User talk:Muntuwandi/The evolutionary origins of religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have created this article "evolutionary origins of religion. Though there will be controversy over the article that was deleted a few months ago, I believe that this article has gone sufficient transformation to merit an independent review difference between older version and new version. I have created this in line with wikipedia guideline No. 5 which states that articles can be recreated if evidence of notability is found. For example I have added an additional subsection discussing the concepts of Evolutionary psychology which some editors had complained was missing from the article. I have also created the full article on Evolutionary psychology of religion which is another interesting topic. Because this is new content , I believe if there are any disputes then they should go for review, either by a fresh article for deletion proposal, and let the editors again decide on notability.Muntuwandi (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition User:Dbachmann has expressed that the article is valid User_talk:Dbachmann#origin_of_religion and so has User:Bruceanthro as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthropology#Evolution_and_the_origin_of_religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you take Dab's advice and think on it yourself. The thing to do is to keep the content in your user space and work with editors willing to consider the project until a reasonable solution is found and then create an entry. The thing not to do is to delete information about religion in the Paleolithic from a page on Prehistoric religion, simply because you think all such information belongs in a page of your creation. The other thing not to do is to keep on renaming and recreating deleted content prior to working with other editors as suggested above. This page should be deleted and you should think seriously about working with the content, and with editors interested in 1) finding an appropriate entry title for this material and 2) editing the content to reflect the appropriate title. You keep on saying that you work well with other editors but I've seen no attempts to engage the ideas of others in this entire fiasco.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I should also note that I would be happy to engage in such a discussion. For instance, I would suggest that the current entry is workable if the material under the headings "Paleolithic," "Neolithic religions," and "Timeline" are removed from the entry and the rest of the content is developed along the lines of the notable theories representing the type of work described by each subheading. Some of these subheadings may also need to be renamed--for instance "abstract thinking" might just be titled "behavioral modernity." My reasoning here, is as always, that the later material I am suggesting we remove only evidences religious, proto-religious, or religious like behavior in the paleolithic and/or neolithic. This material does present any, or even the logical space for any, actual theories of the evolutionary origins of religion. Where this type of information becomes important to such theories it could be mentioned along with said theories. By maintaining an expanded and thorough entry on the evidence of religion in prehistory one would also have a good complementary resource for an entry that deals with theories drawing in part from such evidence. I know you probably wont like the idea of getting rid of the portion of this entry that comprises most of the original content you posted in Origin of religion, but that's my opinion (and that goes to one of the problems of the original entry). I also maintain that the proper way to do this is to keep this entry in your space until you've been able to work with other editors to achieve a truly different entry that is workable--appropriately named and structured to utilize content that accurately reflects that name. So I still say, for now, that we need to delete this entry and work with the materials in your space, since that is the only solution that is respectful of the processes that have already engaged much of this content and deleted it.PelleSmith (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the concept of sitting down and waiting, if you recall after the AFD, I stayed away from this issue for two months, and guess what, nobody showed any of the interest that they claimed they were going to do Dbachmann even complained about how everyone immediately lost interest after claiming they were going to work on the article. I am available to provide instant solutions to problems, I don't need to sit and wait for other editors who don't have the time or energy to dedicate to this issue.
- I have proposed a disambiguation page such as Origin of religion (disambiguation) that can direct readers to the appropriate articles. This will help so that we have related information in one article and we avoid have information duplicated in several articles. It also would help to clearly define the content of specific articles instead of randomly assigning content. Religion is a broad topic so we need concise definitions of what each article should comprise of. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the concept of sitting down and waiting, if you recall after the AFD, I stayed away from this issue for two months, and guess what, nobody showed any of the interest that they claimed they were going to do Dbachmann even complained about how everyone immediately lost interest after claiming they were going to work on the article. I am available to provide instant solutions to problems, I don't need to sit and wait for other editors who don't have the time or energy to dedicate to this issue.
- I should also note that I would be happy to engage in such a discussion. For instance, I would suggest that the current entry is workable if the material under the headings "Paleolithic," "Neolithic religions," and "Timeline" are removed from the entry and the rest of the content is developed along the lines of the notable theories representing the type of work described by each subheading. Some of these subheadings may also need to be renamed--for instance "abstract thinking" might just be titled "behavioral modernity." My reasoning here, is as always, that the later material I am suggesting we remove only evidences religious, proto-religious, or religious like behavior in the paleolithic and/or neolithic. This material does present any, or even the logical space for any, actual theories of the evolutionary origins of religion. Where this type of information becomes important to such theories it could be mentioned along with said theories. By maintaining an expanded and thorough entry on the evidence of religion in prehistory one would also have a good complementary resource for an entry that deals with theories drawing in part from such evidence. I know you probably wont like the idea of getting rid of the portion of this entry that comprises most of the original content you posted in Origin of religion, but that's my opinion (and that goes to one of the problems of the original entry). I also maintain that the proper way to do this is to keep this entry in your space until you've been able to work with other editors to achieve a truly different entry that is workable--appropriately named and structured to utilize content that accurately reflects that name. So I still say, for now, that we need to delete this entry and work with the materials in your space, since that is the only solution that is respectful of the processes that have already engaged much of this content and deleted it.PelleSmith (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As Dbachmann pointed out, there is no need to mix theological arguments with evolutionary arguments in the same article. So this disambiguation page can clearly define the various arguments. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
