "Enlightenment" in them? Believe it or not, I changed the wording based on your comment. that is what I do: when someone criticizes an edit of mine, I try to improve it. Is this not how collaborative editing works? it disappoints me that you deleted what I wrote without reading it.

Menand is a respected intellectual historian. The book is on the massive changes in the natural sciences in the 19th century and their impact on philosophy. Darwin is central to the argument. You know, our article includes a reference from philosopher Daniel Dennet. I don't see you deleting that sentence. If we can include Dennet, we can surely include Menand.

The reason I did not quote Kuhn is because I have not read Kuhn making this particular point. Menand does. So we should quote him as the source for the idea.

If you wish to cite other people - and in the process perhaps provide multiple views - I would have no objection and would be glad to work with you on that.

But please let's be clear: this has been my position all along, that we always add views from verifiable sources, and if any editor feels that another viw is being left out, the thing to do is to add more views. But not to delete.

In an act of good will you could add the Menand citation back - and if you do not like the sentence as I phrased it, rephrase it. I still fail to see how you can object so dogmatically to one sentence. It is the pattern of a POV-warrior, not of a respected Wp editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The term enlightenment is just one of the red flags. The other red flag being "statistical." That was why I deleted it. And I did read the text. Frankly, it is overdone. Again, if you want to include it, propose it on the talk page, have an RfC. But don't keep on insisting on putting it in there in the way that you want it to be. It simply will not work. If you want to put a Menand spin on it, maybe in a different section? Such as social or cultural responses? You might be more successful.

Dennet is widely read and cited among evolutionary biologists. I'm not sure about Menand, which is why I don't see the equivalence that is being made here.

Again, Menand is not a historian. Many people have written about history (e.g., Christopher Hitchens or Shakespeare). But that does not make them historians. Just like the word statistics, these are specialized terms or titles that should not be used lightly. Especially not in Wikipedia.

By the way, that book by Menand looks interesting. I think I will put it on my list of books to read. danielkueh (talk)

I hope you like it. In the meantime, your comparing Menand's book to work by Shakespeare and the Bible just make you look silly. You cannot possibly mean it. Neither Shakespeare nor the authors of the Bible ever won a Pulitzer in the non-fiction category nor would they were they elligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood the points I was making. I was making two points. First, just because something is quotable, doesn't mean we should quote it. Hence the bible reference. Second, Shakespeare also wrote about history when he wrote that play on Julius Casesar. But that does not make him a historian. I hope you see the parallels I was trying to make. I was not commenting on whether Menand deserves a Pulitzer prize, which I am sure he does. danielkueh (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I misread your statement and struck out my reply. You meant to say "notable" and not quotable. That may be the case, but he is not notable in this area of study. danielkueh (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Menand is a notable intellectual historian.

Make up your mind - do you object to Menand, or to my summary of his views? You throw out so many objections it is hard to keep track of which ones you really man. If you think my summary is an inaccurate account of Menand's view, I have invited you to rewrite it.

I am not embarrassed. You invited discussion on the article talk page but on my user talk page you try to shut me up. Should I feel embarrassed? Why? I am complying with NPOV, V, and NOR. I have demonstrated that you do not even understand our verifiability policy. Why are you so threatened by someone who does not think like you do? Or are you really just threatened by the fact that Wikipedia actually is an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Look, if you want so much control over an article, why not write something and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I object to your summary of his views and to the use of Menand as the first and primary source for this issue (species). I'm not threatened, I am just irritated that you are wasting my time and everyone else's by harping on this issue, which is not even what this article is about! No one cares for it! Really!!! Get over it and get over yourself.

For the last time. He is not an intellectual historian. Just because he won an award in that category does not make him one. Ramon Y Cajal won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, but that does not make him a physiologist or a practitioner of medicine. Listen to this NPR interview with Louis Menand and listen to how he is being introduced. [1]. You are so simplistic. I can't believe I am actually arguing over this. danielkueh (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit that you haven't read the book and do not understand Menand? It is okay for you not to have read everything. As for me being alone in my views, did you not read Dave Souza: "It's certainly true that Darwin shifted attention from the type form to the range of variations in a population species concept?" Or ... did you think that I would not read them, and think you could get away with your trying to bully me? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have read Dave's comment and that is perfectly fine. It is in line with the conventional views that I share. There is nothing in there about statistics or the views of Natural scientists. I have read that chapter that you cite. There is nothing in there to corroborate that POV and OR statement of yours. You took it completely out of context. He was making a general comment, not an observation. Stop wasting my time. It is not me you need to convince but all the other editors of that page. danielkueh (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Motto

Re: "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious." - Be my guest! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Danielkueh. You have new messages at DeltaQuad's talk page.
Message added 02:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 02:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Evolution

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Evolution. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth

You thought it was interesting people participated in the conversation more so than normal at evolution (and I agree, it is interesting). For me, I had seen previous talk page discussion but I shied away as it required a strong and in depth knowledge of the subject, which I don't have. Jesanj (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are not offended by my comment on the sudden surge of interest. It was not meant to be disparaging. I apologize if it came off that way. I am just a little frustrated by what I consider to be a misplaced priority among some of the editors. There are a lot of pressing issues in that article and I would like that article to play a more educative role. A lot of nonspecialist readers, particularly high school students, visit this article. What a shame if we turned some of them away simply because they misunderstood the meaning of a term that has nothing to do with evolution. danielkueh (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken. =) I just thought you might be interested to know what had kept me away from a previous discussion. Thanks for your work on such an important topic. Jesanj (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration at Talk:Evolution

When I arrived mid discussion at Talk:Evolution I didn't have any preconceived notions about any of the editors involved. At this point I am finding that a lot of your comments and replies to my comments do not seem collaborative. I ignored your condescending question "Have you actually read Darwin?". I have also tried to ignore or respond rationally to your repeated flat dismissals of my arguments and proposals. Several times you have dismissed them without any argumentation or a rationale other than you don't like them. But now you are looking back into old discussions and picking out statements of mine that seem to contradict current statements I am making when taking out of their original context. That is really not nice, and it makes me wonder what exactly I have done to annoy you? The one thing I can think of was when I responded to your claim that a phrasing of mine was ungrammatical (which it clearly was not, although it was certainly not an example of very clear writing) by suggesting that your own grammar skills might not be up to scratch. That was uncivil and unconducive to good discussion on my behalf and I apologize for that. Other than that comment which I made because I felt that you were being overly critical of my writing, I have not had any intent to bug you or make you feel bad, and I apologize if I have inadvertently done so. I think that we can collaborate productively by putting such quibs in the past and see what is actually best for the encyclopedia. I think intelligible writing that is not condensed by un-explained jargon is a necessity for writing a good encyclopedia, and I think that you largely agree with this. Lets work together to see how to do that in the best possible way. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of clearing up misunderstandings, I will respond to your points one by one:

If by "collaborative," you mean I should agree with everything you say, then you're right, I am not collaborative in that respect. You just have to accept the fact that not everyone will agree with everything you say. I don't think I have been particularly unfair to you. I have said clearly whenever I agreed or disagreed with you.
If I sound dismissive to you and you would like to know why, then you can just ask, "what is it specifically that you disagree about?" and I would be glad to answer in detail. Just ask.
Your comment for keeping the term "creation myth" was very striking. You even went further to say that because it is a technical term, it is not offensive. I remembered that discussion very clearly because I was struck by that line of reasoning. Moreover, you would criticize the use of "creation stories" as "fluffy." Another word that I remembered because I found it a little amusing. But now in our discussion on the lead, I find that you are hypercritical as you would describe a text as "bad writing." The rationale given? "Technical jargon." What a complete turnaround! I don't mean to get personal but I suspect the double standard stems from your training primarily as a social scientist and not a biologist. The same could probably be said about my positions. Many articles contain technical jargon such as DNA for example. Why should evolution be so different?
Instead of saying 'Have you actually read "Origin of species?"' I should probably have said, "I don't believe you have read 'Origin of species. Because if you did, you would have not said that."
Your attack on my language skills was amusing and appeared desperate. It was not something for me to get worked up over. With respect to your sentence, if you want to be technical, then you're right, there is nothing ungrammatical about it. Grammatical or not, it is still a "senseless phrase." Anyway, if you don't like my feedback, you can ignore it.
You are very quick to describe someone else's writing as "bad writing" or ask pointed and sarcastic questions such as "Is there any kind of change that doesn't happen over time?" Plus, you are very aggressive in stating your distastes for something. Yet, when someone returns the compliment, you get easily offended. I suggest that you soften your remarks or aim for "precision." That way, others will respond in kind. You might have heard of the phrase, "if you can dish it, then you can take it."
Finally, this is just feedback and you can ignore it. Please try to temper the value judgments. I agree that the proposals by Thompsma and KVL were technical and dense. But to describe them as "bad writing" is a major turn off. For one, with all due respect, you are not the best writer. Second, when a text is technical, it does not mean it is "bad," it just means it is inaccessible to many people. To describe a text as "bad writing" is to say that it is ungrammatical, poorly phrased, or incoherent. My point is that you should choose your adjectives carefully.
At the end of the day, if I have offended you, then I too am sorry. I admit I am very terse in my remarks. It is not meant to be offensive. It is just that I like to be concise. Plus, I have many other things to attend to. By responding to you in detail here, it shows that I take your concerns seriously and I am putting forward the effort to clarify the above issues or explain myself to you.

