Talk:metaevolution

RFD
I recommend deleting sense2. I reworked this entry in response to an rfc by Ruakh. I found sense1 in academic literature and it seems legit enough. But the original entry's sense (now sense2) turned out to be a pretty much one-owner proprietary concept peddled by some non-academic who is a pop-schlock "futurist" and "consultant" and whose writing is filled with high-sounding nonsense (see the sample quotation I added for sense2). The wikipedia entry for "metaevolution" was deleted long ago and the term is nowhere to be found in other dictionaries or encyclopediae. Sense2 is also not in any databases of philosophical literature that I searched. I say deep-six sense2. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The chance that one could ever find cites to support such a definition (sense 2) is vanishingly small. Each cite might optimistically support three attributes of the definition and some attributes will be overcited and some hard to cite. The definition has at least six attributes. I think it would need more than a dozen citations, if they could be found and distinguished from sense 1.
 * I am a fan of evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, epigenetics, and similar lines of thought, but this seems like the product of an obsessive mind. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * deleted as unattested -- Liliana • 12:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Definition needs trimming. I suspect that we can just cut off the last few sentences, but I figure some of y'all are probably familiar with the topic and can do a better job? —Ruakh TALK 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some work cleaning this one up and found another sense, but my research suggests that the original sense should just be deleted. I added an rfd-sense. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing. Ƿidsiþ 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)