228
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 51:
Line 51: + +
→"Gibberish"
:Ed, I believe that what you suggest is what is already being done in this and similar articles. I disagree with you mainly to the extent that I believe that the two different points of view do need to be ''mentioned'' in each such article, not just in one common place, although extensive discussion of the different points of view should be confined to one place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I believe that what you suggest is what is already being done in this and similar articles. I disagree with you mainly to the extent that I believe that the two different points of view do need to be ''mentioned'' in each such article, not just in one common place, although extensive discussion of the different points of view should be confined to one place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::Philip, the problem I see is that this isn't about "point of view." I approach this argument from a logical standpoint - if someone is researching the [[Cambrian]] period, for example, they probably aren't interested in what YEC says about the existence of such a period. As such, any discussion of YEC in the Cambrian article is irrelevant to the actual article. At most, a footnote could link to YEC, but any actual discussion of the topic is completely misplaced in the article. There's something to be said about comprehensively including both sides of the discussion, but that '''does not''' mean that each side has to gun the other down each time one of the topics is discussed. By the current logic of discussing YEC at every mention of an old earth topic, then Uniformitarianism or old earth rebuttals should compliment any sort of YEC article, which isn't happening. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 9 August 2007 (EDT)