danielkueh (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am grateful for your response and your constructive criticisms of my behavior. I can see your viewpoint about my value judgments about writing styles, and my pointy questions. I will try to temper that tendency in the future. I certainly do not expect anyone to agree with me but I do appreciate that when they do they state why, since that moves the discussion forward. About the ungrammatical sentence - yes it was semantically flawed - a result of my trying to include both the lineage and generation concept in a single phrasing. What made me react as I did was that I felt that you rejected the entire proposed phrase on that basis. I also do not think that any thing I have written is in disagreement with anything in Origin of Species, but that is a different argument that we do not need to take. I am happy that the discussion is moving forward and we are seemingly arriving at something that is both precise and readable. Thanks for taking the time to respond.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The new proposed text is an improvement over the current text. You played a major role. danielkueh (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

University help

Hey I go to a university that is creating Wikipedia pages as a project and we need to find 2 people in our related field to review our article for improvements. Can you look over mine? It'd be much appreciated. I can send you the link if you're interested. OneThousandTwentyFour (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology

You have now reverted four different people to enforce a 'consensus' that there is no such thing as the academic field of evolutionary biology distinct from the phenomenon of evolution itself. You cannot possibly in good faith believe that this is correct, so I have restored the article again. The information in the article is perfectly legitimate and does not exist elsewhere in this form. Please stop this vandalism and start reasonable discussions aimed at a proper consensus. Hans Adler 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you misunderstood the context of my reversion of Joanna's reversion, which occurred a while back. She restored the article because she wanted to retain a section that she wrote, which is now an article. Second, 78.45.177.68 and Kyknos are one and the same individual. Three, there is already consensus for this merger and you can came into this discussion late and have outrageous accusations. I suggest you pursue consensus as you are the one interested in splitting the evolution article. danielkueh (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is totally annoying that this discussion is spread over several sections on two talk pages. If you look over them, you will see several things:

Quite a few people have disagreed. Apparently they just didn't notice when a temporary consensus formed to disappear the article.
Of those who agreed with a merger, it is totally unclear how many had a zero merge, i.e. effectively a deletion, in mind.
Some of the merge arguments are based on the misconception that the evolutionary biology article is about the concept of evolution, and a failure to understand that we need an article on the academic field.

