nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: − * Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on [http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?p=2459938&sid=3fc7ec562d310602fdb812187fb662ab another web-site]. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.+ − * Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.+ − * The list is introduced with the comment, "'This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight". If that is all, then ''mentioning'' the fact and putting a link in a footnote is sufficient.+ − * Also on that comment, and to use an analogy, an article on the moon landings that listed criticisms (that they were faked) simply on the grounds that they have been raised is ludicrous. Surely the criticisms should have some validity before being included/mentioned/etc.+ − * I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.+ Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + +
Yes, peer-reviewed is okay, but... (and numbering my previous points).
Despite suggesting that this is the place for criticisms of flood geology, I'm deleting the list that Cgday put in this article for the following reasons:
Despite suggesting that this is the place for criticisms of flood geology, I'm deleting the list that Cgday put in this article for the following reasons:
# Because it is a copy and paste from a discussion forum on [http://uselessjunk.net/viewtopic.php?p=2459938&sid=3fc7ec562d310602fdb812187fb662ab another web-site]. Conservapedia articles are supposed to be original content.
# Because a list of this format and length is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
# The list is introduced with the comment, "'This list is to establish that those criticisms have been raised, not to suggest they have any weight". If that is all, then ''mentioning'' the fact and putting a link in a footnote is sufficient.
# Also on that comment, and to use an analogy, an article on the moon landings that listed criticisms (that they were faked) simply on the grounds that they have been raised is ludicrous. Surely the criticisms should have some validity before being included/mentioned/etc.
# I doubt that a forum post would be considered an acceptable source even for linking to in a footnote.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I shouldn't worry. If we start to put too much science in User:Conservative will lock the page and replace it with quotes. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I shouldn't worry. If we start to put too much science in User:Conservative will lock the page and replace it with quotes. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::: That site was the only one that showed up on a Google search, although another search earlier in the day (probably with a slightly different search string) did show up another one that was very similar. But I'm not disputing you on that point.
::: Yes, peer-reviewed journals are okay as sources. But please keep in mind comments 2, 3, and 4 in my post above.
::: Also, please avoid arguments that rely on assuming uniformitarian geology to be true, as that is the logical fallacy of begging the question. A number of the arguments on that list did that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)