Talk:TalkOrigins Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section seems mildly reasonable, so I am going to restore the edits, with some minor modifications. JoshuaZ 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would be good to source this criticism, possibly from AiG? JoshuaZ 23:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Yuk, may I ask why you prefer just the segment of the quote? JoshuaZ 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just to clarify this 1 man conversation ;). "Criticism" from creationists tends to come in the form of "it's run by rabid atheist evilutionists as part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy™, and you shouldn't read it because it'll convert you to the dark side...". The peer-review problem applies to most of the Internet (including Wikipedia). The Archive is peer-reviewed by people who do have the requisite knowledge and qualifications in science and the creationist community. It's just not a formal process, but its usefulness can be seen in the awards that it's won. It's also a very dumb criticism since no creationist works can count as peer-reviewed. — Dunc|☺ 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, some creationists are so afraid of this page, that they'll try to prevent others from seeing it. One fellow we all know has used typosquatting to divert traffic from it and to his own domain. Simply type the Talk Origins Archive URL without the "s" and you'll see what I mean. Mind the pop-ups and ads... - WarriorScribe 17:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all of this is true, it is a laughable criticism. That doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty common criticism of talkorigins.org by the creationists(common enough that is answered in talkorigins intro FAQ), and therefore it is highly reasonable to include. JoshuaZ 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good God! i just tried the 'talkorigin.org' link out of interest. I should have guessed who it would be. --Davril2020 09:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Any comments on why this article should not be nominated for deletion per wikipedia policy (Articles_for_deletion) that states "Internet communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable" 24* 02:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article, the archive is not an internet communty or a message board but a website that is loosely affiliated with the usenet group talk.origins. The relevant criteria therefore are listed under WP:WEB. The awards section of this article shows that the Archive meets WP:WEB pretty easily. JoshuaZ 02:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think differently, you are of course welcome to nominate it for deletion. JoshuaZ 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been nominated for deletion a number of times, all of them spurious. It would be useful if next time the nomination was allowed to proceed, so that we can keep the archived discussion to avoid further nominations. --Davril2020 20:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Actually I think all of them are somewhat my fault. At least two of the prior spurious AfDs(I'm not sure how many there have been) have been revenge AfDs after I've AfDed an article that someone wanted to stay. Presumably that's because I created this article. JoshuaZ 21:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

As I understand it TalkOrigins is a secondary source summarising primary literature in response to various claims. Hence it does not create original research of its own. Am I mistaken? If not I will edit the criticisms section since it is unfair to compare it to a scientific journal if that is the case. --Davril2020 21:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression is accurate. JoshuaZ 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited paragraph[edit]

The following paragraph makes several claims, so a citation is necessary. Anyone have one?

"The Archive engages in something of an informal peer review by refusing to publish badly written, badly sourced, or unsupported articles, and it should be noted that many of the participants in the newsgroup, as well as the Archive, are practicing scientists. Many scientific organizations recommend the site, and its contents have been incorporated into many college courses and textbooks. This attests to the veracity of the information at the site and a generalized attitude toward its contents by the members of the conventional science community. However, the Archive publishes no original research and focuses instead upon deploying information in scientific journals to counter criticisms of evolution. It is not in the format of a scientific journal and the peer review method of these journals may well be inappropriate for such a secondary source."

Until that time, I removed it. --Hugo the Hippo 08:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practicing scientists include Larry Moran, Bill Jefferys, Douglas Theobald, Andrew MacRae, Ian Musgrave, Chris Nedin, Tim Thompson, and me. It isn't like this information is hidden or unverifiable. If one expands the net to include academics in general, there would be several more people to add from computer science, philosophy, and other disciplines. The many scientific organizations recommending the site are listed on the awards page, most with links to where the recommendation is made. I've added the awards page link to the separate complaint made about the college courses, which it also answers. Wesley R. Elsberry 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited sentence[edit]

The following sentence is uncited.

"The Archive has also been used in multiple college level textbooks and had material from the archive incorporated into over 20 college or university courses."

Does anyone have a citation for this? For the time being, I removed it. --Hugo the Hippo 08:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the various online course descriptions can be seen here. Wesley R. Elsberry 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that link, it lists not a single textbook which uses the Archive (in the text) as a reference or in any other significant way. There is one which includes it in the text as recommended browsing for students. I'm editing the statement to reflect this discrepancy. The Jade Knight 17:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to creationist site[edit]

