User talk:Ungtss/Guidelines

OK!! Got some goals and guidelines! Only it scares me that my first goal sounds like part of the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy to defeat "materialist science." Goals

To promote healthy debate on the subjects of creation and evolution.
To remove POV bias favoring either creationism or evolution on articles dealing with these subjects.
To make constructive, NPOV changes on articles in these subjects
To resolve editing conflicts and complaints on creation- and evolution-related pages.

Guidelines

We promote good, healthy debates dealing with creation and evolution.

We are not:
- a chat room debating the existence of God or gods
- debating the philosophy of a specific religion or religion as a whole, atheism, or other moral philosophies
- debating the philosophy or validity of mainstream science, creationism, or creation science. These debates are better reserved for talk pages on articles in these subjects.
- missionaries. Don't force your views onto others, either in the group or on article talk pages. Make good, constructive comments and changes. As the group begans to make an impact on creation-/evolution-related articles and good points are made, people may gradually change their views. This is natural, and is the heart of good debate.
- a test area for political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Although this subject affects a lot of said beliefs, do not use the group as a survey to find out the reaction to an idea not pertaning the subject.
  - Example 1: Don't ask something like "Why would someone like Bush's social security plan?"
  - Example 2: Don't say something along the lines of "Well what about Kerry's voting record?"
  - Example 3: Don't post something akin to "Communism rules!" on, for example, the Discovery Institute article's talk page.
  - Example 4: Don't say something venomous like "All evolutionists are god-hating materialists and should be condemned!" on, for example, the Charles Darwin article's talk page.
Name calling, deregotary comments, baiting another user into an arguement, or insults to those with different viewpoints is prohibited.
In a debate on an article, don't bring up a user's behavior outside of this subject to make a point. It would also be unfair to do this before a user became a part of this club, unless they continued ot act in a negative way.

Major changes to articles dealing with creation or evolution should be discussed both on the article's respective talk page and, preferably, within the group before being made.
Major disputes should be broughht up for conflict resolution by mediators, advocates, or other Wikipedians whose main job is that.
We'll try to be neutral, but we are only human. POV may exist, even in this group, but just bring it up kindly and we'll keep your comments in mind. However, POV may also be affected by who is involved. If most of the members favor one side, there will probably be some POV favoring that side and POV against the minority. If you aren't in the group and see this POV against your side or POV for the other side, you may want to join to tyr to balance out the membership.
Basically, just keep good common sense that you would use in an arguement where you don't want to offend others.
Lastly, we aren't the judge. Debates in here aren't the last word of the subject for the whole Earth. The winners of a debate may turn out to be wrong. We want to keep/make Wikipedia neutral.

Mred64 21:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Man! That is a brilliant and articulate statement of a solid set of guidelines. I wouldn't change a word. Would you like to propose those guidelines at Creationism and see what happens? Ungtss 22:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I continued the discussion in a new section on your talk page called "Guidelines." It is on the bottom. Mred64 22:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines

INtroducing the guidelines somewhere is a good start. But it sounds odd to have guidelines refer to a group when we have no name, and we haven't formed a club or group yet. Also, will we live to tell the tale when we introduce these guidelines? The Creationism article and talk page don't look too hospitable at the moment. Mred64 22:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with everything you've said. Perhaps we should move slowly, and try to gain a "critical mass" of people sympathetic to your guidelines? Also, would you like to take a look at the guidelines and purposes of Wikiproject? To be totally honest, i strongly support your goals and purposes here, and i will back you every step of the way -- but i think if we're to get anywhere, you or someone like you needs to take the lead. my status as a creationist effectively means that if i am perceived as the leader of the group, it will quickly vanish into thin air:(. Ungtss 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dunno how popular I am. My comments on TTC and other similar articles, ironically, make it look like I lean to creationism more than evolution. I might seem like some "creationist in disguise," and I realized I made a blunder when I talked about the Big Bang. I misinterperted it, which is sad considering I love astronomy. Also, I lack the time and organization to keep the project up and running, even if we do get it started. :( Could someone take over, perhaps someone with a truly unblemished reputation? Also, I don't know how to do the things to organize the project page if I make one, and I don't know if it qulaifies. Also, what category would we put it under. Biology, and esp. evolutionary biology, will probably turn off creationists, and religon will do the same to evolutionists. Mred64 22:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could start a new wikiproject entitled Wikiproject:Creationism if you like ... i sympathize with your concerns ... let's take our time, think about what to do ... maybe gather some critical mass before moving forward? Ungtss 23:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I could break my guidelines once to get people interested in the subject... lol. Just as someone on the other side, I don't think naming the project creationism sounds smart. Too many POV complaints waiting to be posted. But evolution won't work either, for the same reason. What about "creation/evolution neutrality" or something similar? But yeah, perhaps, it is best to wait a bit. We could lead people to the guidelines, ask if they're interested. I know I check out most of the talk pages of user I find in articles. still, we should keep in contact to develop this better. I have to go for a bit. I should be back later. Great working with you. Mred64 23:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How should we advertise our club/group/philsophy/movement/thing? That seems hardest to do while NPOV. It would be awful to make our ad seem POV. Maybe we could talk to the boss of wikipedia, User:JimboWales? I never really thought of all the details until now. Mred64 01:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's a good question! perhaps we could watch the creationism pages for a little bit ... see who comes and goes ... perhaps identify people that look interesting and talk to them personally? Ungtss 04:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! Anyone seem good so far? Mred64 02:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rednblu is an atheist and evolutionist who has always had a strong interest in getting npov onto these pages, but he seems to have been busy lately, and hasn't been around. Other than that ... it's you + me, i'm afraid:(. Ungtss 02:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun. So, what do we do now? It seems like we may wait forever to get a good number of people without moving forward, but we don't want to move forward without having a good number of people becasue there's saftey in numbers and we want a lot of support. Is there some way to advertise that won't result in practically instant death on Wikipedia?

What if we were to post links to this page on creationism and evolution related article talk pages that have POV issues? It doesn't suggest too much, positive or negative. We could just post something like, interested in working on NPOV, and give the group a name and make that the name of the page. Mred64 03:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a great idea -- would you like to start it on a subpage of your user page so it's associated with you more than me? Ungtss 03:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why not? Can u tell me how to set up a subpage? Also, any good names? Mred64 03:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sure -- a subpage can be created in one of two ways -- you can either create a link on another page titled User:Mred64/whatever you want to call the subpage, then click on it and edit from there, or you can type enter User:Mred64/whatever you want to call the subpage into the search box and click Go. Good names ... good names ... can't go wrong with something basic, like, "Creationism NPOV society" or something like that ... Ungtss 03:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm takin' off for the evening -- take care! Ungtss 03:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go... Sounds like a good name. Mind if i tweak it a bit, though? "Creationism and evolution NPOV Society." Can I list you as a founding member, or would it be better to just list us as the first members in a members list? Good night! Also, should we ask if making this a group is OK before starting on it, so we don't get complaints of vandalism or POV agaisnt us (example: ask Jimbo Wales or some higher ranking Wikipedians)? Mred64 03:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask somebody if you like -- there are bound to be complaints no matter what we do, but it's in the user space, there's not much they can do:). i'm honored to be considered a "founding member," but i think that if my name appears in any prominent place, the club will lose any chance of success:(. i'm generally seen as a pov warrior / zealot / bigot:(. Ungtss 16:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know there may be complaints, but do you think there are major complaints that could be posted against us (vandlaism, edit wars, etc) and major consequences (being banned or blocked)? Hmm. Maybe I'll just start a list of members and go in alphabetical order. Thyat's how most other listings organized. Do you mind if I list you as a member when I make the page, or do you want to do that yourself when ready? Mred64 21:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan -- i admire your initiative:). You can certainly list me as a member:). Ungtss 22:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a group page. Look at User:Mred64/Creationism and Evolution NPOV Society! Mred64 22:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

looks fantastic:). Ungtss 03:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How should we get it going now, get people involved? Post links on article talk pages, or try to contact others individually? Mred64 01:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'd suggest contacting people individually ... i think we'll be able to identify the people that have an interest in npov ... Ungtss 02:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]