283
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + +
→Actually Sourcing the Article
:I have to agree, if AiG is considered an acceptable source on this site, then the National Geographic has to be considered reliable as well: it's one of the most distinguished and respected scientific journals in the world.[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:I have to agree, if AiG is considered an acceptable source on this site, then the National Geographic has to be considered reliable as well: it's one of the most distinguished and respected scientific journals in the world.[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
::I wouldn't go quite that far. National Geographic's online masthead characterizes it as a magazine, not a journal; their style guide refers to the publication as "a magazine," or, "the magazine," etc. Insofar as it is a journal in the vernacular, it is just the journal of the National Geographic Society--not a scientific (=research) journal. Their articles are vetted by editors, not by masked review. Sometimes that has come back to bite them--look at the recent chicken dinosaur from China.
::That said, I still think National Geographic is a more scholarly, reliable, authoritative source than many cited on this site.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)