Therefore I simply do not believe that there is now or has ever been a sufficient consensus for this deletion-by-redirect. Hans Adler 02:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your views, why don't you take it to Talk:evolution, where there is actually a discussion about it rather than making these crude comments and accusations about vandalism, creationism, etc? danielkueh (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the unsigned 3RR notice on my talk page came from you, so I needn't leave you one. May I ask you to stop reverting. I was about to start cleanup work on the article, but when I wanted to edit it it was again a redirect to evolution. That's disruptive. Now I will go to bed instead. Hans Adler 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is from me. And now you are being incredibly rude. Again. Fine, go to bed if you then if you can't stand not having things your way. danielkueh (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danielkueh...I'm about to give up on the evolutionary biology article. Thanks for sending the barn star. The distinction is absurd and it is OR. It is completely made up. I've given all sorts of evidence and links to documents like the Society for the Study of Evolution where the constitution even states: "The object of the Society shall be the promotion of the study of organic evolution and the integration of various fields of science concerned with evolution."[2] They are making the claim that evolutionary biology is about capacity building, grants, mentorships, and the professional science of evolutionary biology. Yet - I have never seen this before. The Journal of Evolutionary Biology does not publish articles on how many publications, grants, graduate students, and awards were given to various evolutionary schools of thought. The articles are precisely the same kinds of articles you can find in the journal Evolution. Every book titled "Evolutionary Biology" describes the same kind of stuff you see in the evolution article. It is the strangest Wikipedia venture I have ever witnessed - they are going ahead without a single source to back up their claims, yet they ignore evidence to the contrary. Those pushing this should know better - because they are scientists. The idea they are presenting is that they are not evolutionists but evolutionary biologists, like that bit of grammatical change makes all the difference in the world. I'd love to see an article that makes this distinction - but so far not one person has been able to produce anything of the kind. I actually called Dr. Douglass Futuyma and just talked to him on the phone about this issue. Amazing how simple the phone technology can be. Anyway - he thinks that there is a distinction between the two, but he also said that in some contexts they are interchangeable. He said that Evolutionary biology is the study of evolution, whereas evolution refers to what happened, but he felt that many others would have different perspectives on this and much of the wording on this is due to laziness or convention. After this I mentioned to him that his textbook had changed from Evolutionary Biology to Evolution and he laughed and said - well yes, that's because we needed a shorter title and in essence they are really about the same thing. He said it is a mild semantic issue. He then referred to a textbook on his shelf titled "theoretical ecology" and said when you think about it - what does that really mean? Ecology is the study of relations, but isn't that kinda theoretical to begin with? I've heard of philosophers visiting labs and researchers in the field to study scientists like they were studying chimp behaviour. They did this kind of research to see if scientists were behaving and reporting on their methods and actions in reality as they were in the literature. That seems like evolutionary biology to me - scientists studying other scientists' behaviour and ecology. The distinction otherwise seems elusive to me and until I see a publication that makes the distinction clear enough to warrant an entire article page - I will retain a healthy scepticism. Anyway, I would say thanks for the Barnstar and for your words of wisdom on the matter. You are by far one of the most level headed editors that I've met in here. Thanks for your contributions!!!Thompsma (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, the distinction is overblown and borders on WP:OR. No doubt, there is a distinction, but it is trivial. Other similar pages such as biology, psychology, sociology, and neuroscience do not emphasize capacity building, grants, mentorships, and the professional science. Plus, they don't make a strong distinction between concept and discipline. Anyway, there is a strong consensus for this distinction, and rather than continue fighting over it, I have decided to accept the consensus and forget the issue. Life is too short. Thanks for the kind words. We'll edit more. danielkueh (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Science/Archive_5#Which school does the hypothetico-deductive method belong to?

I found this question in the archive, reviewing your changes [3] (though quite some time after they were done), and I would like to give you an answer: The hypothetico-deductive method clearly belongs to empiricist schools and, despite common misunderstanding, it is opposed to Popper's philosophy. It attempts to confirm theories by evidence and the only improvement over standard inductivism perhaps is that it acknowledges that the theory precedes and is needed by the observation. You can find a discussion about that in David Miller's Critical Rationalism: A restatement and defense. As Miller wittily puts it, the right buzzword for Popper's philosophy would be hypothetico-destructivism. Hope this answers your question. --rtc (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Rtc, thanks for following up on this. I might have to check out Miller's book. Right now, I am still not convinced that the hypothetico-deductive method is to confirm theories. From how I understand and use it, it is used to falsify hypotheses in much the same way as Popper's approach, by seeing if the prediction matches the results. And if it doesn't, then the hypothesis is false. This approach is essentially modus tollens, just like Popper's. Anyway, thanks for suggesting the book. If time permits, I will definitely check it out. danielkueh (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"From how I understand and use it, it is used to falsify hypotheses in much the same way as Popper's approach" I don't quite understand what you mean. If Popper is right, there is no induction and thus no hypothetico-deductive method and hence you cannot use it even if you wanted to. Popper's argument is not that we have a choice between falsification and induction, that is, two methods using different kind of logic, but that induction simply does not exist, and that what we perhaps perceive to be induction is really merely deduction and falsification. There is no choice between "Popper's approach" and other approaches to make; there is only one approach -- that's what Popper is saying! In this respect, Popper would say, of course you "falsify hypotheses", since there is nothing else that you can actually do. But this is not the way people see it who commonly use the notion of "hypothetico-deductive method". On the contrary, they assume induction to exist and play a major role in this method, and the whole source of the notion "hypothetico-deductive method" has clearly been established in an inductivist context. See History of scientific method#Integrating deductive and inductive method. There can be no question about this in my mind. Of course, there is a lot of confusion and Popper's view has incorrectly been subsumed under said notion, and the notion has incorrectly been attributed to Popper, and this has happened quite a lot and you can probably find a lot of sources, especially on the internet, that make such incorrect claims. That might be another explanation for your statements. But the notion clearly goes back to Whewell, and Whewell was clearly an inductivist. PS: see also [4] --rtc (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What is similar to the Popperian approach is that we use the H-D approach to falsify the hypothesis by finding evidence that do not match our predictions. Hence the hypothesis is falsified by modus tollens, which is what Popper advocates. We are not trying to confirm the hypothesis or a theory when we use the H-D approach. Furthermore, if Popper was alive, he would not say that we cannot use the H-D approach. Rather, he would say that science actually begins when we start to test or falsify the hypothesis and not when we formulate it. That is different from saying that the entire H-D approach is contrary to Popper's approach of falsifying hypotheses, which it isn't.

