View source for Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?

It seems that many of the science topics are only using PoV websites for sources instead of actual publications and peer reviewed research papers.  When scientists write science publications they cite peer reviewed papers and published works only when dealing with the research aspect of the science.  When dealing with the application they will sometimes use a website to better illustrate the application of the method.  When a quote is used the context of the quote is secondary to the research and used to support the topic, not the other way around.  

In doing so the science based topics would have a structure like below -

: Description and Mechanisms of Topic
: Method and Experimentation
: Supporting Quotes
: Criticisms of Research
: Criticism Evidence

This can be used for students to learn and also provide opposing evidence so that both sides can be better informed.

Should we follow this method, at conservapedia?  

== Yes ==
--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes & No==

In theory it would be better that way, but sources like that are hard to find, have not always been put on the internet at all, or are protected (only accessible from universities or with a password).

In addition many of those articles are incomprehensible to just about everyone, except for specialists in that field.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: I can understand that, application is where other sources could be cited for the layman.  Pubmed and other science journals are pretty easy to use and link to.  Personaly I see this as a way of making sure that people will only edit what they have taken the time out to understand.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


Yes, articles from accessible science journals should be included as often as possible, I agree.

I also propose a rule that in the case of quotes, demands a link to a text in which the entire quote and its original context are included, to avoid quote mining or misinterpretations.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I would agree as well.  The quote mining thing is an issue.  If you are using a quote from Darwin's book then link to the book online not some website that gives a POV without a link to the book.

Perhaps just the structure for science articles should be used, that way we could distinguish the difference between science articles and philosophical POV articles?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, not sure everyone hear knows how to write a solid scientific article though.
Maybe there should be a new commandment, or a guide on how to structure scientific articles, with an example on how to, and how NOT to go about it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]


== No ==
Nope, too hard. And trying to define "acceptable references/unacceptable references" tends to encourage disputes. 

The '''important thing''' about a reference is that the reader should be able to trace where the item came from, and enough information should be provided so that readers can judge for themselves whether ''they'' trust the reference. 

(That doesn't mean no guidelines at all. I was recently involved in an issue on Wikipedia in which there was a dispute over sourcing an item&mdash;the text of some graffiti in Barrington Hall on the Berkeley campus&mdash;which was there solely on an editor's personal recollection. After the editor argued for many days that no source was required, and losing the argument, suddenly a new blog appeared on the Web which quoted the exact list of graffiti with the exact wording that the editor had wanted to have in the article... as well as saying how important those graffiti were and that they were essential to any account of Barrington Hall's history. That editor then immediately put the material back, citing the blog as a reliable source both for the content of the graffiti and their importance. Much discussion ensued...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Just in case this whole discussion might possibly about, um, let's say evolution versus creationism, there's nothing wrong with citing creationist websites as long as it's obvious to the reader what they are... and that the article is intellectually honest. Darwin was wrong"<sup>[#]</sup>" won't do, but "The creationist website so-and-so says "Darwin was wrong"<sup>[#]</sup>, while scientific journal so-and-so says "Darwin was right"<sup>[#]</sup>" is OK. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point but it seems the issue we are having is the substantiation of claims.  The POV issue is the problem that we are finding on many of the pages here.  By having the citations as accurate as the science it would reduce the POV and provide an objective stance to the reader.  Right now many of the science based articles on this site could not be used by a student to pass any science exams since they are riddled with POV and quote mines without providing an accurate description of the science.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also the problem of who publishes the research. Which religious POV published it? Evolutionism or Creation? Also scientific related? Or just pure physical science? Sounds more like this is a fishing expedition then a sound query. Well you can always set up enough rules and regulations on anything to get a desired affect.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:::I'm all for stating both sides to an issue, so long as both sides are explained ACCURATELY! I am sick and tired of people going around preaching that Evolution says that there is no god, science can not prove or disprove the existance of god. I've also heard that Evolution says that life originated on it's own, it does not, that is the study of abiogenesis. Facts must plainly stated on there own. I don't rant about false claims about Creation, because anybody with half a brain cell can type in "Genesis" on [http://www.google.com google], and get the entire statement. Confusion about facts is bad, the bible even says so. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 14:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? I would like to see that. I would also like to see how half a brain cell is still able to operate. Or is it that people who google it are operating on half a brain cell versus someone that uses the dewey decimal system? Sorry about the sarcasm. Funny what people also think of as facts these days.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Evolution does not directly say there is no God, any more than Intelligent Design says there is a God. Each theory, however, leads to those respective conclusions. Indeed, the first thing Darwinists usually say in response to ID's critique of evolution is that ID is "merely creationism in disguise". Why can't the anti-Darwinists make the same charge about evolution? It's merely atheism shrouded in materialism. 

Darwinists say that only physical forces and laws must be considered when looking at biology. But the evidence is that these are insufficient to account for what biologists themselves call the "appearance of design". 

I think we should reference any scientific source, whether it's a peer reviewed scientific paper, a popular book written for laymen, or a newspaper or blog article. Whatever gets the point across with accurate, reliable information is good enough for me. Any theory worth considering is worth comparing with the facts. So if evolution is all it's supposed to be, its supporters ought not to mind close scrutiny. After all, there is no way to disprove a true theory! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)