Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FACTS

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 06:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject:FACTS[edit]

Total votes are 10 for delete and 3 for keep giving 78% delete.

This page does not belong here. It is a sockpuppet of Ungtss, and various biased creationists as a way of bypassing the conventional methods to add their POV to articles. Bensaccount 18:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: this page no longer exists. This page exists, per the active link on the name above.

Keep There are enough folks interested to make me think it's still worth a shot. It's not a misuse of anything. it's an effort to develop npov policies and guidelines behind the "front lines" where only chaos rules. it does absolutely no harm. please let it be. Ungtss 19:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about misuse of a userpage? Bensaccount 18:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
how is this misuse of a userpage, according to the VfD rules? VfD says it is inappropriate to have userpages that are not on topic. this user page is PRECISELY on topic -- and has its own name in order to maintain neutrality. i also note that the rules require you to TALK to the user before VfDing ... something you failed to do. again. it's fun to put things up for VfD, isn't it Ben? yeah. it's fun for everyone. and it's especially fun when you can break the rules doing it. the current creationism pages are full of all the nonsense you could hope for. isn't that enough?Ungtss 18:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Userpages are for users. Why not move it to a WikiProject page. I don't recommend this as a wikiproject, but it would be a step in the right direction. Bensaccount 19:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Done. next time, why not make that suggestion BEFORE you directly violate the wikipedia policy requiring you to discuss the issue before VfDing, eh? Now how does this affect your vote? Ungtss 17:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are only about 20 pages this project could involve, and none of them should have similar content, therefore this WikiProject is useless. Bensaccount 02:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. I don't see why the editors cannot work on the associated pages. Wikipedia isn't about making little fiefdoms of competing articles, is it? Joshuaschroeder 19:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • hmm. he votes to delete, and then joins the "little fiefdom."[1] interesting. Ungtss 15:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading name for what should actually be a WikiProject, and what is discussed there is disputed. Labeling POV as fact does not constitute neutrality. Radiant! 19:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nobody so far has explained why this page should be deleted rather than renamed. Dispute resolution sandboxes are permitted. Gazpacho 22:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reason for this account is to minimize edit wars; instead of edit warring on a creationist page, one can put the desired version of the page here and then discuss why the page is/isn't POV on the relevent creaitonism talk page. And, oh, I'm not a creationist. Samboy 22:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is atrocious is that there is no way in Wikipedia to assemble NPOV pages in some areas of Human activity and thought. This VfD is a case in point. The whole set of Creationism pages have been ravaged by what the Frenchman called "les chiens" (the dogs) who replace quotes, paraphrases, and citations to prominent scholars by the "dog's" own personal research. Evolutionists and creationists alike have ripped out scholarly citations from creationism pages--not to be replaced by better scholarly citations but rather with the Wikipedia editor's own uncited personal research. As I read it, the User:FACTS page sets forth an incredible idea! --that the creationism pages would be assembled only from a balanced presentation of what the scholars have actually written with zero personal research. 8)) So of course, "les chiens" are here to make sure that that cannot happen on Wikipedia. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're supposed to use the talk pages - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are ways to assemble NPOV pages. This page has been devised to bypass the conventional system. Bensaccount 23:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One wonders what process is envisioned by which pages which are composed by the FACTS project will be substituted for existing articles. Will the existing articles be replaced by the work of the FACTS group? Or will the new (allegedly NPOV) material be integrated with the old (allegedly anti-creationist) articles? Will the allegation be that the new articles are inherently superior, and that replacement should be automatic? --Goethean 00:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In fact, one wonders how the existence of the FACTS project will change the dynamic of wikipedia at all except to limit the pool of users who contribute to evolution/creation articles to those who are committed enough to join this project. But is that a good thing? --Goethean 00:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I predict a huge kerfuffle in the near future and arbitration cases on content. Oh boy - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The redirect should be removed. This needs to go to redirects for deletion - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork despite claims it is NPOV. Megan1967 03:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: After further consideration, I think this project is a bad idea; it seeks NPOV in precisely the wrong way, which is unilateral rewriting by one faction. Sandboxes are appropriate when the article is protected and different sides agree to participate. Gazpacho 05:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • As I read the User:FACTS page, only the rules are different from the MainSpace. That is, anyone who works on that series of articles agrees that uncited personal research will not replace paraphrases, quotations, and citations to actual published scholars. How is a mix of 50-50 evolutionists and creationists a unilateral faction? Without good rules, they would be at each others' throats. 8)) I would guess that the rules on the User:FACTS page will have to evolve much more if this project is to succeed. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Does it bring in people who have been most zealous in suppressing descriptions of creationism? Gazpacho
