Conservapedia talk:Guidelines
From Conservapedia
NOTE: Earlier discussions on the various sections of this page were made on the following pages:
Contents |
Tidying up
After discussion with some other administrators, I'm doing some tidying up of guidelines on other pages, in most cases redirecting them to this page. Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
Copying
What about quotations to illustrate a point or position? And how about fair use? I've started countless articles by quoting some liberal position about, e.g., feminism or global warming. --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
These guidelines need improvement and clarification
For example, for "Sources" it stated:
We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.
But if the article refers to the opinion as an opinion and not a hard fact, shouldn't that be allowed? Jinxmchue 02:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
And does this mean any citations to a newspaper story, or only in regards to scientific issues? --Jareddr 13:29, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
What happens if you are writing on a subject that is not scientific? How are we supposed, for example, to write about a recent event without using newspapers? Daphnea 20:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Attribution Section
Very curious about the lead example. I find it unnecessarily pugnacious.
There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most atheist biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species". English teachers call that attribution.
There are many religious scientists, including Christian Conservatives, who accept evolution as a fact. The above example is precisely equivalent to:
There's a difference between stating flatly that "Heaven is up" and reporting that "Christians believe Heaven is above Earth." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "God created the Heaven and the Earth" and saying "Most unsaved Jews believe God created the Heaven and the Earth."
The phrase "unsaved Jews" is, while technically accurate, provocative. Similarly, the full sentence, while also accurate, is incomplete, as Christians also believe God created the Heaven and the Earth.
Similarly, the example given in "Attribution" is both provocative (atheist biologists) and incomplete. A better example would be, simply, "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species." There are trained biologists who do not accept this, but they are in the minority.
Since this is a guideline page, I don't think I should edit it, rather than bring this up to those in charge. But I don't like it the way it is. It's not the Christian way to say it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Encinocathy (talk)
- I prefer it the way it is (I wrote it), but I'm not denying that your alternative ways of putting it would also be correct. However, I reject that your revised example is precisely equivalent. A closer equivalent to the second one would be "Most Christians believe God created the Heaven and the Earth". That doesn't sound so odd, does it? Yet it omits non-Christian Jews. It's a closer equivalent because it is referring to the single largest group that believes this, rather than a much smaller group. Similarly with "Most atheist biologists": atheist biologists would be the largest single group of biologists, plus it is atheism on which this belief is based, so it also hints at the basis for the belief. Philip J. Rayment 01:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
90/10 rule
What is Aschlafly's ratio in regards to talk pages/actual edits? OtherSide 20:21, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
Sources
Lately I've been seeing a lot of sketchy sources hanging around. For instance, the other day I found a quotation used to prove a point in an article which was taken from the comment on a blog article. I've also seen sources rejected out of hand for no real reason and other dubious sources used without any second thought. Lastly, I think we need to decide how and when to use other wikis as sources; there are numerous examples of this all over the site.
While I think the current wording of the "Sources" section was good at the time it was written, it has become necessary to find something else. I don't think we should say "source X is always out and source Y is always in", but clear, general guidelines without too much room for debate would clearly do the project a good service. HelpJazz 13:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
- I had a second thought. Often times a genralized statement is "proved" by citing one example of the statement. For example (I'm making this up) one might say "Conservatives are richer than liberals" and as the reference might show an article about some rich conservative. I don't know if this directly falls under "sources", but I think this issue should be discussed in the Guidlines (if not the Commandments). HelpJazz 14:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