I don't see how this is a relevant External link. Yes, it's an anti-evolution site. Yes, it appears to be named after TalkOrigins. But the link is to the website as a whole, not to any content which specifically addresses TalkOrigins. How is this link helpful to someone reading the article? Guettarda 18:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The website is largely (and primarily) a rebuttal of TalkOrigins (as the introductory page makes quite clear). Is is the primary (and most scientific) source of criticism for the TalkOrigins Archive, and contains many extensive correspondances with TalkOrigins members throughout. It is quite pertinant. The Jade Knight 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is rebuttal, link to it. As for "science"...again, can you show me some? I see lots of personal essays, but almost no links to the scientific literature. I think "pseudoscientific" is a better term. Guettarda 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my point - the fact that they have anti-evolution articles, some of which specifically address articles at TalkOrigins doesn't make them a useful link. There are dozens of equally low-quality anti-science websites out there. This one happens to be named after TalkOrigins. However, it's an anti-evolution website, not an anti-TalkOrigins Archive website. It's just linkspam. Guettarda 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not scientific for sure, but it is dedicated to going after TO in particular. It attempts (albeit badly) to mimic its style and offers specific rebuttals to TO articles. I have mixed feelings towards its inclusion but I can see why it is there. --Davril2020 20:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Davril unfortunately. The website is named after the Archive, the first thing on their homepage is their stated primary purpose of rebutting the Archive. I'm inclined therefore to include it. The only possible reason not to include it is the argument that they are so non-notable that they shouldn't be linked by the Wiki. I'd be willing to hear an argument to that effect. JoshuaZ 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the argument is not just the non-notability, but rather that this article does not take a stance one way or t'other regarding creationism. However, True Origins is clearly a pro-creationist site that disputes the content of TalkOrigins, thus linking it here is both irrelevant and gratuitous annd serves merely as an example of procreation of the pro-creation viewpoint. •Jim62sch• 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; it is primarily focused on writing responses to TalkOrigins; many of its articles clearly state that they are rebuttals. It logs many conversations with the authors at TalkOrigins that are not found elsewhere concerning the topics covered by TalkOrigins. It clearly is anti-Evolutionist, but TalkOrigins is unquestionably Evolutionist, and as TrueOrigin is heavily focused on criticising TalkOrigins, this largely is to be expected (and hardly grounds for exclusion). Furthermore, I have run across a few courses that reference TrueOrigin (as an opposing viewpoint site); while including such in an article would be original research, it does help provide notability for TrueOrigin (just as it does for TalkOrigins). The Jade Knight 05:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jade, it might help matters if you didn't use the term "evolutionist." But beyond that I basically agree. Jim, as to your comment, it isn't relevant whether or not this article takes a stance, what is relevant really is IMO whether the link is strongly connected to talkorigins, and I would see it as being so. (As I said earlier, I'm not entirely convinced it is notable enough to be linked, but thats a separate issue). JoshuaZ 05:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my use of the term offends; I am not used to mincing words, but I apologize if I've offended anyone. My point is that the website concerns itself primarily with TalkOrigins and is thus relevant. The Jade Knight 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mincing words"? Evolutionist is used by creationists as a derogatory term for people whose acceptance of evolution is based on "faith". Your choice of in-group coded insults isn't a matter of "not mincing words" - it's called POV-pushing. Your insistence on using such terminology, and your subtle insertion of inaccuracies shows your intention of using this page for advocacy. Please desist. Guettarda 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for using offensive language; is "creationist" considered a neutral term where "evolutionist" was not? I had seen the two as equivalent in terms of neutrality. My apologies. I disagree with your comment that I have introduced inaccuracies; I have explained myself quite clearly and await elucidation to the contrary. The Jade Knight 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's not really connected with t.o, just standard creationist apologetics, and not very well done compared to some creationist sites. — Dunc|☺ 09:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh and Jade: Obviously, Dunc, Guettarda and I think otherwise. In fact, this statement by Jade, proves my point that the link is irrelevant: "Disagree; it is primarily focused on writing responses to TalkOrigins" (emphasis added). Thus, if perhaps this article were about the position of Talk origins and referred to various TO articles that were written to debunk creationism or ID, etc., it might belong (although I doubt that it is a notable site). However, as it is not, the link is merely an effort to promote a specific POV. •Jim62sch• 11:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're arguing that the article doesn't talk about the content or position of Talk Origins at all? Let me provide a few quotes:
a popular web site that presents mainstream science perspectives on the antievolution claims of young-earth, old-earth, and "intelligent design" creationists. With sections on evolution, creationism, and hominid evolution, the web site provides broad coverage of evolutionary biology and the socio-political antievolution movement.
The FAQs and FRAs (frequently rebutted assertions) on the TalkOrigins Archive cover a wide range of topics associated with evolutionary biology and creationism. These include Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims, a list of creationist positions on various issues, rebuttals, and links to primary source material
"While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves."