      • Certainly I, as a volunteer to the "rebellion" 8)) such as it is, would invite anyone interested in "suppressing descriptions of creationism." But the rules would be quite different on User:FACTS, from my view and only from my one vote. In contrast to the normal operation of Wikipedia, those interested in "suppressing descriptions of creaitonism" would not be allowed to "suppress descriptions of creationism." 8)) As I read the rules, everyone is to report in a balanced fashion what the various scholars have actually written about the topics on the page. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Personal research is frowned upon in Wikipedia proper, so that rule isn't different. I fail to see where the other rules are different. Joshuaschroeder 14:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Currently, Wikipedia does not have NPOV rules and policy explicit enough to deal with the personal research on the Creationism pages. As I read the rules on User:FACTS, every editor's statement--if questioned--must be backed up with a quotation, paraphrase, and citation to what an actual scholar has written. This is quite different from the MainSpace where both you and I have allowed bigoted editors to remove whole sections of paraphrase, quotation, and citation to what scholars actually wrote when they replace the whole page with uncited drivel of personal research. Think about it. In my opinion, the most important product of this experimental space would be a set of rules and policy tested and proven to be adequate for keeping personal research out of the Creationism pages. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • <<unilateral rewriting by one faction>>
      • which "faction" is rewriting here? 3 of the 4 ascribe to evolution. only 1 is a creationist. and one wants it deleted, so i don't know exactly what he's doing. Ungtss 17:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transmogrify into a WikiProject Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It just seems like backroom editing. A WikiProject is not a place to write encyclopedia articles. --Goethean 16:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • would you fine individuals voting delete on a project with which you're not involved care to justify your vote with some policy from VfD rather that your own "feelings" on the topic? Sandboxes are permitted. This is a sandbox. What seems to be the issue? Please articulate your votes in the form of valid policy-based reasons for deletion, to deflect the currently overwhelming impression of inquisition. Ungtss 16:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I like how you mock Joshuaschroeder for voting to delete and then joining your project (which makes perfect sense to me---one wants to have a hand in the editing process no matter where it takes place), and you also mock individuals who vote to delete a project with which we are not involved. To you, there are apparently no legitimate grounds for voting for deletion. I and several others posed several pertinent questions above about the motives and ramifications of your project. Instead of answering them, you prefer to mock people's votes. Then you whine about a conspiracy against you. I call that passive-aggressive. --Goethean 17:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • i asked simply for POLICY-based justifications for deletion. you still haven't provided any. you just laid into me, personally. very nice. I want POLICY, goethean. and NONE of you are providing any. This IS a wikiproject now. the other pages are just a sandbox in the namespace. As to schroeder, the big question is: why is schroeder joining a project which he thinks should be deleted? He's got free run of the "real articles," but he also wants in on the sandbox, until he gets it deleted. Very nice. Ungtss 17:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • <<I'm sorry you're running into conflict. We have processes to deal with that, though. Obviously I was not joking. Gazpacho 09:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)>> I thank you for your person-to-person condolence. 8)) And if I take you at your word that you are not joking, then I must say in all seriousness, "No. There is no process on Wikipedia for dealing with the problem that this VfD page buries." For example, you and I at this moment have an opportunity to get the Wikipedia community to deal with a very serious problem that erodes the legitimacy of two enormously important segments of the world's enlightened and worthy people: 1) Wikipedia and 2) evolutionists. But there is no Wikipedia "process" for dealing with the problem. What would you suggest would be a "process for dealing with the problem"? ---Rednblu | Talk 09:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Be bold? I'm currently on RfC for being bold -- an rfc, incidentally, composed in direct violation of multiple rules which are detailed there. being bold on creationism pages just gets you RfCed ... unless, of course, your goal to is distort the pages out of all semblence of reality. in the latter course, you're a hero. Ungtss 22:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, you are not on RfC for being bold, you are on RfC for making highly biased edits, even ones you agreed to not make as part of an effort to reach consensus on talk pages, and for making highly inappropriate personal attacks.
Maybe i would be, if ANY of those charges were true. sadly no, which the rfc links and talk demonstrate. perhaps you should look into the facts instead of taking the inquisitor's word for it, eh? Ungtss 18:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, ALL of those charges are true, except for the sockpuppet claim. Of course the IP address involved in that was another individual also RfCd for highly biased edits to creationism articles, so you can see where the confusion might come in. The fact that you refer to someone as an inquisitor goes to prove once again that you are the kind of person who simply refuses to accept objective facts if they disagree with your highly biased views. DreamGuy 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
i've learned that those who don't recognize their own bias and see everyone who disagrees with them as biased are, without fail, the most biased. Rednblu and i disagree fundamentally on the issues -- he is a tried and true atheist and evolutionist -- but we have something you don't have -- a recognition of our own pov AS a pov that allows for writing npov articles. The key to writing npov articles is FIRST to recognize your own bias, and THEN recognize the rules for building npov articles that fairly represent your pov in concert with all the others. you haven't reached step one. you still think you're unbiased, and so that article must represent your pov entirely in order to be npov. how quaint. Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Being the subject of an RfC, if you are in the right, can be an effective means for convincing people of that. If experienced editors think you are not in the right then it's probable that you aren't, but you can press it to higher levels if you want. Gazpacho 09:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I hope so. So far, it's managed to draw out some of the vandalism of my accusers ... i suppose that's a step in the right direction. Ungtss 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This can be done when the admin deletes the project (which so far seems to be the majority vote). Bensaccount 02:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - This project is nothing more than a way to bypass the normal talk pages and consensus-making process in an effort to force their POV onto articles. With Ungtss specifically, it's a way for him to make changes on articles that he promised he wouldn't touch from now on as part of his way to try to get out of an RfC he knew was coming and have some other member of the group add his comments for him. The normal process works, the reason many of these people here are upset with it is solely because the process working means that their agenda is thwarted. DreamGuy 08:36, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Balderdash. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the above argument is balderdash. Rednblu | Talk 13:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Anyone "with an ounce of intelligence" who isn't operating with a specific agenda of bias to try to distort Wikipedia pages would and does disagree with you. You created the page in secrecy (which didn't work, of course) to push "facts" that are not facts onto articles where your biased agenda was already declared inappropriate. This project has no legitimate purpose and needs to be deleted. DreamGuy 19:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for being such a paragon of civility and demonstrating how exactly to assume good faith, Dreamguy -- i've certainly learned my lesson. Ungtss 19:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Again, as has been explained, assuming good faith does not mean being blind to obvious, repeated, extreme cases of bad faith, as you have shown time and time again. The only possible uncivil thing in that statement was a repeat of what the previous editor falsely claimed about the other side, so if you're going to complain about civility, you should be yelling at Rednblu for trying to claim that people who disagree with him have no intelligence at all. DreamGuy 10:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • My point, dreamguy, is that you are accusing others of incivility while being uncivil yourself. i don't mind incivility from you -- i consider it part of the game. but you have adopted the pharisaical approach of accusing others of incivility while being uncivil yourself. that's good old fashioned hypocrisy. Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<it's a way for him to make changes on articles that he promised he wouldn't touch from now on>>

  • Balderdash. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the above argument is balderdash.8)) First, the User:FACTS work environment is just that--a work environment. If the above argument had any legitimacy at all, then there would have to be links to User:FACTS from the MainSpace. There is not one shred of evidence that the UserSpace anywhere is governed by NPOV at all! So the above argument is balderdash. Second, several of us evolutionists can see that certain vandals here unnamed for decency 8)) keep ripping out what the creationists write even when they accurately quote, paraphrase, and cite prominent scholars. You don't have to believe any of that--except that there this one evolutionist, namely me, who thinks that it is unfair that the here unnamed vandals keep ripping out what the creationists write even when they accurately quote, paraphrase, and cite prominent scholars. 8)) How is that for NPOV? I have even given an attribution. If you will actually read the NPOV page, you will see that that attributed assertion is NPOV. Third, the above argument is balderdash because the only show of "force" evidenced within this page is the appeal to the administrators to quash one Wikipedia editor's bold attempt to develop NPOV articles that actually quote, paraphrase, and cite what prominent scholars have actually written. Will the pages developed within the User:FACTS sandbox actually be NPOV? Who knows? But it certainly an unfair use of "force" for any administrator to delete that sandbox to prevent the experiment. ---Rednblu | Talk 13:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If you want a seperate wiki that operates under a different regime of policy implementation, you need to create and administer a seperate wiki. Wikipedia is not the place for it. --Goethean 17:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • you have yet to demonstrate a single rule this sandbox violates except the old "nobody's allowed to say anything i don't like" rule we've heard so much about. Mr. Dreamguy lives in the nice, pretty dream were "because the majority thinks something, it's legitimate" -- the motto, i'm afraid, of mob rule. Ungtss 18:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You change the subject, but since you ask, how about this policy: A WikiProject is not a place to write encyclopedia articles? Bensaccount 18:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
jeez. you TOLD me to move it to wikiproject. you never cease to amaze me. Ungtss 18:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Only as a step up from being your sockpuppet. Bensaccount 23:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
it was never, ever a sockpuppet. it was a neutral user space sandbox. Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No it was a userpage -- not the place for a wikipedia project -- however useless.Bensaccount 23:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You just said it was a sockpuppet three lines up. You were wrong. Now you're making a claim without backing it with policy. Where is it said that we are not permitted to put sandboxes in a neutral userspace? nowhere. Ungtss 14:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No it was sockpuppet. It was you posing as another user. It was just a matter of time until User:FACTS started making edits. Bensaccount 17:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Extremely strong rename - POV is not FACT. This WikiProject is not about facts despite its acronymic title. This is stealth advertising of a particular POV, and inherently misleading. Radiant! 14:17, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that Ungtss has ignored Radient!'s advice, even after moving the pages to his own userspace, gives one an idea about his rhetoric. His opinions ARE the FACTS.--Goethean 01:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Massive non-sequitur. The point of the title is to indicate that the pages should reflect FACTS, rather than OPINIONS -- yours OR mine -- because facts in the form of attributed statements by cited scholars are the stuff that npov is made of. but ultimately, the fact that there is a 3:1 evolutionist/creationist ratio in the "society" makes me wonder why, exactly, these pages have anything to do with my "opinions."
  • Comment. Rednblu and Ungtss have taken to calling their opponents on this page "dogs." --Goethean 19:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Goethean, Schroeder, and Bensaccount have taken to tearing innocent projects limb from limb for absolutely no articulable reason. Ungtss 19:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see as innocent the creation of alternate versions of articles by a self-selected subgroup of wikipedians, for the purpose of replacing the main articles at some unspecified point in the future. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If anyone can edit your "FACTS" articles, then they are no different than the main articles except, presumably, that you will exercise some admin-like power over them. If you claim that you will not, then there is no difference between the "FACTS" pages and the main pages, and there is no reason for their seperate existence. --Goethean 19:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Once again, I remind you, that sandboxes are permitted on wikipedia. your view of how important or useful they are is absolutely irrelevent to the question of deletion. Policy permits their existence, and there is absolutely no excuse or justification for their deletion. Zero. Nada. The sole goal of the sandbox is to see what happens when npov, rather than mob rule, is exercised over creationism pages. That is a VALID GOAL. And far from being a faction, there are currently 5 evolutionist members, and only one creationist member. Now go back to the mob on the main pages, and tell them they're doing a great job. Ungtss 19:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I didnt call it a faction, I called it a self-selected subgroup, which is exactly what it is. --Goethean 20:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The explicit goal of the "FACTS" pages is to create a permanent alternate group of articles. That is not a sandbox.
Strategies: The development of npov "alternative creationism articles" in the user namespace, which will serve as a model for npov on the main pages. --Goethean 20:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You really ought to finish the sentences you start reading. "..which will serve as a model for npov on the main pages." The goal is to figure out npov somewhere else ... to see what it looks like ... for the sole purpose of presenting an agreed-upon npov version on the main page. That's what a sandbox is, by definition, goethean. Ungtss 20:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to this definition. --Goethean 20:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. Sandboxes are places to explore the possibilities of page editing where the rules are not as strict, to allow for more efficient and effective editing of main pages. of course, in this case, the rules of NPOV will be ENFORCED, rather than let slide, as on the main pages. Ungtss 01:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right. So a sandbox is where you try out formatting and such so that you don't bog down the main pages. Not a fiefdom where you enforce your own version of NPOV, effectively giving yourself admin powers. Whatever. Have fun on your userpage.--Goethean 04:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
the point of these pages is the project -- achieving npov on these articles through involvement from everyone. it was put in a neutral space to attempt to maintain pov neutrality. "NO!" they screamed. "DON'T DO THAT! IT'S A SOCKPUPPET" (ignoring, of course, that sockpuppets make edits). so they asked me to put them in wikiproject, and i did. "HA HA!" they screamed. "You shouldn't do what we ask you to do!" I moved them to my user page. "Tee hee hee," they snickered, "Have fun on your userpage." Ungtss 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thats very dramatic, Ungtss, but all we did was discuss the best location for a page. Bensaccount 23:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And after recommending one change, you switched your argument to say that the change you had recommended was also impermissible. that's not discussion. that's bad faith screwing with people. Ungtss 14:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The word recommend does sound familiar. Maybe I used it towards the beginning of this discussion? Bensaccount 17:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Ungtss is not the first user to encounter difficulty in pursuit of NPOV, and this isn't the way to resolve it. Gazpacho 08:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe we should move this dicussion to WP:RFC, to get a larger part of the WP community to express their views on it. Mind you, I'm not asking for a personal RFC against anyone, I'm asking for a consensual opinion on whether the Wikiproject:FACTS is useful for WP. Radiant_* 11:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • What would be the point? I find this an interesting possibility. But as I look through the History of WP:RFC, I see no example where that process even began to address anything like the enormous problem that this VfD page buries. Can you give me a historical example that we could use as a "template" in thinking about your idea? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The point is that several people are shouting angry arguments at one another, and there are several processes of dealing with that involving the community (e.g. RfM, RfC, RfA). I've also seen some accusations of vandalistic POV-pushing. This is not something that VfD ordinarily deals with. RfC primarily gets things to the attention of the community (and that has precedent), which was my point. Radiant_* 12:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have an idea. If you will advise me and tell me what to do, I am willing to prepare whatever document would be needed for the WP:RFC process. However, when I look at the WP:RFC history, that WP:RFC page is just another forum for shouting angry arguments at one another. 8)) Am I right? WP:RFC is part of a dispute resolution process. Am I right? Now I can see a lot of value in getting disputants together in a place where they can shout angry arguments at one another--because it is better that most of the angry shouting be drained into one cesspool. In contrast, the important issue that this VfD page buries is a fundamental flaw in the Wikipedia rules. And the User:FACTS environment is only a System Development Environment (SDE) where "developers" who abide by the evolving SDE rules can work together in prototyping rules that actually produce NPOV pages on Creationism. NPOV pages on Creationism are obviously impossible in the MainSpace pages. What would you suggest? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


    • I would support that. Ungtss is essentially starting a mini-wiki on his userpages, with the explicit goal of replacing articles on the main pages. This is a big deal. It would be good to get the thoughts of a wider audience. --Goethean 00:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • RfC defeats the purpose here, friends. There is too much systemic bias for a "drive-by-vote" to hold any meaning. The project is an OPEN SANDBOX designed to experiment in a place where the egos aren't as hot, and where we can work FREE of systemic bias. Goethean has "essentially" redefined the project as "starting a mini-wiki" when all it is is an effort to develop procedures, rules, and ultimately npov articles in an environment free of the ideological free-for-all we have on the main pages. It does no harm. It's full of evolutionists. Why do maybe 25kb on the server outweigh the benefits of developing the project? Ungtss 14:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • all it is is an effort to develop procedures, rules, and ultimately npov articles in an environment free of the ideological free-for-all we have on the main pages. --Ungtss
        • I believe that you've just proven my point. That "ideological free-for-all" is better known as the normal state of affairs at Wikipedia. Now it's not just articles that you want to develop in a sanitized environment, but policies and procedures, as well! This project is now explicitly anti-wiki. --Goethean 15:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Another massive non-sequitur. Let's start with your assumption that wikipedia is at its heart an "ideological free-for-all." Wrongo. Wikipedia is supposed to operate according to the rules of npov. NPOV beats ideological-free-for-all just like paper beats rock -- every time. We have protection, arbitration, RfC for these purposes ... we have templates like this one:

{{subst:ltp|Twoversions|AlternativeArticleID}}

          • and we ALSO HAVE SANDBOXES. And THIS is a sandbox. And it is doing NO HARM. And it is EXPLICITLY for the purpose of furthering npov, as a workaround against systemic bias, which is a real and identifiable problem in an open system like wikipedia. but you, my friend want it deleted, because you're afraid of what npov looks like. Ungtss 15:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a parallel policy that can't be allowed. Ungtss, your behaivour will lead you into an arbitration sooner or longer. If you want to this such a proposal, do it in the Wikipedia:Village Pump --Neigel von Teighen 20:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • DuncHarris, an ADMIN, has joined the project. How is this "my behavior?" Ungtss 22:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute here, being relatively new to Wikipedia. However, it's beyond me why polite articulate explanations of Creationism, and some of its corollaries can't be articulated by Creationists and improved by other Creationists, so that we can all go somewhere to read their best construction of the world and understanding of the facts (facts too are made, en français = faire, to make, as in factory). You can't take the human and the bias utterly out of the process of facting. A lot more can be said about this, but the question of bias applies to all of us and all viewpoints, there are no facts without values impinging upon their selection and their ordering and their existence as mental units. So, if this present quarrel has anything to do with outlawing articles on Creationism by Creationists subject to contraints of politeness, articulateness, and improvement by increasing Creationist expertise: then we're just letting some other bias run roughshod over this particular bias with a smaller community of consensus. But, not knowing precisely what is the issue here, what section of Wiki is the proper place for the entries, why people seem to be stripping authority references from Creationist articles (appropriateness may require a fine line between an apologist's rant and a PhDbiologist's argument against evolution from one original simple lifeform on planet Earth, etc., and not knowing yet what a "Project" is, I would at this stage vote against deletion of the FACTS (whatever it is). Reformatikos

You, sir, have done a great deal to reestablish my faith in the human race:). Points all well made:). The goal of the project is simple -- to work on policies, procedures, and model pages that will represent creationism concisely, accurately, and in an npov fashion. the reason it is necessary is this: "due to the highly controversial and emotional nature of the topic, the main pages suffer from a great deal of ideological grandstanding, personal research, and outright vandalism by both sides, which makes high quality npov articles absolutely impossible under the current state of affairs. A number of individuals have realized that more detailed and articulated guidelines are necessary if this insanity is ever to end, and model pages can serve as sandboxes on which to develop those policies and see how they work, without being subject to the unending nonsense on the mainpages. Thanks for your consideration, and given your clearly very broad-minded outlook on the issues, I'd look forward to working with you on the project if you'd be willing. Ungtss 01:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let's see, someone who admits he or she has no clue what's going on shows up to give you support and this reestablishes your faith in the human race? What, your faith that some people are gullible and ill-informed enough to fall for your nonsense? Nobody disputes that NPOV would be good for the Creationism pages. What is in dispute is your claims to be trying for NPOV at all. You have consistently tried to -- not just slightly but severely -- skew the articles toward what you believe at the expense of all other opinions. When you finally lost out on these changes because other editors would no longer let you get away with it, and consensus clearly and firmly showed you that your way is not acceptable, you and some like-minded people decide to do a run-around the normal process and make your own rules so you can change articles as a political action committee. This is completely and totally against Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 02:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that mob rule is not a correct way to achieve consensus. The correct way to achieve consensus is to have something that approaches fact while not degenerating in to a weenie-war. I think User:172 had a lot of objections to the Wikipedia process when he left Wikipedia, and I think the fact that people very hostile to creationism are trying to, some extent, control the creationism-related pages shows a very distinct weakness in Wikipedia's process. And, oh, I really wish these discussions could be about content instead of about people. We're here to make a great encyclopedia, not to have yet another flame war. Samboy 08:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that it is highly biased to assume that the consensus that already has been reached is mere "mob rule" or that the facts that are int he articles aren't really facts just because you might disagree with them. I would agree that Wikipedia is here to make a great encyclopedia, but it's clear from the actions of Ungtss and other posters that they are only here to try to make a poor encyclopedia so that they can make a great set of pro-Creationism articles. DreamGuy 09:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

(ignoring flagrant personal attacks by dreamguy in order to take samboy's suggestion and focus on the article. Oh wait. there's nothing BUT personal attacks in his comments). i repeat. We need specific and identifiable rules so we can all look at the article, look at the rules, and say, "now THAT'S an article that follows the rules." Until then, your claims that i am biased are no better than my claims that you are biased. We need an objective standard to end this nonsense. Ungtss 14:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete-Merely a vehicle for pov pushing. "facts"?? hilarious. Yet another example of the 'lets call things the opposite of what they are' ruse.--Deglr6328 07:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is nothing "hilarious" about it. By any reasonable interpretation of NPOV, there would be facts about anything. Namely, the "facts" would be accurate and cited reports about what the various POVs are. Though you might have the best of intentions here, you are dead wrong in voting to suppress accurate reports of the facts.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That was pretty unconvincing.--Deglr6328 23:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Just facts, my friend. No convincing is necessary. Just facts. Supposedly, NPOV has no interest in being convincing. Have you actually read the NPOV policy? Where did you see anything about "convincing" in the NPOV policy? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- I fail to see why creationists think they cannot edit creationist articles in Wikipedia proper. Joshuaschroeder 14:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please note that this is joshuaschroeder's second vote to delete on this page. in answer to his question, please have a look at his rfc. Ungtss 14:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is par for the course with such a dishonest user as Schroeder. He is always bullying creationists. 138.130.201.204 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep138.130.201.204 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Anonymous users cannot vote in polls.--Deglr6328 04:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. According to wikipedia policy, "their votes may be discounted, especially if they appear to be made in bad faith. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion. a quick glance at 138's edit history shows that there's no bad faith. he's a full-out wikipedia editor with hundreds of edits who, for some reason, has chosen not to get a username. There is no wikipedia policy requiring that users get usernames, nor requiring that their votes be disregarded in VfD's. The choice is up to the admin who tallies the votes. Reality, please, Dglr. Let's have a little reality. Thank you. Ungtss 04:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If I felt like arguing the point I'd say that bad faith describes quite a few of his edits, especially from previous ip's. It's not really worth debating in this trivial situation though.--Deglr6328 05:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FACTS&oldid=1080166440"