Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cretaceous"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(strong suggestion: edit wars considered harmful) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Edit warring doesn't help. So before reverting again here, please explain yourself and get - well - "consensus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | :Edit warring doesn't help. So before reverting again here, please explain yourself and get - well - "consensus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::He's got half a point, actually. The weasel words ought to be associated with the dates, not with the ordering of the periods in question. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:24, March 29, 2007
This is ridiculous. It would be like having a page that said "according to modern historical consesus, the 4th century came between the 3rd and 5th centuries." There is no "modern scientific consensus" about when the Cretaceous was, its the term we use to describe a certauin time period.
- I see your point, but it doesn't apply in this case. Tsumetai was trying to accommodate two points of view. As you may know, geological time is a matter of controversy. A huge number of Americans are Young Earth creationists, and for them there was no "history of the earth" before it was created around 10,000 years ago.
- Edit warring doesn't help. So before reverting again here, please explain yourself and get - well - "consensus". --Ed Poor 08:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- He's got half a point, actually. The weasel words ought to be associated with the dates, not with the ordering of the periods in question. Tsumetai 08:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)