I don't know who you mean by "they" as far as scientists who use the H-D approach are concerned. Based on standard introductory science text books (e.g., Hillis et al., Campbell et al., etc), there are inductive and deductive components to the H-D approach. The "inductive" part of the H-D approach comes with formulation of the hypothesis. The deductive part comes with formulating a prediction. That is what makes this approach unique from say a purely descriptive or inductive approach. Whether or not the inductive part of H-D plays a major role is quite bedsides the point here. The point is that this approach does not fit only with just the empirical school or that it does contradicts Popper's approach. That is the point of contention. The WP link you provided does not speak to this issue, regardless of who coined the term. Until there is a reputable and widely accepted scientific source that explicitly say it is so, I remain unconvinced. danielkueh (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Furthermore, if Popper was alive, he would not say that we cannot use the H-D approach." Popper would say that either you are struggling about words and you use the term "H-D" for Popper's method, or you don't, then Popper would certainly say that you cannot use the H-D approach. I suspect the latter, because you say that "there are inductive and deductive components to the H-D approach". There is no inductive component anywhere in Popper's "approach" (as I stressed, there is no choice to make with respect to this!), and Popper outright denies the existence of induction. Thus, Popper would strongly insist that we cannot use the H-D "appraoch" because it presupposes something that is nonexistent and impossible. "Until there is a reputable and widely accepted scientific source that explicitly say it is so, I remain unconvinced." Then your way of thinking is clearly contrary to Popper's, because you discuss about your convictions, not about the truth of the matter under question and you propose "sufficient reasons" or "justifications" that things must possess to become your conviction -- a principle Popper rejected as self-contradictory. BTW, there is a wealth of literature available on Popper vs H-D, just look at google books etc. --rtc (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:V, not truth. Hence, my last statement on the need for reputable sources. Plus, you have missed the point that I have made, both here and in the science talk page. Frankly, it doesn't help to speculate on irrelevant points such as my "convictions," which makes this discussion bothersome. Now unless you have something concrete that is verifiable by reputable secondary sources and actually addresses the point that I made, please stay off my talk page. Thank you. danielkueh (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:V, not truth. Hence, my last statement on the need for reputable sources." WTF? You said "Until there is a reputable and widely accepted scientific source that explicitly say it is so, I remain unconvinced." read carefully: YOU remain unconvinced. That's what you say. We were not discussing about including anything in some wikipedia article. Hence, WP:V is completely irrelevant. On the contrary, you are making dubious claims about Popper allegedly being in line with the H-D "approach". That's your personal opinion and you give not a single source for this claim, let alone "a reputable and widely accepted scientific" one. You make a claim and ask others to give such sources to refute it. That's not quite fair, is it? I have mentioned a reputable source, the one by David Miller (Popper's former assistant), and I actually gave this source long ago at Talk:Hypothetico-deductive_model#Popper_and_Hypothetico-deductive_approach. I also pointed you to another source and mentioned that you can find even more on google books pretty easily. Now you start asking for secondary sources. I disagree about this. Secondary sources are evil and often incorrect when it comes to philosophy. They give rise to a lot of those misconceptions and confusion, because they usually have a hidden agenda and then cite philosophers for claims they did not make, to make them seem support this agenda. Thus, secondary sources on philosophical topics are rarely ever "reliable" (to speak in your language). --rtc (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The point was made on the Science talk page, for the purpose of editing that article. That is why I asked for sources because the statement that H-D method is an approach that can only be categorized in the Empirical school needs to be verified. Is that so hard to understand?!?!?!? Plus, WP encourages the use of secondary sources. You're made the claim that Popper directly opposes the H-D approach. Fair enough, give a direct quote from a book that says so. I'll even take a direct quote from him. But I am not going to buy a book or go to a library to get one simply because a random WP editor who posts obnoxious comments on my talk page tells me to do so. Now I'm assuming you decided to follow up on this issue because you were interested in making changes to the Science article and that you are pursuing consensus or to give me sources so that I can edit the article. If that is not your intention, then stay off my talk page. Moreover, if you can't even do something simple like holding a decent adult-like discussion without getting personal, then this discussion is closed. All I have to do is hit delete. Kapish? danielkueh (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)