Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 October 30
2013 November 1 >

31 October 2013

  • Ape is a Punished Man – Deletion endorsed Unanimous consensus of participants here that this is original thought not suitable for Wikipedia. While the contribution is appreciated, it runs afoul of our purpose and pillars, and has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Best wishes finding a more appropriate website for publishing this. – Jclemens ( talk) 05:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ape is a Punished Man ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I request for deletion review of the article on grounds given below. It's title may suitably be changed, review would keep the article undeleted.

i) Time for improvement of Article has not been provided: Posting date of Article “Ape is a punished Man” is 26-10-2013, whereas nomination (with removal of its Chromosomal discussion based on scientific research derived from free source, duly linked), for deletion date is 27-10-2013. Surprisingly, the Article deleted on 29-10-2013.
ii) Article is not an original theory rather it is a collection of facts already available on social and print media. Article shows its sources properly. Watching this information on WP would make it a tool in an encyclopedic nutshell. Therefore, it shall not harm to WP, instead this will establish neutrality of WP.
iii) So for the subject of man’s punishment and its transformation to an ape has route concept as Darwin also gave similar example in his book “the Origin of Species” describing that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales. Ref. P.184, Ist Ed. Harvard University Press, 1964. Hence, the observation made by deletion nominator, that Wikipedia is a reference work and not a place for proposals of theory, should be set aside.
iv) This article reflects view points of Creationist as well as religious community
v) There is no material in the article which is contrary to any commonly known religions. Whereas the evolutionist view with respect to delivery of man by ape is still at conceiving stage since its inception. Therefore view point of Evolutionist on WP and negation to creationists is not justifiable.

THANKS Nannadeem ( talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you.— S Marshall T/ C 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Fundamental WP:NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SOAPBOX issues, the last of which is crystallized by the above arguments for undeletion, that there is a Creationist agenda to balance a perceived Evolutionist bias on Wikipedia. Reasons for deletion were adequately covered at AfD [1]. The inappropriateness of such an article was explained again to Nannadeem after closing [2], [3]. Troubling is a developing pattern of such entries [4] and the user's willful ignorance of basic policy in favor of crafting opinion pieces. JNW ( talk) 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
A little while ago I accidentally rolled back another user's comment, and immediately reverted my revert. Notwithstanding my rather strong antipathy to a piece that insists on a logical rationale for an ape's existence as God's punishment of humans (alternatively, I thought consigning one's self to editing on Wikipedia was a sort of divinely-devised purgatory), I was mortified to have reverted a good faith comment. My apologies; such are the dangers of checking in by iPhone. JNW ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The article doesn't actually make sense. It appears entirely WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. If we should have an article about an idea that Apes are punished men it would not suffice since it does not actually appear to be the detail of an existing idea laid out clearly. It seems more like a collection of notions from a variety of sources thrown together with the hope that something will make sense. I've read it a couple of times now and it doesn't.-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 11:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In fairness, I think it does make sense. It contains a couple of grave misunderstandings of the underlying science, but if we accept those misunderstandings, it appears to be a novel and genuine attempt to reconcile the similarity of apes and man with the creationist denial that man is descended from apes. I find myself admiring the creativity involved. Nannadeem, I'd suggest that you publish this on your own website. I'm afraid it's definitely not for Wikipedia, because it breaches a substantial number of our core policies.

    We do have a policy on neutral point of view that requires us to be balanced. But there are things that doesn't mean. If a scientist publishes a paper proving that 2+2=4, and the Pope replies with a bull explaining with associated theological reasoning that 2+2=5, we don't compromise on four and a half. Wikipedia does not offer equal time for creationism or the religious point of view on evolution. You may be looking for Conservapedia.

    I also want to point out that contrary to the subject article, evolution does mean that man is descended from apes. It's true that we share a common ancestor with modern apes, but the point you're missing is that that common ancestor was itself an ape.

    Contrary to the subject article, the reason apes can't speak is not due to differences in their vocal cords. This was established in attempts to teach speech to chimps and gorillas like Washoe and Koko in the 1960s and 70s: apes can learn sign language, but not the way humans can. They can get a restricted vocabulary and no real grammar at all (except "cry hurt food"). Apes' inability to speak is fundamentally down to a difference in brain anatomy (see Broca's area, Wernicke's area which humans have and apes lack).

    Contrary to the subject article, there is fossil evidence (and DNA evidence) that plainly shows evolution from ancestral ape to modern man.

    But the reason that Wikipedia won't publish this article is not because it's false. We have articles about plenty of false things, such as alien abduction and the moon landing conspiracy theories; although Wikipedia isn't Snopes, dispelling misinformation is an important part of our role. False though the article is, the reason we won't publish it is because we don't host original research, which is what this is.

    I wish you the best of luck in finding an audience elsewhere.— S Marshall T/ C 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • I agree with S Marshall, in that I think that this article does make sense. If this argument had been published by a reliable source, then I would fully support there being a Wikipedia article on the topic. However, while the article does cite reliable sources for the individual facts behind the argument, it does note cite reliable sources for the argument as a whole. Given that Wikipedia's place is not to publish novel arguments, but rather to re-publish arguments that have already been discussed elsewhere, I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for this article. That being said, I do wish the author well in finding another location to host it - the arguement certainly challenges several of the precepts behind popular science texts on human evolution. Bluap ( talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In the interest of fairness, I should note that the version of the page that you are most likely looking at (the final version before deletion) is missing a significant chunk of material that was there earlier. You can find the material here; I deleted it for WP:COPYVIO reasons, but that doesn't mean that the material could not be referenced or summarized in a revived article in a non-copyright violating way. I don't think it will change the outcome, because the article does not directly address apes being evolved from humans or being humans in a punished form, but others may see it differently. I will not !vote here myself (I was the person who AFD'd it in the first place.) Allow me to commend user Nannadeem for bringing an enthusiasm to his editing and for facing the conflict over the material with grace. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Refer Nannadeem ( talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This content is clearly not suited for Wikipedia and the closing admin was correct to delete. OSborn arf contribs. 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It appears you supported the closing admin on bias without giving consideration to my protest based on essence of logic. See comments of Respected S Marshall and Reverenced (for me) --Nat Gertler. Instead you all admins should give me change to modify the article, the closing admin used his trick to stop it atonce. Sorry for being hard, but me also a humanbeing. Nannadeem ( talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Nannadeem ( talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Consensus was clear, and an article this bad would bring ridicule to Wikipedia, so getting rid of it fast was a good thing. Suggest the author read WP:FRINGE for some reasoning why Wikipedia doesn't accept material like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Wikipedia is a summarizer of information, not an originator of information. The page is original research as brought out in the AfD, so it's not the type of article Wikipedia maintains. Nannadeem, have your essay published in a reliable source, and it then may be fair game for others to cite in Wikipedia. If you want time to try to revise the article to where it meets Wikipedia's requirements, you can request userification to work on a draft of the article in your user space. -- Jreferee ( talk) 04:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
With respect, I do not think we should offer to userfy, it would do Nannadeem no service. This is irredeemably WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to userfy it would only mean that he would waste time rewriting it and going a third time round the loop AfD - REFUND - Appeal to closing admin - DRV. He has already been advised to seek an alternative outlet, and that is the best advice for him. JohnCD ( talk) 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_31&oldid=1138439964"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 October 30
2013 November 1 >

31 October 2013

  • Ape is a Punished Man – Deletion endorsed Unanimous consensus of participants here that this is original thought not suitable for Wikipedia. While the contribution is appreciated, it runs afoul of our purpose and pillars, and has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Best wishes finding a more appropriate website for publishing this. – Jclemens ( talk) 05:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ape is a Punished Man ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I request for deletion review of the article on grounds given below. It's title may suitably be changed, review would keep the article undeleted.

i) Time for improvement of Article has not been provided: Posting date of Article “Ape is a punished Man” is 26-10-2013, whereas nomination (with removal of its Chromosomal discussion based on scientific research derived from free source, duly linked), for deletion date is 27-10-2013. Surprisingly, the Article deleted on 29-10-2013.
ii) Article is not an original theory rather it is a collection of facts already available on social and print media. Article shows its sources properly. Watching this information on WP would make it a tool in an encyclopedic nutshell. Therefore, it shall not harm to WP, instead this will establish neutrality of WP.
iii) So for the subject of man’s punishment and its transformation to an ape has route concept as Darwin also gave similar example in his book “the Origin of Species” describing that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales. Ref. P.184, Ist Ed. Harvard University Press, 1964. Hence, the observation made by deletion nominator, that Wikipedia is a reference work and not a place for proposals of theory, should be set aside.
iv) This article reflects view points of Creationist as well as religious community
v) There is no material in the article which is contrary to any commonly known religions. Whereas the evolutionist view with respect to delivery of man by ape is still at conceiving stage since its inception. Therefore view point of Evolutionist on WP and negation to creationists is not justifiable.

THANKS Nannadeem ( talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Thank you.— S Marshall T/ C 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Fundamental WP:NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SOAPBOX issues, the last of which is crystallized by the above arguments for undeletion, that there is a Creationist agenda to balance a perceived Evolutionist bias on Wikipedia. Reasons for deletion were adequately covered at AfD [1]. The inappropriateness of such an article was explained again to Nannadeem after closing [2], [3]. Troubling is a developing pattern of such entries [4] and the user's willful ignorance of basic policy in favor of crafting opinion pieces. JNW ( talk) 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
A little while ago I accidentally rolled back another user's comment, and immediately reverted my revert. Notwithstanding my rather strong antipathy to a piece that insists on a logical rationale for an ape's existence as God's punishment of humans (alternatively, I thought consigning one's self to editing on Wikipedia was a sort of divinely-devised purgatory), I was mortified to have reverted a good faith comment. My apologies; such are the dangers of checking in by iPhone. JNW ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The article doesn't actually make sense. It appears entirely WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. If we should have an article about an idea that Apes are punished men it would not suffice since it does not actually appear to be the detail of an existing idea laid out clearly. It seems more like a collection of notions from a variety of sources thrown together with the hope that something will make sense. I've read it a couple of times now and it doesn't.-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 11:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In fairness, I think it does make sense. It contains a couple of grave misunderstandings of the underlying science, but if we accept those misunderstandings, it appears to be a novel and genuine attempt to reconcile the similarity of apes and man with the creationist denial that man is descended from apes. I find myself admiring the creativity involved. Nannadeem, I'd suggest that you publish this on your own website. I'm afraid it's definitely not for Wikipedia, because it breaches a substantial number of our core policies.

    We do have a policy on neutral point of view that requires us to be balanced. But there are things that doesn't mean. If a scientist publishes a paper proving that 2+2=4, and the Pope replies with a bull explaining with associated theological reasoning that 2+2=5, we don't compromise on four and a half. Wikipedia does not offer equal time for creationism or the religious point of view on evolution. You may be looking for Conservapedia.

    I also want to point out that contrary to the subject article, evolution does mean that man is descended from apes. It's true that we share a common ancestor with modern apes, but the point you're missing is that that common ancestor was itself an ape.

    Contrary to the subject article, the reason apes can't speak is not due to differences in their vocal cords. This was established in attempts to teach speech to chimps and gorillas like Washoe and Koko in the 1960s and 70s: apes can learn sign language, but not the way humans can. They can get a restricted vocabulary and no real grammar at all (except "cry hurt food"). Apes' inability to speak is fundamentally down to a difference in brain anatomy (see Broca's area, Wernicke's area which humans have and apes lack).

    Contrary to the subject article, there is fossil evidence (and DNA evidence) that plainly shows evolution from ancestral ape to modern man.

    But the reason that Wikipedia won't publish this article is not because it's false. We have articles about plenty of false things, such as alien abduction and the moon landing conspiracy theories; although Wikipedia isn't Snopes, dispelling misinformation is an important part of our role. False though the article is, the reason we won't publish it is because we don't host original research, which is what this is.

    I wish you the best of luck in finding an audience elsewhere.— S Marshall T/ C 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • I agree with S Marshall, in that I think that this article does make sense. If this argument had been published by a reliable source, then I would fully support there being a Wikipedia article on the topic. However, while the article does cite reliable sources for the individual facts behind the argument, it does note cite reliable sources for the argument as a whole. Given that Wikipedia's place is not to publish novel arguments, but rather to re-publish arguments that have already been discussed elsewhere, I feel that Wikipedia is not the place for this article. That being said, I do wish the author well in finding another location to host it - the arguement certainly challenges several of the precepts behind popular science texts on human evolution. Bluap ( talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In the interest of fairness, I should note that the version of the page that you are most likely looking at (the final version before deletion) is missing a significant chunk of material that was there earlier. You can find the material here; I deleted it for WP:COPYVIO reasons, but that doesn't mean that the material could not be referenced or summarized in a revived article in a non-copyright violating way. I don't think it will change the outcome, because the article does not directly address apes being evolved from humans or being humans in a punished form, but others may see it differently. I will not !vote here myself (I was the person who AFD'd it in the first place.) Allow me to commend user Nannadeem for bringing an enthusiasm to his editing and for facing the conflict over the material with grace. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Refer Nannadeem ( talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This content is clearly not suited for Wikipedia and the closing admin was correct to delete. OSborn arf contribs. 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It appears you supported the closing admin on bias without giving consideration to my protest based on essence of logic. See comments of Respected S Marshall and Reverenced (for me) --Nat Gertler. Instead you all admins should give me change to modify the article, the closing admin used his trick to stop it atonce. Sorry for being hard, but me also a humanbeing. Nannadeem ( talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Nannadeem ( talk) 17:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse. Consensus was clear, and an article this bad would bring ridicule to Wikipedia, so getting rid of it fast was a good thing. Suggest the author read WP:FRINGE for some reasoning why Wikipedia doesn't accept material like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Wikipedia is a summarizer of information, not an originator of information. The page is original research as brought out in the AfD, so it's not the type of article Wikipedia maintains. Nannadeem, have your essay published in a reliable source, and it then may be fair game for others to cite in Wikipedia. If you want time to try to revise the article to where it meets Wikipedia's requirements, you can request userification to work on a draft of the article in your user space. -- Jreferee ( talk) 04:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
With respect, I do not think we should offer to userfy, it would do Nannadeem no service. This is irredeemably WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to userfy it would only mean that he would waste time rewriting it and going a third time round the loop AfD - REFUND - Appeal to closing admin - DRV. He has already been advised to seek an alternative outlet, and that is the best advice for him. JohnCD ( talk) 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_October_31&oldid=1138439964"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE