User talk:Filll/Staging Area

Information

Articles planned

Projects underway

Articles in need of help

Pain scale, Dol, Dolorimeter, Stress (medicine), Post traumatic stress disorder, Hans Selye, List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy, Evolutionism

Things to look at some more

Conflict thesis

I'm not a philosopher (and I really don't play one on TV). You're the scientist, so what is this about? Is this a crazy article, or is it really a philosophy? Orangemarlin 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not philosopher either, and there is an awful lot of this kind of stuff here, that is for sure. Seems like too much to me.--Filll 17:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis

Huh???? I was just walking through Wikipedia, trying to confirm whether I really believe that this encyclopedia is Christian biased, and I'm beginning to be convinced. This article is a travesty! It's not encylopedic, it's unbalanced, and it doesn't even pretend to bring in a literal viewpoint of Genesis. This is frustrating. Orangemarlin 17:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Amazing discussion

You have to go see this section and read all the links. Incredible!--Filll 01:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Baraminology

Ye might like this Vanished user talk 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now with a sequel. I've also used my research on this to update the article, using only things they say themselves. Vanished user talk 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



On the physics rewrite...

Just FYI, since you've been concerned with non-expert perceptions of articles in the past, a smart non-physicist has offered some comments on the current state of the rewrite at Talk:Physics/wip. Opabinia regalis 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there...treasure ships were real

These religious fundies say the darnest things. :) I'm not sure your controversy over the Zheng He treasure fleet is. There are numerous documentation that the treasure ships were up to and over 350-400 feet. Discuss.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treasure_ship#Factual_dispute

Here is a Natl Geographic documentary that deals with the facts of the Zheng He Fleet, and the unsubstantiated idea proposed by Gavin Menze's 1421 idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOXeWmQz8DU&mode=related&search=

-intranetusa

Treasure ships were real, so what's your counterpoint?

Yes, considering they found massive dry docks and massive rudder posts, along with the historical textual evidence (in China, India, and the Arabian ports the fleet visited), yes I can say the treasure ships were real Btw, they found the rotted parts of a gigantic wooden palace-barge built by a Roman emperor. So what's so hard to believe about treasure ships? The evidence is there.

-intranetusa

We will never be able to show this conclusively for sure. But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take a look at some of the big wooden ships at List of world's largest wooden ships.--Filll 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"But the largest Roman ship we have recovered is a good 25% shorter than the 450 foot treasure ships (and barely half the length of the putative 600 foot treasure ships), and it is not clear that this roman ship was used to make a long voyage in the open ocean. Take "

Yes, but the treasure ships were built in the 15th century. Also, The largest Roman ship was "supposedly" the Caligula's palace barge, which was just suppose to float on a lake. Ocean going vessels such as treasure ships certainly could have been bigger, with a steeper draft. Yes, I've already looked at that wiki topic. That was one of the topics where I responded to your post. What I find funny about the article is that they lumped Treasure ships with Noah's ark, Syracusa, and Isis - when Isis, Syracusa, and Noah's ark have no shred of physical evidence whatsoever except "testimony."

-intranetusa

PS: Even if we dispute the size of the treasure ships, at least it is confirmed that Zheng He did make diplomatic journeys all the way to eastern Africa.

We have no reason to believe that the Zeng He treasure ships were any more real than any other purported ships for which people make claims of immense size. There are some documents with doubtful measurements that refer to the Zeng He ships, but many of the claims about the Zeng He expeditions are very hard to swallow, frankly. They might be true, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say. Where is the clear physical evidence that is unequivocal and beyond dispute in the case of the Zeng He treasure ships? It really does not exist. There are no physical hulls that still exist. At least the Caligula palace barge and other large ships were dug up out of the mud, so we know they existed. In the case of the Zeng He treasure ships, a few timbers found in the mud and some claims that mud flats contained dry docks of immense size at one time really do not cut it. Show me a long keel. Show me a buried hull. Show me something more substantial, and you might have a case. Without physical evidence, it is very hard to say anything conclusive that supports these incredible sizes. I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. This might have happened, but it is tough to give it much credence with our evidence at this time, as near as I can tell. Sorry.--Filll 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Numerous sources, ranging from the National Geographic to the History Channel to USNews to the Economist, all featured articles regarding the treasure ships of Zheng He (size ~400). There is no treasure ship remains because the treasure ships were ordered to be burned. However, they did find massive dry docks that would've been used to create ships of immense size, and a 12 or 15+ foot stern post rudder. However, you're still correct that we have no direct physical evidence of the ship's size, so the size is still up for debate.

"I am not even sure how well confirmed the diplomatic journeys are, or on the size of the expedition. "

The diplomatic journeys themselves are well confirmed by direct and indirect evidence. Ranging from historical documents (from the kingdoms of India, Arabia, etc) to Ming porcelain & other goods. Also, I'm sure you've already seen the Ming painting of the man with the giraffe from Africa... Intranetusa (Talk) ?, March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here's an interesting article (skeptical, neutral viewpoint): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/archeology2.html

But we get back to the fact that it is not verifiable. Unless the Chinese had some miracle materials (and verifiability doesn't do so well with miracles), it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size. The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest, but we need to see it. I think this is a myth, but I don't have any proof either. But my job is not to prove the negative (that they never existed), the burden of proof lies with those that think they existed. Orangemarlin 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


" it is just not possible to build wooden ships over a certain size." They addressed this point with features such as separate bulkheads.

"Every culture brags about having the best and the biggest" Not exactly. The treasure ships are actually not very well known and the claim that the Ming treasure ships are 400+ ft are Ming historical records.

"The problem is that there is just no evidence available, even written ones. " Actually, there are plenty of written evidence. Just do a quick google search and you'll get millions of hits. The problem is that there is no direct physical evidence. Intranetusa (Talk) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. It is hard to know how to evaluate these claims with no good direct physical evidence. So it is somewhat of an interesting mystery. However, our more modern and well-documented experiences with large wooden ships gives us a bit of pause with these claims of incredibly large ancient wooden vessels. That does not mean they did not exist, and that the claims in the documents are not correct. However, it does mean that the claims have to be ascribed a lower reliability than if we had better evidence. And for me, I would have to rate the probability of these incredibly large wooden treasure ships as quite low.--Filll 20:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The measurements come from Ming dynasty historical documents.
Actually, some time ago a mast was discovered in the ancient Nanjing shipyards (where Zheng He's ships were built) which was consistent with the stated sizes of the Treasure Ships. However conclusive physical evidence, in the form of a sunken ship etc, is, as you say, lacking. --Sumple (Talk) 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find any material about a large mast recovered from archaeology from the Zeng He shipyards. However, I am not particularly convinced that a tall mast would necessarily prove that there were 450+ foot long 9 masted treasure ships being constructed for deep ocean expeditions (some have even suggested that there were treasure ships that were 600 feet long). A calmer analysis is provided by the article at [1] which relies heavily on assorted Chinese sources and scholarship. It appears more likely that any larger ships were more like barges for river travel only. It also appears that the length of the shipyards do not suggest long ships, but facilities for constructing many shorter vessels side-by-side.--Filll 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted from User talk:Intranetusa)
Hi, the info comes from Ray Huang's Macrohistory of China. On checking it up, it wasn't a mast, but the rudder. In the Chinese version, the sentences are on pp 185-186. He also mentions that the largest boats were 440 feet long and 186 feet wide, and the smaller ones were 370 feet long and 150 feet wide. He mentions that these giant ships are found in books but not in physical specimens.
IMO, Ray Huang is sufficiently established as an authority on Ming-dynasty China for referencing. But if you are planning to reference this, the (original) English version might be more suitable. Citation: China: A Macro History. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1988. 277 pp. ISBN 0-87332-452-8. --Sumple (Talk) 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review

I see you are also interested in Natan Slifkin. Please review these articles, because I have run up against an intransigent editor:

Perhaps you could also review the changes the same editor has made to Natan Slifkin. He does not come from the Jewish perspective, and he seems to be following me around and looking for ways to harass me.

Now here is an amazing coincidence. I see that you had planned to start an article on the Caltech biologist Norman Horowitz. I started one several weeks ago! He was one of my Dad's favorite teachers. I met him as a child. I was planning to add an additional paragraph and some references about his work on sidophores, but you are probably much more knowledegeable about that. --Metzenberg 04:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at your Norman Horowitz article. I did not get much beyond the information collection stage, so I might not be able to add much. I will look at your other articles too and see what I can do, but it can be very difficult to deal with a disruptive editor I am afraid.--Filll 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:
* Jewish reactions to intelligent design
* Jewish opposition to evolution
* Natan Slifkin
It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Filll, this one is a real irritation: Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Consist of a lengthy discussion of the "God Delusion". Basically a series of book reviews hand picked to condemn Dawkins. But the part that really got me was the side article created on H. Allen Orr. A brief statement of who he is then an epistle on his "book review" of the God Delusion.

It is an encyclopedia not a forum for exposing your world views... the primary contributor seems to have forgotten this: BNeal, I stumbled across this on a discussion page

"Hi Pastordavid. Re your 747 vote, you might want to know that I am a strong theist (and run John Polkinghorne's web presence) and the reason I think the 747 Gambit should be kept is that it is a very bad argument which has been rightly criticized by notable commentators, even some sympathetic to Dawkins. The people who want it deleted are Dawkins supporters who want to shield their Guru from criticism. If that encourages you to change your vote I'd be very grateful, though of course it's your decision. NBeale 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pastordavid"

Thought you might be interested.

The evolution intro is withstanding the test of time ... I assume a hallmark of a solid article. Some rather big guns have protected it ... so it must be passing muster.

I have been following some of your “discussions” … you are ruthlessly efficient with the written word. It is like reading a good book. You have become somewhat legendary among my 'gifted' students who pop in and out on the evolution page. --Random Replicator 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I have not been as active lately. I think Dawkins is a bit too aggressive for my taste, but they sure do like to attack him. I think his views should be presented fairly, at a minimum. Glad to hear your students like to see me rip one or two of these luddites and flat-earthers a new one from time to time. Some of these guys definitely deserve it.--Filll 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill please note this: The 747 Myth. Orangemarlin 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rewrite of Genetics

I noticed you had a lot of criticisms of the Genetics article. I've rewritten it, let me know what you think. I also rewrote the history section of the article. -Madeleine 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Complexity

Hi there. There is a lot written on this topic, which is why I think Silence's resistance to discussing it is unwise. However, I'm trying to stick to the peer-reviewed sources and academic reviews, otherwise we could have a lot of dubious stuff added to the article. TimVickers 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]






Gnomes

Gnomes, unite!
Hello, Filll! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
I would love it if you would participate! - Orangemarlin
Edit message
I am chipping away at a few of these articles. Some of them are in awful shape and have been in awful shape for several years.--Filll 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few articles I hopefully have helped include Adjaran, Anastenaria, Ackley, Iowa, Giant Drop (drop tower), Sauerkraut Days (disambiguation), Sauerkraut Days, Henderson, Minnesota, List of Iowa railroads, Fifty50, Parcent, Alive Bible Club, Hans Ragnemalm, Finnish language, Sinitta, Atkinson index, bolster, Chiastic structure, Dalida, Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Art, Saint Irene etc.--Filll 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]













A falsifiability and evolution rough draft

Please take a look at Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2.--Filll 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Re: Falsifiability and evolution rough draft

I can look at it, but it wouldn't be until Thursday or Friday. I'm kinda swamped right now. Will that be too late?--Margareta 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all. We have waited for months already, after all! I just thought I would think about slowly finishing up a bit of old business.--Filll 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had a quick look which brought up ideas which I've added to Falsifiability and could be expanded on here, rather rushed with other things for a bit. One being Bombardier beetle which needed clarification. Incidentally, amongst the sources, one from AiG turned out to be very useful, and appears to be creationists doing real science. An impression helped by the sensible non-conclusion. .. dave souza, talk 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, did a copy-edit and added a whole bunch of "citeneeded" tags. For an article like this I think it's important to cover the bases and make sure everything is sourced. Wish I had time to help more with that part now, sorry.--Margareta 21:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. It is slowly moving forward and slowly getting fleshed out. Every little bit helps.--Filll 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Under-referenced

The draft is under-referenced and thus open to the accusation of original research. In this case, it is particularly important to avoid synthesising data or arguments from two separate sources into a new interpretation or to advance a novel argument. The best way to avoid people concluding this is original research is to find several reliable sources that directly address this topic. Tim Vickers 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful references might be ref 1 ref 2 ref 3. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. It is a very rough draft, obviously. We are just starting out to try to scratch together an article on this issue.--Filll 22:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

Time for a little payback. I need your help in getting this article to FA status someday. We all write about a whole host of articles that use Biology as its basis, and yet that fundamental article is nearly a piece of crap. I've started by outline the foundations of modern biology. It needs help from there. We need to have some fun, fighting Creationists isn't interesting day after day.Orangemarlin 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat stunned that it is in such bad shape. The grammar is poor. The writing is sloppy. The organization is almost nonexistant. I am not a biologist but even I can tell there is a problem or two with this article. I am amazed.--Filll 11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]







Evolution

I did talk about it on the talk page and no one disagreed. The other person is the one who is refusing to discuss the change on the talk page. I have continued both on his talk page and on the article talk page. Removing inaccuracy is important. Who says it is inaccurate? The world's foremost authority. Note that I anm not adding anything. Merely deleting an out of date claim. WAS 4.250 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common descent is true. But there was no "last common ancestor". Plese read http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/2/173 which is written by the world's foremost authority on the subject. Horizontal gene transfer is also good reading (but see the topmost external link listed in the bottom section. Citizendium's coverage is ten times better than ours.) In pre-darwinian evolution times genes moved between cells like memes between people or species between ecosystems. Cells back then were communities in which seperate genes learned (evolved) more and more complex interrelations creating tighter and more efficient mechisms until genes could no longer usefully move from any cell to any cell and thus species began to exist. There was no first species that everything today evolved from. There was a common pool of co-evolving genes that moved freely from cell to cell. WAS 4.250 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope we can straighten this out and improve the article. It appears to be somewhat controversial and I suspect we can probably build the appropriate consensus to get your changes implemented.--Filll 19:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: supportsummary2

Looks generally good. A few points:

  • "Prof. cred." probably should be relabeled "Res. cred." or "Sci. cred." as MDs etc are called "Professional Doctorates" and PhDs etc "Research Doctorates"
  • "Rel. No. (est.)" is a confusing title (too heavily truncated to get any meaning off it). "Bio/Geo PhD (est)" might be better. Why is it est[imated], incidentally?
  • Formatting points:
    • It's best for contents to have the same justification (left/centre) as their titles (or vice versa).
    • The "Petitions" & "Creationist Lists" titles would probably look better left-justified (and possibly bolded) -- where they are they break up the columns, visually.
    • Is there any reason why some lines are peach-coloured?

Hrafn42 14:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow interesting. Thanks.
  • Prof cred stands for professional credentials, since I wanted to list clergy for the Clergy Letter Project (which I might have to eventually remove) and also so I could drive home the fact that the "Physicians and Surgeons" list includes a lot of people that are not physicians or surgeons.
  • Rel. No. might be too abbreviated. Previous versions had it more expanded by I was trying to fit a lot in a small space, obviously. I wanted something like "relevant number" or "Number of signatories that are in relevant fields" with some definition of relevant fields. It is estimated because when I am going through these lists, it is very hard to tell who is a biologist and who is not, since there are so many biologically-related fields. Is a biochemist? Is a physiologist? Is a biophysicist? Usually I left all those out, but that might be incorrect. Where does one draw the line? This problem has to be confronted over and over and it is pretty difficult. I would not swear that I have not made any mistakes. Same with geologists; some work in areas relevant to this issue, and some do not. Is a geophysicist a geologist ? Is a geochemist? Is a meteorologist? Again, I left those all out, but that might not be appropriate. I also did not include physicists or astronomers, even though they are involved sometimes with determining the age of the earth or the universe. So it is all pretty difficult to determine exactly. In addition, I have excluded those with masters degrees, or those I cannot find confirmation of their PhDs. Some are PhDs from diploma mills or bible colleges, and I included those, although they are doubtful as well.
  • I will try other justifications.
  • The peach/pink color or shading is to indicate which are lists of creation scientists/creationists and which are lists of scientists/evolution supporters. The fact that this was not obvious, even with the text underneath and the title tells me I am doing something wrong here. Hmmm.--Filll 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic Medicine

Could ye have a look at this article? I'm not sure about it: On the one hand, it's not all that bad, on the other hand, the sources are very poor. Vanished user talk 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is pretty lousy.--Filll 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but not half so bad as some of the other articles I've been tearing to pieces. (Royal Rife, Electromagnetic Theory, Georges Lakhovsky - all of which were about 90% unsupported POV-pushing woo, and had to be eviscerated. (If you think those are bad now, check out a version from a month ago.) Still, I'll have a go at that one. Vanished user talk 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not trust a lot of its claims. The references I have found, which are few and far between, do not really agree with the text.--Filll 03:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. I guess I'm just getting a little jaded. Vanished user talk 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It draws on Thomsonian medicine so I am trying to fix that article, which is also in horrible shape. Then maybe if that makes some sense, Eclectic medicine can be cleaned up. Part of the difficulty is that the sources contradict each other and it is a huge mess. Who writes this crap?--Filll 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woos. Have a look at User:Oldspammer's contributions to article talk pages sometime... Vanished user talk 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some articles that need help

Would you object if I added Psychic surgery to that list? ornis (t) 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Eclectic Medicine

I found a really good source for this. Can you send me an e-mail, and I'll send you some scans? Vanished user talk 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reflexology

Oh. My. God. Vanished user talk 09:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hardy-weinberg

Filll, I've been brainstorming Weinberg. I need more time. Can you please move the entire section to above speciation but below evidence. It would make more sense there I think. When you get a chance.

A professor of composition ... I feel like I'm back in school! ... as a student. Not sure we will ever rise up to her standards; but I have learned a hell of lot from her. Eliminating "this" had an incredible impact on readibility.