This attests to the veracity of the information at the site and a generalized attitude toward its contents by the members of the conventional science community. However, the Archive publishes no original research and focuses instead upon deploying information in scientific journals to counter criticisms of evolution.
Clearly, the article discusses the contents of the TalkOrigins Archive, and as TrueOrigin specifically and explicitly is largely a critism of TalkOrigins (criticizing "the veracity of the information at the site"), it is quite pertinent to the article at hand. Moreover, this article does include an evaluation of the veracity of TalkOrigins, as the in-article quotes make clear.
ALSO: The other changes I made are ones of accuracy; the TalkOrigins website lists only one textbook that actually includes a reference to TalkOrigins (per my statement in the section above). As such, a full revert is absolutely not warranted, regardless of whether or not the link is relevant (and I am still of the opinion that it is). The Jade Knight 17:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the description for the TrueOrigin entry. This is not its article. I would think that even "a site that is critical of the TalkOrigins Archive" would be sufficient for the description. Beyond that, the use of the "evolutionists" label simply didn't do anything beyond spreading antievolution jargon. Wesley R. Elsberry 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself uses the term "creationist" (in fact, many of you use the term); how is this different from "evolutionist"? Moreover, terms like "mentalist" and "behaviorist" are common in Psychology to refer to groups who take specific stances or adhere to certain theories. Why is "evolutionist" so different? Forgive me if I appear uncouth; I had never heard that "evolutionist" was an offensive word before, and am honestly quite surprised (particularly since many of you use the "creationist" label). The Jade Knight 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a creationist in the sense of being a believer in creation. I'm a zoologist and wildlife biologist by training and research focus. An "evolutionist", though, should refer to someone practicing in the field of evolutionary biology. The use of the term "evolutionist" to connote a diametric opposition to creationism is just plain wrong. I'm a strong advocate of science education that includes evolutionary biology. I am not an opponent of creation in the broad sense, and I would object to any phrasing that would further the inappropriate stereotype that the original phrasing asserted. Wesley R. Elsberry 00:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, I took the more broad interpretation of evolutionist to mean simply "someone who supports or believes in the theory of (macro)evolution." I do not see this as being diametrically opposed to Creationism; by my own interpretation, I know a few people who are both Creationist and Evolutionist. My question was, if "evolutionist" is an offensive term when used as "one who believes in or agreed with the theory of macroevolution", why is "creationist" not when used as "one who believes that the world, and at least some of the life in it, was created by a higher power"? Moreover, I do not particularly care for the usage of some of the other editors here that "creationism" should necessarily be diametrically opposed to "evolutionism"; that is to say "creationist" should not automatically imply "anti-evolutionist" as it seems to for several here. For what it's worth, the term "evolutionist", in fact is around 150 years old, and was used by Darwin himself in The Origin of the Species: "It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a marsupial form." [vii. (1873) 189] His usage would seem to parallel my own. The Jade Knight 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest re-reading the passages where Darwin deploys "evolutionists" as a term. In each case, he is referring to practicing naturalists, not the general class of people who might agree with his arguments. In other words, no, Darwin's usage does not parallel yours, but provides examples of the usage that I discussed. Consider even a fuller quote than the one provided above: The mammary glands are common to the whole class of mammals, and are indispensable for their existence; they must, therefore, have been developed at an extremely remote period, and we can know nothing positively about their manner of development. Mr. Mivart asks: "Is it conceivable that the young of any animal was ever saved from destruction by accidentally sucking a drop of scarcely nutritious fluid from an accidentally hypertrophied cutaneous gland of its mother? And even if one was so, what chance was there of the perpetuation of such a variation?" But the case is not here put fairly. It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a marsupial form; and if so, the mammary glands will have been at first developed within the marsupial sack. In the case of the fish (Hippocampus) the eggs are hatched, and the young are reared for a time, within a sack of this nature; and an American naturalist, Mr. Lockwood, believes from what he has seen of the development of the young, that they are nourished by a secretion from the cutaneous glands of the sack. The discussion is not about arm-chair readers of books and their attitudes, but rather of people engaged in informed and topical discussion in the relevant literature. The very best construction that you might put on the usage in the passage is that it might not be read as being completely contradictory of your position, but it certainly lends no positive support for your position. The TalkOrigins Archive, BTW, provides a definition for "evolutionist" : Evolutionist * (n) 1. One who is active in research of one or more EMTs, or who applies one or more EMTs in their research or occupation. [den., science] 2. Anyone supportive of or in agreement with one or more EMTs. [conn., laypeople] 3. Uniformitarian BS artist. [conn., Ted Holden] 4. One who derides others' beliefs and is rude. [conn., Joe Morlan, added by request][1]. Unsurprisingly, it agrees with me. It should, I wrote it back around 1994. As for distinguishing nuances in the uses of the terms, the TOA Jargon file does a good job of this, IMNSHO. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 09:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the link that Jade added does not address t.o a. It's an anti-evolution site. If the point is that it "rebuts" t.o a - that just makes it one of many creationist sites which claim to rebut science. The simple fact that it is named after t.o is irrelevant. Should be add links to anti-science sites on all science-related publications? Obviously not.

As for "contents" issue, Jade misunderstands the point. This article is not about the contents - it doesn't present the arguments for evolution, it doesn't rebut creationist arguments. Consequently, putting a link to a site which seeks to rebut the arguments for evolution and which seeks to rebut the rebuttals of the rebuttals of creationist arguments doesn't belong here because this argument isn't about those things.

As for the other change you talk about - your change was highly misleading. Stop trying to insert yor POV into the article. Guettarda 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles specifically address and respond to specific TalkOrigins articles. It's not just a generic anti-evolution site, though it clearly is an anti-evolution site (TalkOrigins is clearly a pro-evolution site, and TrueOrigins takes a contrary position). I have not introduced anti-evolutionist arguments into the article. Just as the TalkOrigins link contains anti-creationist viewpoints, so the TrueOrigins link contains anti-evolution viewpoints. That the article itself contains no such arguments is a straw man.
My change concerning textbooks is not remotely misleading (on the contrary, it makes the text more accurate). If you look at the link it cites, it is quite clear that, not including websites (which are not textbooks), only one textbook mentions TalkOrigins, and then it is only on a list of links. Please check citations before arguing with me about them and crying POV. The Jade Knight 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To try to clarify this a little more - suppose McKitrick had posted his criticism[2] of Mann's "hockey stick" and Nature's rejection of his rebuttal at a website called "True Nature", would that mean that the website would have to be linked to the article on Nature? Posting this link here is equally irrelevant. Guettarda 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a notable website called "True Nature" containing primarily attacks on Nature articles, it would probably merit inclusion as a link, or possibly even mention within the article somewhere; since it would be primarily focused on Nature, and not limited to only one aspect of the magazine, it would be relevant. A rebuttal of Mann's "hockey stick" would perhaps be more suited to an article on, naturally, Mann's "hockey stick", as its scope is much more limited than Nature magazine in general. Your example is thus an issue of scope, not of general relevancy, per se (though scope is arguably one aspect of relevancy; I haven't heard anyone here argue that the TrueOrigins site is too limited in scope to merit inclusion, however). The Jade Knight 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that every article about a publication needs links to a site the rebuts the contents of their articles? So you are saying that we should we link Doubleday to Crisis Magazine since it has an article Dismantling the Da Vinci Code? I find the idea ridiculous. Guettarda 10:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the issue of scope, not scope, but notability. If you feel the need for an attack site, why pick this relatively obscure one, and not a more notable one? IMO this is a non-issue, because the presence of an anti-evolution link is irrelevant. Guettarda 11:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are building straw men. That is not at all what I'm suggesting, if you will please read my words. I think that if there is a notable criticism of a publication which includes material unavailable in the article or at any websites currently linked to, it should merit inclusion. Please stop building up straw men to attack, and try to understand what I'm saying. A great many articles on Wikipedia link to critical sites. Why should TalkOrigins be exempt from this?
I don't feel a need for an "attack site". If you can think of a website that is as particularly focused on TalkOrigins as TrueOrigin is (and which contains numerous dialogues with TalkOrigins authors as TrueOrigins does), but is more notable, I would support such a choice. If one is perhaps more notable, but lacks much of the content relevant to TalkOrigins that TrueOrigin has, it might be the better candidate (or, indeed, we could include both, if we feel the other merits inclusion). The Jade Knight 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection the issue of notability is a strong one. I've deleted the true origins link from the talk.origins page as well. --Davril2020 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, let's discuss the issue of notability. Clearly, the TrueOrigins website has material relevant to TalkOrigins that I am not sure can be found elsewhere on a more notable site. If you know of one that is more relevant, please propose it so that it may be discussed and the article can be improved and contain more points of view. Wikipedia, however, is not a place to censor viewpoints you happen to disagree with. I will reiterate that the website in question has material that (to my knowledge, but I will gladly accept more notable substitutions that fit better) cannot be found in the article itself or at any link currently included, and is thus relevant, pertinent, and helpful. I will gladly await further discussion on the matter.
AND I WILL REITERATE QUITE CLEARLY, AS I HAVE DISCUSSED IN SEVERAL PLACES HERE, MY CHANGES REGARDING TEXTBOOKS REFLECT EXACTLY WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE LINK CITED. PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE TEXT TO SUPPORT AN INACCURACY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH YOUR POV! The Jade Knight 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for others to address the issue of finding a more notable site as I have mentioned above. The Jade Knight 18:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, they don't reflect what the link says. Don't make misleading edits and then accuse others of POV-pushing. It's really bad form, given your history of POV-pushing here. Guettarda 04:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no such history; I have discussed one link and one other change the article. I have discussed the change regarding the textbooks several places. Let me spell it out for you (this is copied and pasted from the link itself):
Science Textbooks that Use the Archive
  • Introductory Plant Biology, 8th edition, by Kingsley Stern, McGraw Hill, 2001. TO Archive recommended first in student web resources. [emphasis added]
  • The web page for Evolutionary Analysis, by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, Prentice-Hall, 2001
  • The author's website for Biology: The Living Science, by Ken Miller and Joe Levine, Prentice-Hall, 2001.
(yes, that's the entire list. Check for yourself)
Two of those are websites, not textbooks. In the other one, TalkOrigins is simply listed in a list of student resources. That is what I call "mentioned in" (rather than "used in", which implies to me that it was a used as a source).
Please be so kind, now, to tell me how my edits regarding the textbooks are "POV-pushing", "misleading", and "bad form", and, of course, most importantly, how they fail to reflect what the link says (and is shown above). I'd appreciate it. The Jade Knight 05:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the concept of a textbook - the associated CD and webpage is integral to modern textbooks - in fact, publishers will place whole chapters on textbook website sometimes. The material is used in the textbooks. Yes, used. "Mentioned" is misleading - either unintentionally so, because you don't understand how textbooks are written, published and used these days, or intentionally so. Either way, your insertion is misleading. Guettarda 15:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webster on textbook: "a book used in the study of a subject"
OED on textbook: "A book used as a standard work for the study of a particular subject; now usually one written specially for this purpose; a manual of instruction in any science or branch of study, esp. a work recognized as an authority"
I think "textbook" has at its core the word "book". "Course materials", which may involve websites, CD-ROMs, handouts, and other such materials, are indeed course materials, but they are not textbooks'. If one had materials on an audio CD required for a language class, no one in normal usage would refer to the CD as "a textbook", though they might well refer to it as "the textbook's CD" if it were associated with a book. I have just provided two citations on how my usage of textbook is correct, and what I believe is another self-evident example of how yours is not. Please respond and explain how your position is not simple "POV-pushing" (to use your term). The Jade Knight 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. CD-ROMs, DVDs and paid-for websites are fully integrated into textbooks in modern teaching. It is quite inappropriate to refer only to a physical book as a textbook and this has been the case for a number of years now. In modern evolutionary biology texts, cds are vital for providing in-depth visual analysis of the subject matter in hand. One simply cannot subtract the cd from the book. Both are equal parts. --Davril2020 18:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your original research on the subject? While I know we all fancy ourselves experts here, I think it might be helpful if you could provide an authoritative dictionary that supports your opinion. I have provided two. The Jade Knight 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that one of the most common reverted changes to the article is to put some antievolution site or the other in, perhaps in the article under "Features" where it says, "an extensive list of links to websites on both evolutionary biology and creationism" we could simply put in the links to those lists of links? I.e.,

an extensive list of links to websites on both evolutionary biology and creationism

With that, attempts to highlight some specific non-notable or irrelevant antievolution site could be rebuffed with the note that pretty much every such site known is already in the resource conveniently linked in the article. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to that. JoshuaZ 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text Book Phrasing[edit]

Can we get a consensus about the textbook phrasing please? Quoting from the Archive's award page "Science Textbooks that Use the Archive" Could we just use their wording and say "use"? JoshuaZ 05:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it would be misleading (or ambiguous) to the reader. We should include language that is as accurate as possible. If you prefer, we could say "The TalkOrigins Archive is mentioned at the top of a list of links of student resources in a single textbook, and is mentioned on websites associated with two others." However, I thought my version was less wordy (and still accurate). The Jade Knight 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's best, since in at least one of the cases, the textbook Evolutionary Analysis, the book was intended to be used hand in hand with the website, so saying it was mentioned on the website is a slight downplaying of it. I really don't mind the wording much though since the Archive has so many distinctions anyways. JoshuaZ 14:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously "use" is the only accurate term. It doesn't say "quoted", it doesn't say "borrows text from". "Used" is accurate, and it's the wording used by the source. "Mentioned in one" is unacceptable because (a) it seeks to create an impression which is other than what the facts are, and (b) because it deviates from the source and replaces it with the interpretation of an editor (=OR). Guettarda 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While that agrees nicely with your POV, you have yet to demonstrate how my phrasing is other than "what the facts are" (lofty language, but please support it with evidence), or how it "deviates from the source" (see previous comment. The Jade Knight 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that one textbook website does actually use an article from Talk.Origins. Let me suggest something better, therefore: "The TalkOrigins Archive is mentioned at the top of a list of links of student resources in one textbook, is used on a website associated with one other, and was also included on the author of another textbook's web page." Is that better? One of the websites Talk.Origins was "used" on no longer exists (check the link), and was simply an author's website. The Jade Knight 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the more I think about this, the more Jade seems to be making a possibly reasonable point. "use" is an ambiguous word and the use of the Archive in the various examples is slightly incidental. JoshuaZ 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the listed textbooks in question. Introductory Plant biology deals with the archive in the main body of its text, and the other two textbooks deal with TO in a post-chapter summary where they explain the TO archive and suggest people use it for further information. The Talk Origin archive is mentioned specifically in all three cases in the print versions. --Davril2020 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does 'referenced' sound? --Davril2020 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an excellent compromise. JoshuaZ 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure... "referenced" = "used as a source", while I get the impression that it was used as a resource, rather than a source. (Note: all of these are variants on the word "used"). Guettarda 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind providing page numbers for the rest of us? I'm curious why TalkOrigins own website doesn't state that the site is listed in the texts of the other two (as it does for one). Perhaps someone here should approach the webmaster on that.The Jade Knight 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Wikipedia is not a place for original research, this may become particularly important for verifiability. The Jade Knight 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't written down the page details since I assumed it would not be necessary. I will be back at this particular departmental library either next week or the week after and I will get them then. --Davril2020 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better than that; citations are very important in an encyclopedia. Anyway, get the references when it is convenient; it might even be good to include them as references in the article itself (rather than the link), as the website cited is certainly misleading on the matter. The Jade Knight 18:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media Notice[edit]

"An industry has grown up around the “science” supporting the “argument for intelligent design.” It refuses the possibility that evolution itself is the most elegant and plausible argument for those who wish to believe in intelligent design. If you are interested, you might want to go to www.talkorigins.org, where the errors of creationist science are patiently explained. And you might want to ask at your local IMAX theater why they allow a few of their customers to make decisions for all of the rest."

-- Wesley R. Elsberry 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • TOA listed as a resource on the "Evolutionary Ecology" page of Google.com.
  • TOA listed as an interesting website on "The Littlest Human" article at Science.

--Wesley R. Elsberry 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WEB SITE OF THE WEEK

11:09 AM CDT on Saturday, October 7, 2006

www.talkorigins.org

This long-running site argues against creationism and other literal interpretations of Scripture. The scientific resources are exhaustive and easily searchable, and cover topics such as Earth's age, flood geology and catastrophes. The FAQs – a good starting place for new readers – provide brief answers and relevant links to complex questions. The site stresses mainstream science and doesn't post any articles supporting creationism, though there is a lengthy list of anti-evolution links. Feedback from the past decade is available, much of it questioning and challenging the site's content.

Tyra Damm

--Wesley R. Elsberry 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Notice[edit]

That takes me through page 21 of Google's "backward links" function for www.talkorigins.org. Please feel free to pick up there and add more items to this and the "Media Notice" section.

--Wesley R. Elsberry 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Origins and Deception by Omission[edit]

I think the article entitled Talk Origins: Deception by Omission should be added to the links section. 136.183.146.158 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...an article that attacks TO for using the standard scientific definition of evolution? I think the deception here is on the part of the author of the article to which you linked. Guettarda 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then we'd add the link to the TOA reply and so on and so forth, until we've incorporated every byte of content from TOA and every site that criticizes something on it. --Wesley R. Elsberry 07:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google problems[edit]

For unspecified reasons google has delisted TalkOrigins Archive. I can only find blog entries about it at present, so I would be reluctant to write anything yet. Jefffire 11:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TOA got cracked on 11/18. Matt Cutts at Google says that Google attempted to send a warning email, but their guesses as to email accounts didn't match our actual working aliases. I found out that the site was de-indexed on 12/01, found the problem, fixed it, and got the reinclusion request submitted. I also posted a note about it on Google's Webmaster Help group on 12/01, where a Google employee noted that reinclusion could take two weeks or more. I also blogged about it on my personal site on 12/03. That got noticed by TOA Director John Wilkins, a ScienceBlogger, and subsequently got Slashdotted. Apparently, I'm nowhere near the favorite flavor of many SlashDot denizens. Matt Cutts posted his account on 12/04 of how Google acted when the problem at the TOA was noticed, including trying to send a warning email. Cutts says that TOA is cleared for re-indexing in 24-48 hours. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significance of the delisting exactly, and how common is it? I don't understand how or why this is notable now that it has been relisted. --Davril2020 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Google thing. It doesn't seem that notable to me (although Slashdot picked it up). JoshuaZ 15:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've now read the blog entry by Wesley R. Elsberry and as I understand it the site got hacked and then used to spam other sites? That's fairly common so no I can't imagine that it's notable in this context. Perhaps in the context of an article on cracking/hijacking sites as a prominent victim. --Davril2020 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog was recently delisted too [3], which sent his pet trolls into overdrive [4]. The King of Spain's beard 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cracker is still active, despite our steps taken to secure the site. By what has been altered recently, I have to revise my thought that this was part of some generic effort to exploit search engines by cracking high-traffic sites. The cracker is specifically interested in getting the TOA de-indexed on Google. --Wesley R. Elsberry 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter does seem to be getting more attention. See for example [5]. However, right now, everyone is focusing on it because of the google element and not really related to the Archive so I'm not convinced for now that the matter is notable enough for Wikipedia at this point in time. JoshuaZ 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not urging inclusion in the main article. I'm just letting people know what is up, since the question was posed. I completely deleted the TOA for a time this evening, then restored from a (hopefully) pre-cracker backup with all server scripted pages removed. So RSS, feedback, what's new, suggest a link, error pages, etc. are all busted. A plain HTML "what's new" page has been uploaded in place of the PHP page. At the moment, we're serving our mass of content, we are still in the Google index, and things could be far worse than they are. It's bad enough, sure, but it certainly could have been worse. --Wesley R. Elsberry 07:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is having an effect upon the content of the article. We don't currently have a feedback system going, and won't until we can write a secure version of the scripts. --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do now have a means of handling feedback with public display, via a forum on the AntiEvolution.org bulletin board. --Wesley R. Elsberry 09:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Under "Awards", someone added a "specify" tag to the BioMedNet entry. The link is here, though I'm not sure what the status of the page might be. archive.org has bmn.org pages going back to 1998 or so. --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Sites[edit]

The TalkOrigins Archive is affiliated with several other websites, as indicated in the text of the article. Someone removed the TalkDesign.org link from the "External Links" section. I think that the link was appropriate and should not have been removed. I'd ask one of the editors here to consider restoring it, or if that is not the correct way of noting it, to consider putting the link as a reference concerning the mention of the TalkDesign site in the body of the article. --Wesley R. Elsberry 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


October 2006+[edit]

Does anyone know what happened in October 2006? The Feedback and PotM sections at the site stop there. Ashmoo 12:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look just above at the "Google Problems" section. --Wesley R. Elsberry 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now January 2008, and the situation hasn't been resolved. Is it safe to assume that it's never going to be? If so, the article text needs updating - something along the lines of "Until October 2006, the archive maintained a feedback system, involving the posting of a monthly compilation of reader comments and responses to them, together with a "Post of the Month" from the newsgroup. However, the site was hacked on 18th November 2006, as a result of which these features were removed." Tevildo (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of domain name[edit]

The TOA is temporarily shifted to a different domain name: toarchive.org. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original site still seems to be down, and the link above no longer works. Any news? --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed all the links to the new domain, since it works. This is the first time I've ever used the site, and there are presumably many others like me that will visit from the many evolution articles here, so use whatever works. --Armchair info guy (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I used AWB to change 100+ more pages to toarchive.org since talkorigins.org is still down and has been so for over a month. -Armchair info guy (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talkorigins.org is once again operational and pointing to the Archive's pages. I did say that the problem was temporary. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried it and it's still down. But the reason I'm writing is to thank you for overseeing TO, Wesley. I've recently been studying evolution a good bit, and from the many refs to TO here at wikipedia I've found it to be one of the best resources out there. That's why I changed all the links to the working mirror, so others like me could benefit from it. A month of downtime is a whole lot of missed opportunities when the Evolution article alone gets several thousand pageviews a day. -Armchair info guy (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a discussion seems to have been started simultaneously at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Kitzmas and a Happy Darwin200! See Darwin's Rhea#Discovery for the story.

Wesley, are both links going to keep working or is it imperative to change them back? Anyway, the backup was invaluable while the problem persisted. Happy Darwin200! . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We borrowed Douglas Theobald's "toarchive.org" domain in the interim. I'll talk to him about whether we can arrange to have that as a permanent second domain name. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the foreseeable future, both talkorigins.org and toarchive.org will point to the pages of the Archive. Because of search engine optimization, "talkorigins.org" should be preferred for linking. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for True.Origin Archive[edit]

FYI, True.Origin Archive has been recreated again (after being a redirect for more than a year. If you are interested, you can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True.Origin Archive. HrafnTalkStalk 17:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Quote mining[edit]

We have an editor attempting to remove all examples from Quote mining on specious grounds, including the claim that TOA is not a WP:RS. If any regulars here are interested in putting them styraight, it'd be appreciated. HrafnTalkStalk 18:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TalkOrigins website defunct?[edit]

It appears the website is defunct or has moved. Does anyone know the story and can they update the page to reflect what happened? 199.106.103.57 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're a bureaucracy, he's the "formal" discussion area for the merger and all things related. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have a WP:TROUT and get a bleeding clue. WP:MERGE makes it perfectly clear that merge proposals require DISCUSSION. And you STILL have failed to EVEN ATTEMPT to discuss it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: as Headbomb has failed to offer any reason or argument for the merger, and it appears to fail all the standard reasons in WP:MERGE#Rationale. Therefore move for immediate close as a malformed proposal (for failure to offer any, let alone any valid, reason or argument for the merger). (If we feel we are forced to allow such malformed proposals to continue, we'll soon have idiots proposing mergers between Evolution and William Shakespeare and the like, and demanding that these proposals be allowed to continue.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're really dense are you? Read up your beloved WP:MERGE yourself, "overlap" section. talk.origin and TalkOrigins Archive do not warrant separate articles. One's the newsgroup and the other is the archive of the newsgroup. FFS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so "dense" as to fall victim to the genetic fallacy and assume that just because one topic originally derived from another that they are (anything close to) identical. Nor am I so "dense" as to fail to notice that the content of the two articles don't in fact overlap heavily (the shared content would appear to be a single, short paragraph). "One's the newsgroup and the other is the archive of the newsgroup." WRONG! ...the latter started life as an archive of (FAQS and other high-quality content of) the former -- it has since taken on a life of its own, archived relevant material from other sources, had a foundation set up to support it, had a book of its Index to Creationist Claims published, is widely praised and cited. I would suggest that you attempt to understand topics before attempting to have them merged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so bad blood and recrimination aside, what's the rationale for the merger? Or against it. I have not made up my mind. Guettarda (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That, their names aside, there is no duplication, insufficient overlap, little need for either to provide context to the other, and sufficient text in both, that there is no reason to merge them. One was a fairly noteworthy usenet group, back in the early days of the internet when usenet meant something. The other is a fairly widely used and cited website repository of rebuttals of creationist claims. That the latter started life as a FAQ-archive of the former does not mean that it cannot outgrow and transcend its roots. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's pretty much what I thought. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rationale is that content is pretty much duplicated and strongly overlaps. Its more efficient to treat both in the same article, IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, then I've go to oppose the merger because (a) they are distinct entities, and (b) I see no real overlap between the two articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The fact that two distinct subjects are related isn't a reason to merge. They both stand on their own well enough. On the other hand, merging would do no harm, since each article is reasonably short. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While each article is small and unlikely to ever be of major significance, the two topics are distinct. Like many other pairs of articles, there is a connection between the topics, but that is not sufficient reason to merge them. The management and method of the two topics are entirely different. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Whilst the two institutions (the usenet group and the archive) have some similar content they are independent institutions as discussed above. That one emerged from the other is no justification for merging the seperate articles. Or do we merge the articles on Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Babakathy (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been no further discussion in 12 days, and there appears to be a solid (all-but unanimous) consensus against merger. Does anybody object to this discussion being closed as 'no merge'? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue and promotional content[edit]

Well, I was hoping that my edits would be upheld, but I figured there was a pretty good chance someone would revert them, so here we are on the talk page. I removed a bit of content from the article because I thought it was self-evidently undue and puffery, but I guess not. Is it really notable that a few websites have linked to this website? Are we going to start listing every site that has ever linked to Flickr, Google, and Facebook? This is absolutely unnecessary, and it contributes nothing to the article. To place this alongside actual awards is undue. Second, the Features section not only violates the MOS, it obsesses over minutiae, such as individual FAQs hosted on the site, sister projects (which are outside the scope of this article), etc. Yes, it's a good website, and I like it. That doesn't mean that it gets a complete pass on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert you completely. The bit I replaced alongside rewards names significant institutions. I thought the bit I replaced in features gave a more rounded picture of what it is then just "cover a wide range of topics", and personally I would have removed the bit about feedback and was tempted to remove it but left it in only because you did. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that I come across a bit more strident than I intended, and if I rewrote that post now, it'd be a bit more mellow. But I still think much of the content is undue. It is trivially commonplace for people to recommend websites. It would be better to use these sources to describe the site in Features. That would give us some idea of how much attention to put on individual aspects. Why is it so important to list individual FAQs that are hosted on the site, the authors of those FAQs, and external links to them? Can't people just go to the website if they're interested in that kind of overly-detailed information? I have no problem with describing the nature of the website or what kind of information it disseminates, but couldn't this all be covered by a brief statement that says it refutes creationist arguments against evolution? We can elucidate on that if necessary, but individual FAQs need never be referenced. They certainly should not be linked to from within the article itself, as this is a violation of the MOS. As for the website's feedback system, I was tempted to not mention it, but I figured that a bit of compromise would be wise; perhaps I misjudged and compromised in the wrong areas. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TalkOrigins_Archive&oldid=1204783168"