User talk:All Fish Welcome

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Why are you removing "Dr." from Jay L. Wile citations?--Elamdri 04:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Better question: Why would some put "Dr." in a citation?--All Fish Welcome 04:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Because that is his title.--Elamdri 04:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Have you ever seen a citation with "Dr." in it, other than on this site? The Conservapedia Manual of Style does not require this, and I don't think I've ever seen it recommended in any style guide or used in practice.--All Fish Welcome 04:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but if you keep doing this, Andy is going to come down on you with the full force of his rage, accusing you of liberal falsehoods and liberal bias by trying to cover up the man's Ph.D to discredit his writing.--Elamdri 04:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not afraid of Andy's rage. We can cite things correctly, the way everyone else in the world does, or we can cite them incorrectly, making us look foolish. Anyone familiar with bibliographic style would have seen that "Dr." in their and immediately started doubting the reliability of the information, which is unfortunate, since Wile is a real PhD and all of the information attributed to him seems correct so far. I'm sure Andy, as a teacher/professor, would prefer our articles to be cited properly.--All Fish Welcome 04:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well, just a friendly warning dude. Not gonna stop ya, but y'never know.--Elamdri 05:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, perhaps it was a bit over-stated, Andy's "rage", and a bit unfair. Me, on the other hand, well.....;-) If the article was edited by Andy, I would leave it alone, personally, or at least message him and ask for his input. Fair enough? --~ TK MyTalk 07:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I was being facetious TK, LOL.--Elamdri 08:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Fish, I don't see how deleting a bunch of "Dr." from edits in this context is worthwhile. Users might wonder about the qualifications of this textbook author. Why hide that from the reader? I suggest you contribute edits of clear merit before censoring "Dr." in this particular context.--Aschlafly 08:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Not to say "I told you so".... But I told you so.--Elamdri 08:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm still waiting for the rage. All I've seen is someone telling me he doesn't see how my edits are "worthwhile." The good thing about wikis is that those of us with an urge for pedantic correctness can fix the mistakes we find even when other people deem such work not to be worthwhile. And everyone benefits.
If article readers wonder about Wile's credentials, they are free to read the Conservapedia article about him. I might even start linking his name to that article. In any case, putting "Dr." in a citation places too much emphasis on the title. And that's what it is: A title, not a credential. The man's credential is "Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry from the University of Rochester in New York."
Placing such an emphasis on title in a citation actually lowers the perceived reliability of the article, for two reasons. First of all, no conventional form of academic citation I am aware of places such titles in the bibliography/works cited. To do so on Conservapedia makes it look like the site's editors haven't written so much as a high school term paper. While this may be true of some editors, it does not mean that other editors may not correct them. That's the whole point of a wiki. Secondly, an improper emphasis on title is a hallmark of a less-than-wonderful character. The title may be fake, or used inappropriately. Wile doesn't deserve people looking askance at his work because some wiki editor decided to polish his sources and make them look more Serious and Important than they try to be.
Finally, if Conservapedia is confining itself to the use of trustworthy, authoritative sources, there should be no need to note the credentials of a source on an article page.
On the Manual of Style talk page, I have offered to write a brief article suggesting a standard form of citation. That offer stands.--All Fish Welcome 00:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • That man is just everywhere! He never sleeps, you know. lol --~ TK MyTalk 08:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Fish is correct about convention. In an encyclopedic context the mentioning of credentials is inappropriate. In fact, most scholars are immediately suspicious of someone who lists their credentials in such a manner. RDre 08:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Shhh... don't make waves... teehee.--Elamdri 08:09, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, the truth is, published scientists and academics abhor wiki's and never use them, are these the "scholars" you are talking about, RDre? --~ TK MyTalk 09:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't see any reason for such a confrontational tone, TK. I was under the impression we were endeavoring to be encyclopedic. If so, then the removal of titles from inappropriate places would be absolutely the correct thing to do. If the site wishes a different tone from encyclopedic, then that is your choice. RDre 10:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually TK, while I have no doubt that what you say is true for many, there are a few of those types skulking about :) Murray 13:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • No confrontational tone, Fish. Really. I have never used a wiki before, except to look thinks up on Wikipedia, and found many incorrect things. That didn't stop me from using it, just made me check their facts. All I try to do here is stop confrontations with the owner and others who run the place, because, in the end, what good do they do? I thought I gave you good advice to message him personally. And I know from personal friends who are published, what they have told me about wiki's and why they won't contribute. At least under their real names. --~ TK MyTalk 03:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry if this discussion is over, but I just thought that I'd add a couple of comments.

First, many anti-creationists try and discredit creationists by questioning their credentials. This leads creationists to counter by pointing out their credentials, to show that they have as much credibility as non-creationists. Personally, I believe that titles should not be used in references here if that is the standard way of doing things as you say (and I'm not questioning that), but that might explain why you do tend to find them in such places here on Conservapedia.

Second, regarding your edit to Hydrologic cycle, it is always a good idea to use the edit comment to briefly explain why you are doing something. I can understand your edit being reverted because your motive for removing the title was not understood.

Philip J. Rayment 05:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

The rationale you're describing is intellectual puffery, nothing more. It looks stupid, fails as a credential, discredits the article, and by association discredits the source in question. It is entirely unhelpful. I shouldn't have to explain editing textual detritus like that away, any more than I would explain the correction of spelling errors or bad punctuation. It is eye-catchingly, obviously wrong to anyone with a 10th grade education. I understand that mistakes are made -- I make more than most. But the reaction to my corrections is just bizarre.--All Fish Welcome 05:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
  • The higher one climbs, All Fish, the more one tends not to notice such reactions. I am sure with practice, and some meditation perhaps, you will grow accustomed to briefly noting your edits, and avoiding the chatter of nattering nabobs of negativity, eh? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Another comment (which I was going to make before your response All Fish Welcome, but it answers that as well): You mention that we look foolish if we don't cite things "correctly". It may be true that people will think us foolish, but is not a fair conclusion to come to. Being unfamiliar with reference styles does not mean that we are unfamiliar with the subject. We can be experts in one area (the subject) and complete novices in another (citation styles), and one has no bearing on the other. In the "real world", I'm sure that you would find that many people who write articles and books are quite unfamiliar with "correct" citation styles (at least the first time they publish), but their publisher is familiar with that aspect. Wikis are different in that there is no separate "publisher" to impose that consistency. Philip J. Rayment 05:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Apart from the first parenthesis, that is what I tried posting before I had an edit conflict with your post. To add to that, I have more than a 10th grade education, I pride myself on being a good speller (not perfect of course), and I have read plenty of books and journals with plenty of footnotes. However, I can say with all honesty, that the inclusion of a title is most definitely not "eye-catchingly, obviously wrong". We do not all have the same level of proficiency in all areas. Philip J. Rayment 05:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


Yes, you look foolish when you write things incorrectly -- especially when what you write is published for worldwide consumption. It is a fair conclusion. Regardless of citation style, academic titles are practically never interpolated into a reference, especially in scholarly writing. Conservapedia is an "educational resource" that compares itself favorably to Oxford University Press(Conservapedia:About), so I would expect that to be the case here, too.
This is a basic scholarly writing concept that every generalist should have, and certainly every expert. (I've checked APA, MLA, CBE, and Turabian, which I'm pretty sure covers most areas of expertise.) It should have been taught to everyone in high school. An interested layperson would have picked it up rather quickly -- if not from scholarly writing, at least from Michael Crichton novels. It is not esoteric, or arcane. It's not a matter of style that you can dispute on the grounds of an "author's voice." It's pretty universal.
But like I said, mistakes are made. (I'll probably find one in this after I hit "Save page.") Sometimes the same mistake is made repeatedly. Even then, they don't become flagrant errors until one is presented with the right way of doing things but continues doing things the wrong way, without even an attempt at rationalization. And I'm still waiting for that rationalization. The closest I've gotten is, "Readers might want to know his credentials," which falls flat when you consider the fact that "Dr." is an honorific, not an academic credential. He could be a DBA for all that tells us. (He's not.)
The funny thing is, I probably would have ignored it if a post-nominal degree was used instead of an honorific. It would still be incorrect, but it would be less offensive.
And for heaven's gate, stop making tiny edits, people. Say what you have to say then give the soap box back.--All Fish Welcome 06:37, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
So your response is basically to tell me that everyone should know what you think they should know and that if they don't, then the problem is with them. Nice. I'm actually supporting your ideas here, remember, just disagreeing with how you are telling people off for not already understanding. Philip J. Rayment 07:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

See Conservapedia:Should citations to Ph.D. holders use "Dr."?. --Ed Poor 07:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Fishy. Love the fact that you know and care as much as you do, though I'm not sure that style -- much less substance -- is considered a priority here. --AppalledBystander 06:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Writing Guide

You might like to see this and even add your own comment. Philip J. Rayment 03:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Further discussion here. Philip J. Rayment 06:14, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Well....

I hope this isn't cryptic for you All Fish, and now you are satisfied and understand all that has happened. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:25, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Greetings!! I am a Pandeism Fish, and I feel welcome!! Pandeism 12:21, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools