Talk:Koinophilia

message: Not really the tag I wanted but it will do. The word koinophilia (coined by the creator/major contributor of the article)  by means the same as Averageness. This page should re direct to Averageness there is strong support for this in the talk page archive. Nothing I can find uses the word to mean anything but averageness. That Koeslag extends the theory is reportable at the target page if a source can be found.Wikipedia is not here to host or review WP:OR J8079s (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've now done a little reading around the subject, which definitely doesn't make me an expert. It seems that Koinophilia is a term introduced by Koeslag and used occasionally by other authors, so its use here is not a priori WP:OR as there are correctly cited and reliable sources. The CoI tag is valid but is a "caution and warning" notice, not a roadblock as such. The difference between Averageness and Koinophilia seems very slight if it exists at all, and I'd personally not object to a merge-and-redirect if other editors would like that (this means a fresh discussion, here, with notices at the top of both source and target articles, see WP:MERGE). The coverage in this article is more substantial than in Averageness so a merge of the cited materials seems necessary, rather than a simple redirect. The name "Koinophilia" would appear in boldface in the Averageness article as a valid synonym and redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: Now the bad news This source  reviews the theory and shoots it full of holes. 
How ever no one observing a dog in heat or even aware of the enormous variability of human sexual response would find this very convincing. Moreover , this mechanism suffers from the absence of any practical means of actually achieving sexual isolation apart from theory.
The article can stay but the holes must be reported. There are plenty. See  I work very slowly so Be BoldJ8079s (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To put in a more Wiki way we will need to give the critics proper weight per WP:NPOV J8079s (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article's notability and separate identity have been agreed, so as you say, the correct course now is to note, neutrally and without prejudice, the arguments for and against the concept, with the evidence that supports them. Any claim added without reliable sources will be removed; everything will be checked for neutrality of tone and encyclopedic value. Within those ordinary constraints, by all means expand the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes well said. A few notes from the source In a positive  the theory acknowledges/confirms that evolution is discontinuous however 
*beneficial  mutations would also not be selected
*No concrete means of sexual isolation
*would not apply to plants
as a result the theory is "simply insufficient to explain speciation". I trying too to see how to work this into the lead. J8079s (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Oggmus (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability established  

message: Substituted at 21:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment