Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,640
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 18:19, July 16, 2011
, 18:19, July 16, 2011Reverted edits by Faeces (talk) to last revision by Iduan
NOTE: Earlier discussions on the various sections of this page were made on the following pages:
* [[Conservapedia talk:Attribution|Attribution]]
* [[Conservapedia talk:Civility|Civility]]
* [[Conservapedia talk:Reliability|Reliability]]
* [[Conservapedia talk:Sources|Sources]]
* [[Conservapedia talk:Teamwork|Teamwork]]
== 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:06, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
== These guidelines need improvement and clarification ==
For example, for "Sources" it stated:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
But if the article refers to the opinion as an opinion and not a hard fact, shouldn't that be allowed? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 02:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
And does this mean any citations to a newspaper story, or only in regards to scientific issues? --[[User:Jareddr|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? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 20:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
== Attribution Section ==
Very curious about the lead example. I find it unnecessarily pugnacious.
<blockquote>
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. </blockquote>
There are many religious scientists, including Christian Conservatives, who accept evolution as a fact. The above example is precisely equivalent to:
<blockquote>
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."
</blockquote>
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. {{unsigned|Encinocathy}}
: 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
==90/10 rule==
What is Aschlafly's ratio in regards to talk pages/actual edits? [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 20:21, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
:it would surprise me if it did not meet the 90/10 rule, he does a lot of reverts. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:50, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but my problem with the 90/10 rule is that so often what seems to be an innocuous edit is reverted, requiring a lengthy discussion. This often means I must either:
(a) let it lie, and therefore not make any useful contribution, or
(b) debate the issue, thereby skewing my talk : edit ratio!
I'm not talking about vandalism or provocation, either. I mean definitions of the 'young adult' demographic in publishing and redirects for The Metropolitan Museum Of Art. The mind boggles. [[User:Scoresby|Scoresby]] 21:44, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
*Well being since you are a shining example of people who make socks to troll us, to insert false information, I am leaving your post here as an example of just what liars liberals are.....that they will use any pretext to try to disrupt with silly clap trap. Those whose job it is to proffer instruction to editors, to answer questions, cannot, should not, and it is irrational to even suggest they should not be exempt from the 90/10 "rule" which isn't, really. It is a guideline. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:17, 29 June 2009 (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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
::I like the recent change by Karajou. I would love to see my comments above (which I forgot I had written until just a second ago) integrated as well. I think the comment about newspaper's reliability is interesting, but I think that blogs are of even lower reliability. Newspapers lose readers (and therefore money) if they consistently give false reports; bloggers are held to no standards, and almost none are used as a primary source of income. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
==Partisanship of Sources==
This sentence "It's typical of partisans to strengthen their criticisms of a target by claiming a source who is supposedly loyal to the target," doesn't make any sense. What does it mean to "claim a source"? Looks like a clause is missing or the "who" is unnecessary. {{unsigned|StephM}}
Sorry if this information is posted somewhere else, but would someone in the know mind posting a list of reliable, non-partisan sources? {{unsigned|JakeW}}
== 90/10 rule (2) ==
I know its just a nitpick, but there is a link that section which leads back to the article. {{unsigned|Edgar16}}
: Fixed, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)
==Proposed Template Guideline Amendment==
Where it says that templates should be immediately protected, I can understand that this is to reduce vandalism. However, due to the volatile (sp?) nature of most rosters, I would like to request that all roster templates be unprotected, unless vandalized, so that all changes can be made at the appropriate time. I make this request now because most leagues are either in or getting into their offseasons. Thank you, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 10:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)
== Anatomical blunder ==
The humerus is in the arm, so it isn't the thigh bone. Unless this is a deliberate joke (in which case I'll get my coat, although I don't find it all that "humerus") it should be changed quickly, as this is one of the first pages new users read. I'd do it myself but the page is rightly locked.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:09, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
*Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
== Request for Cleanup of Article Mainspace ==
I'd like to request that administrators, when they get a chance, remember to take a look at [[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates]] - a category given to pages with the "speedy" [[Template:db]] tag. Thanks!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:41, 31 May 2010 (EDT)