i would like to strongly advise against deletion of this article on the argument that phylogenetics is not equal to nor even synonymous to cladistics the difference between them is actually abyssal phylogenetics is a scientific discipline resting on the fundamental principle of objectivity whereas cladistics instead is the opposite resting on the principle of subjectivity phylogenetics partitions reality into categories i e concepts and discusses reality in terms of these categories whereas cladistics instead assumes that categories concepts exist and confuses them what phylogenetics discerns does cladistics confuse in line with this approach cladistics also strives hard to confuse itself as a concept with the concept phylogenetics and with the concept science my empirical support for these allegations is that cladistics confuses time and space thereby denying that time can be relative to space which is contradicted by the fact that time is relative to space see envall biol j linn soc cladistics denies the kind of thing it calls paraphyletic groups which actually is a disguised denial of the fundament for science that is objectivity deletion of this article would thus be devastating for phylogenetics and in continuation for encyclopedias which tries to keep concepts apart and maybe also for science itself instead the article ought to be cleaned from cladistic influence there is still a big part of phylogenetics that is practically free from cladistic influence i e that which develops probability inferences of phylogeny and still does the consistent conceptualization of phylogenies that is the linnean system occupy a central position in phylogenetics a clensing of the article does however appear impossible in an open forum like this since nothing can hinder cladists from incorporating their confusion in the article whereas they can hinder a resolution of the confusion the power over the content in articles is in practice related to number of proponents of certain comprehensions rather than to knowledge about them or understanding of them one can easily envision how wikipedia would have appeared if it had been made of germans during the nd world war nazism would certainly not have been described in condescending terms this is a fundamental problem for wikipedia that needs to be addressed for wikipedia to retain reliability a basic requirement ought to be that its editors have at least some scientific education there has to be some captain s on the ship and they have to have some scientific education otherwise wikipedia will gradually disintegrate into a mess if wikipedia finds no other phylogeneticist that can and wants to clean up the article i am prepared to do it it does however require that i am given the power to include and exclude contributions to the best of my judgement and knowledge my neutrality has been questioned in connection with my earlier contributions to wikipedia but as i have tried to explain i consider a scientific approach i e objectivity to be neutral the problem with cladistics is that it is subjective and denies objectivity since it leaves no neutral position between it and objectivity there is no neutral position between a denial of a comprehension and that comprehension i instead counter the denial by falsifying it with empirical evidence this does not counter deny cladistics but only shows that cladistics does not agree with facts whereas objectivity i e science does i thus show that cladistics' denial of science does not agree with facts this conclusion is not neutral but it is as neutral or objective as anything possibly can be questioning of this view on neutrality has to require an explanation of what else neutrality possibly can be for me neutrality is equal to objectivity some claim that objectivity is impossible but i claim that it is not this is however another story i thus advise against a deletion of the article and announce myself as willing to clean the article from cladistic influence on the condition that i'm given certain authorities mats envall presently at