The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus/keep. There was an initial surge in deletes, however if you look at the article history, there was a major overhaul during the course of this AfD. It seems like this AfD prompted editors to try to improve this article and address the nominators concerns. While perhaps still having issues, many following commentors felts the new, improved version was worth keeping. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Darwinism[edit]

Neo-Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Creationist POV fork of modern evolutionary synthesis. Deleted once and redirected to modern evolutionary synthesis for 3.5 years, recreated today by an editor refusing to recognize WP:NPOV, particularly its WP:UNDUE clause. Odd nature 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/restore redirect There are also serious WP:OR issues with the article as it currently stands. JoshuaZ 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC) comment I have no objections to a major rewrite as per Dave below. JoshuaZ 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC) keep for now per Dave's attempt to do a rewrite. JoshuaZ 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. This article is better covered elsewhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced we need two articles that are so similar.--Filll 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this is a new page, not a restoration of the old one, which I have put a great deal of work into. There is nothing in the least bit aggressive in my approach, which has been to explain what I am doing and why in advance at all times and at great length. Sadly, certain editors persist in labelling me as a creationist, despite my insistance that I am anything but that. The alteration of the original page to a redirect was done without notification or flagging on the page, and was not in line with accepted reasons for creating a re-direct. Quite simply, neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history of use, and much current use, both by leading evolutionists and by opponents to evolutionary theory. It is not another term for Modern evolutionary synthesis but differs in very important respects, as I have fully explained on both talk pages. It therefore does not meet any of the criteria for becoming a redirect. I have some support for this view, and given time I expect more, and I am quite prepared to seek consensus, but I believe the proper place for that in at neo-Darwinism and not Modern synthesis. I reject suggestions that the term is somehow "obnoxious" (as one editor puts it) or associated with Creationism. It is not. It's a perfectly legitimate term. In any case, turning it into a redirect is not a valid way to challenge the content of any page. This is most certainly not a 'POV fork'. It does not present an alternative view of anything, in fact I am keen to separate out the term to make the article Modern synthesis stronger, as at the moment the latter is self-contradictory as explained in the talk. No cogent case has been made for OR, or POV, or UDUE, despite requests. There is no OR, and the cites are primary in that they are given as evidence of useage, not in support of useage, see my explanation in talk. --Memestream 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: cogent case for WP:OR -- the lead, 'Why 'Neo'-Darwinism' (by far the largest) and 'The Modern Synthesis' sections contain either solely non-reliable (and sparse at that), or no, citations. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new page with an editing history back to 2003? I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork and OR. Didn't we go through this before? •Jim62sch• 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what cited material there is might make a reasonable section in History of evolutionary thought, since this material is primarily a discussion of how a term has been used through the history of evolutionary biology. However, better sources are needed that discuss the usage of the term directly. Most of these citations are not to reliable sources - primarily web encyclopedias, a creationist website and personal webpages. Tim Vickers 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Discussion of the comment in the nomination about an editor being an "aggressive creationist POV warrior" moved to the talk page. Tim Vickers 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Looking at what links to the article might be insightful for some people. Note also how the term is used in those articles. There is no doubt that the term is used by creationists, but note that words like queer and even atheist have a history of being used pejoratively. I would strongly argue against any 'speedy action. 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Merge relevant content into History of evolutionary thought per Tim Vickers.--Danaman5 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we merge content then we need to leave a redirect to comply with the GFDL. JoshuaZ 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & re-redirect, transfer any salvageable, reliably sourced, material to History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically nothing worth salvaging from this POV fork. Creator understands neither NPOV, NOR or RS. ornis (t) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Modern Synthesis covers it. Neo-Darwinism is a perfectly good term, but the author here is confused for some reason. Neo-Darwinism is the combination of Darwin's Natural Selection with Mendel's genetic mechanism. The combination of the two created a clear understanding of how selection functioned across generations - which even Darwin puzzled over. The creator is seeing a problem where there is none. MarkBul 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this term does have a historical meaning that is distinct from the modern synthesis (see PMID 15241603). Although this present article fails entirely to define or discuss this adequately, the term can be discussed in a section in the History of evolutionary thought and this title redirected to that article. Tim Vickers 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single source is too small a sample to establish notability of the viewpoint. Odd nature 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004 Tim Vickers 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice however, that his historical usage is already explained in the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. I've added a reference to this. No need for a new section in the "History of evolutionary thought" article, the redirect to modern synthesis would be fine. Tim Vickers 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Get this OR and POV creationistcruft out of here. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research, POV fork. Sefringle^Talk 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete: this article is nothing more than a OR POV-fork. What few sources it does cite mostly range from questionable to grossly non-WP:RS. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly a one-sided POV Fork. Author appears to have WP:OWN issues as well WP:NPOV problems. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Unscientific, unsourced, original research, and rubbish. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As an uninvolved editor, I can't tell where the claims of this being a "creationist pov fork" are coming from -- this seems to be trying to put forth a history of the usage of the term, and I see nothing that looks like a creationist pov here. (To clarify: neo-Darwinism is a term that's used by creationists out in the world, but I don't see this article being biased in favor of creationism). I'd merge it into History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers, and try to improve the refs. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect with a drastic re-write and reliable references. A TalkOrigins Archive piece by John Wilkins notes the term's early meaning, usage during the 1930s-40s (mainly in the UK) and lingering current use among scientists as well as increasing use by creationists.[1] Another useful quote is "Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name."[2] The article can be useful for explaining this to anyone who looks it up. Any objections to me having a go? .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First go at re-write – the intro now reflects the way I think the article should develop, with sources from TalkOrigins Archive. I've commented out sections which seemed to overlap the modern synthesis article or were rather dubious. ... dave souza, talk 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some better sources and removed redundant paragraphs. The article is now two well-sourced paragraphs dealing explicitly with the usage and history of the term. This could make an acceptable stub, or a section within History of evolutionary thought, if a redirect is thought to be the best option. Tim Vickers 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A redirect to a section in the history article seems good to me, so I've added that option to my "vote". .. dave souza, talk 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect. Quite frankly, I don't know if neo-Darwinism is the same as the modern synthesis or not, but that doesn't matter. The term is widely used (by both sides of the "debate"!), so Wikipedia should have an article about it or redirect to the appropriate target. Deletion is not the solution in either case, and requires no administrative powers. Issues of POV, OR, etc. should be resolved through editing and discussion, and if that doesn't work, mediation, arbitration, or whatever it takes. But deleting a common term altogether makes no sense. --Itub 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:POVFORK ffm 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Disambig - if someone types "Neo-Darwinism" into the search box they should be sent to an appropriate article. If there is more than one then make this a disambig page. The above arguments are about the content of this article and not about retaining the title for other purposes such as redirect or disambig. WAS 4.250 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If deleted, a search for Neo-Darwinism in the Wikipedia search-box will bring up History of evolutionary thought and Modern evolutionary synthesis. There is no need for a separate article on this confusing and often abused word, increasingly politicized by those involved in the debate about "separation of church and state" in the United States. At the absolute most, it would properly be a permanent redirect to History of evolutionary thought. ... Kenosis 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I've added a note to the present version of the article saying that the majority of the text has been commented out. To avoid confusion in this AfD. Tim Vickers 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Neo-darwinism is a standard scientific term, well known in the evolutionary biology literature for decades, long before "modern evolutionary synthesis", and I think distinguishable from it. --and the article says so. The term may have been recently hijacked by the creationists, but that doesnt mean its not a valid article subject. the present article as expertly re-edited by Dave souza andTim Vickers is neutral and sufficient as a start for an article. Those who have looked earlier should re-examine. DGG (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That the word is "increasingly politicized" and "often abused" is not a reason for deletion, but, yes, caution needs to be taken with what goes here and a merge/re-direct may be the best solution. Bondegezou 16:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and Bondegzou, but most importantly, fix the POV problem, which is "non-negotiable". Bearian 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup POV--יודל 21:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a question for the last two editors, are you noticing a POV in the old version of the article, or the current version? Tim Vickers 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source All the article needs is some sourcing. That would easily prove that it is not OR and POV. This subject was covered in great detail in my college science class and if I still had the book I would list it as a source. Any arguments listing it as cruft violate WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it and therefore should be discounted. Viperix 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarification, are you talking about the old version of the article, or the current version? Tim Vickers 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess it was sourced, I do not see the problem with the article then. Viperix 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The new version of the article is so different from the one I created that great confusion is going to arise now. Never mind. I suggest that the sheer volume of discussion and comment that has arisen here and in the article and on my talk, together with the fact that some 45 other pages link to it, means that the article MUST be kept. All the issues of POV OR or suchlike, which are not just cause for deletion, will get sorted out in the end, but they are deep an complex and the article's talk is the place for that to happen, bit by bit, as an ongoing process, by those editors here who are agreeing that Creationist and Anti-creationist shouting have no place. --Memestream 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a patently absurd argument: that the level of criticism of the original article & volume of opinions calling for its deletion is in some way a reason why the article "MUST be kept". The old article was an obvious candidate for deletion, I'm still reserving my opinion on the new version. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in its current state now that it sources and describes the historical meaning of the term. However, this is with the understanding that Memestream's version is unacceptable as original research and a pov fork that should not be allowed to creep back into the article. —David Eppstein 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in its current state. I was wondering what was wrong with it until I read here that it was almost completely rewritten. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've stricken my preference to delete. The article, which started out as an original research, POV fork, has come somewhat more into line with WP policy as a properly sourced description of the word "neo-Darsinism". It appears it can be brought into yet better compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. No doubt WP:NPOV#Undue_weight will remain an important issue. Hopefully it will be maintained in keeping with the basic WP policies. ... Kenosis 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The second sentence virtually contradicts the first. Basically the article says new Darwinism contains nothing of Darwin's theory. It can't justify using the name Darwinism in its title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You mean this?

  Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe certain ideas about the mechanisms of evolution that were developed from Charles Darwin's original theory of natural selection. Its usage is mainly historical, since modern evolutionary theory includes many ideas, notably Mendellian genetics and genetic drift, which are not found in Darwin's work.
  Although it's possible this was modified from when you read it, these two sentences do NOT contradict each other. What it means is that, from an historical standpoint, there have been ebbs and flows in what evolutionary ideas were popular/most important in various eras. 'Neo-Darwinism' really means that the ideas of Darwin became popular again in the 1890's. Today's view is that Darwin was 'mostly right' but that the best view of evolution is a composite that combines Darwin's ideas with that of Mendel and further modifies them with modern understandings. Note that in the same way that modern Einsteinian physics altered but did not completely obliterate Newtonian physics, so Darwin's substantial contribution remains recognized. But that is not the point of the article. The point of the article is to explain the historiography of the term 'Neo-Darwinism.' Note that an idea need not be scientific to be 'notable'. Most evolutionists discard intelligent design as unscientific, but recognize that it has POLITICAL-SOCIAL importance.

  :--Ryoung122 09:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and 'improve'. It seems that some people are so concerned about control, they'll metaphorically shoot down anything not in their control. The fact that the term dates to 1895 suggests this should be kept. It doesn't have to be 'scientific' and it doesn't have to be pro-Darwin or anti-Darwin. This article has significance from an HISTORICAL perspective, just as social Darwinism does.Ryoung122 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The original version of this article was horribly POV. The current shorter version is better but still needs improvements to make it more NPOV (see my comments on the talk page). The term neo-Darwinism has had enough different uses historically to justify having a short page to make sense of them, but there is no justification for declaring some of the uses incorrect when so many reliable sources are in conflict.Rusty Cashman 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current version much improved since nomination. Well written and sourced. Gandalf61 10:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is widely recognised scientific expression.89.107.46.3 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The article makes a strong case the term "neo-Darwinism" has notable and distinctive use, and it contains an interesting description of the term's history, usage, and meanings as they've changed over time. It's an extremely well-done and informative dictionary entry. The difficulty is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and its policy is to have articles about the significance of subjects, not of terms. As the article makes clear, however distinctive the term may be, the subject is well-covered by History of evolutionary thought and similar articles. I express no opinion as to any motives behind the article's creation. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I disagree with that overly broad interpretation of WP:DICT. Sometimes a term gets to the point that the history and usage of the term itself becomes a legitimate encyclopedic topic of its own. For an extreme case, see nigger (I hope you won't argue that that one should be deleted as well). IMO neo-darwinism is a term that generates enough controversy to justify an article. --Itub 07:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. ::I disagree, though I am concerned that the article has indeed been steered towards being a dictionary entry. I restored the page because I consider this term to be not only one in very widespread use, but quite simply the name properly given to the modern theory of evolution by all who really understand the matter and have not fallen into the trap, propagated by many articles and quotes taken out of context, of assuming that the modern theory of evolution is 'the modern evolutionary synthesis'. If I could win over other editors I would make this page the main article describing the modern theory of evolution, and clean up modern synthesis to make clear the fact that that term refers to a historical landmark, and should not be assumed to refer to the current mainstream theory. I would then make clear on all pages that some writers do take the term 'modern synthesis' to refer to an ongoing process of synthesis, synonymous with neo-Darwinism, but that such use appears to conflict with the dominant useage. I would also make clear that the term was neo-Darwinism was also used in the past where it may have had a more specific meaning at certain times but that to assume a historical meaning only would conflict with the dominant meaning suggested by the overwhelming majority of examples of use. Primary sources overwhelmingly support my case, in that major scientists and experts (Dawkins, Gould, Fred Hoyle, to name just a few major well known ones) use the term more than any other. 'Neo-Darwinism' and it's adjectival form 'ne-Darwinian are convenient terms to use, whereas 'the theory that derives from the so-called modern synthesis' and even 'modern evolutionary theory' are cumbersome. The argument that Fred Hoyle was not a credible scientist or an expert in the field, being used against me at the article, is laughable. He was FRS, and knighted. More imprortantly though, the credentials of users are of no concern when simple asserting use. Fred was a scientist of the highest order, and an expert critic of neo-Darwinism. That he used the term to refer to the modern theory is 'blindingly obvious'. Creationists also use the term (25,000 hits on Google, mostly creationist sites or arguments against the neo-Darwinian theory) and I must emphasise that they use it correctly; not to refer to some imagined or crackpot theory but simply to refer to the modern theory of evolution. This too falls into the category of 'blindingly obvious'. Their use of the term is therefore valid evidence of its meaning, as assumed on a huge scale. I understand that they are all primary sources, and I understand the argument that the conclusion I draw here could be WP:OR, but it falls into the category of 'blindingly obvious'. It passes the test laid down of being an obvious conclusion that would be made by any reasonably intelligent observer, and is not a 'novel synthesis created by juxtaposition of primary sources'. I have appealed for comments on this at wikipedia:verifiability. On these grounds, relegation of the main term that describes our modern theory to a history article would be a huge mistake, granting success to those editors who want to confuse and obscure the subject in an attempt to silence opponents of neo-Darwinism today by obscuring and denying the fact of what it is. If I coould find a 'reliable source' that actually said what I am saying I would use it, but few people seem to have felt the need to say what it is, as opposed to just using it. Brittanica online comes close, saying "Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics", but is admittedly vague. ISCID encyclopedia says it exactly with "neo-Darwinism is the modern version on Darwinian evolutionary theory" but is trashed by editors as an 'unreliable source'. --Lindosland 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Memestream Wow, you are taking this personally. Neo-Darwinism is definitely a pejorative term hijacked by crackpot creationists (to use your terminology). ISCID is not a real source, it is at best tertiary (kind of like Wikipedia itself). Modern synthesis and modern evolutionary theory are what is used by the scientists in the field. Hardly any use neo-Darwinism any further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism, OR, and not encyclopedia, better covered elsewhere Mbisanz 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in its current form, though it still needs some work. I further applaud the editors who salvaged this article - that's how AFD is supposed to work. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.