And congrats on the paranormal banner ... I think?--Random Replicator 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expelled

Christian Answers

I stumbled upon this article while clearing out a number of cruft-ridden articles related to Ray Comfort & templated it for notability. I now notice that you created it 6 months ago. Do you think there are any prospects of reliable third party sources being found for it, or should I go ahead and redirect/merge it (probably into List of people and organisations in the Christian right‎)? HrafnTalkStalk 13:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is one of the organizations producing lists of scientists that support creation, I would like to retain it. If we need more material to flesh it out, we can find it. Eventually I would like to have a much more well developed roster of articles about organizations on both sides.--Filll (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find it? My impression was that it was one of those non-notable "virtual" organisations that the Religious Right is continually creating as mouthpieces/astroturfing. Does it exist as anything other than a website + list of officers? Has anybody outside the trenches actually noticed that it exists? If we want to retain it as a link for its "lists of scientists that support creation", then why don't we put it in List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy with this link as part of its brief entry? HrafnTalkStalk 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that it was far more important than that. It has existed for decades and has produced a huge amount of material for proselytizing. I notice that a vandal had edited the article and made it look much less significant than it is. But we can find more I am sure. It has been around at least 60 years. It has produced 10s of thousands of titles.--Filll (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratching around on their website, it seems that it was 'Films for Christ' was founded in 1959. The 'Christian Answers' collaborative effort seems to be of far more recent vintage (for one thing, most of its member organisations haven't been in existence for that long), most probably post-1986. As to its production of material, it is unclear as to whether this is the amount that 'Christian Answers' has produced or the sum amount that it's constituent organisations has. Is 'Christian Answers' an original producer of material, or merely a clearing-house for material produced by its constituent members? I'm not sure which organisation the article should be focusing on ('Christian Answrs' or 'Films for Christ'), but either way we need reliable third party sources to establish notability. HrafnTalkStalk 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I seem to recall it was the entire aggregate sum of all the related organizations. I remember I was thinking of making several articles, but then decided that they were not notable enough to maybe go to so much effort. I also remember there were more than 2 different organizations. It is several more. So we have to get the names of all of them, and search for them all. --Filll (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A coverall article that had a section for each of the team-members that don't have their own articles would probably be justifiable -- though we'd still be running into problems of lack of reliable third party sources (I recently turned the article on Summit Ministries into a redirect to its founder, because it was entirely unsourced). HrafnTalkStalk 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fact, theory and a new journal

This article is likely to interest you, found via the links shown at Talk:evolution.... dave souza, talk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Evolution resource

Just wanted to share this link, it's for the new "big" textbook on Evolution. Amazingly, most of the figures from the book are available free of charge on the web page, so it's a really useful resource. It may be a useful external link on some articles. I've added it to a few, maybe you can see further uses.

http://www.evolution-textbook.org/

I also messaged Dave Souza and Vanished user. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) diff=187720119&oldid=187578481 :)] David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert withdrawal

I'm not sure what you want to be shown, but the Ilena/Fyslee Arbcom has multiple, blatant examples by multiple editors. What do you want to be shown? Editors arguing that it is harassment to point out their improper behavior because others have similar behavior? Editors arguing that they should be allowed to harass editors accused of misbehavior? Editors repeatedly gaming the system? It's all in the arbcom. Worse, it's all still being done by editors that were part of that arbcom. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


From [2]

During this period between the world wars, sightings were reported and searches launched for, among others, the snoligostus, the ogopogo, the Australian bunyip, the whirling wimpus, the rubberado, the rackabore, and the cross-feathered snee. These sound like some interesting creatures that deserve articles on WP! The only one I know of is the ogopogo, although I have never seen it, even though I have been to Lake Okanagan many times. ...--Filll (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article you could propose for translation

In the german wikipedia there is an article about homeopathy in the time of the nazi dictorship. See [3]. Nazis tried to promote a new german medicine, which should include homeopathy, but gave up on that idea in 1939 after the results where disatorous. --80.133.146.251 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

I have responded to your query regarding Homeopathy at my talk page. You may want to look at it. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 09:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional "homeopathic" treatments

Many standard medical practices like prescribing ritalin and adderall for ADHD, heparin for IBD, vaccinations, hypnotics to prevent falls among the elderly, and allergy treatments are homeopathic, in that they involve treatment with something that produces the same symptoms as the disease.--Filll (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that really is a very good point. We would need to find a good source that makes this relationship as you have, but it's very true. There is no reason for people to be skeptical of low potency homeopathy, at all. High potencies are another thing. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]