Conservapedia talk:Editing etiquette

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Conservapedia talk:Editing etiquette as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 12:31, 4 July 2011. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

My reversion of Alexjohnc3's edits

Alexjohnc3 removed quote marks and the word "secular" in the example sentence "Secular geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old", with the edit comments:

  • What's with adding the word "secular" to "geologist"? It makes Conservapedia look like it's run by a bunch of Creationists or something.
  • No need for quotes around the word "facts". Use a different word, like "statements" if you feel like it.

As the author of this page, I thought I'd explain my rationale for the way it was, and thus why I have reverted it.

Alexjohnc3 unwittingly provides a good example of why the quote marks were there. He changed the sentence to read "Geologists believe that the world is 5.6 billion years old", presumably believing that statement to be factual. And that's the point. When an editor includes a statement that he considers to be factual, it doesn't mean that it actually is. The quote marks around the word "fact" were to indicate that, at the point in time when the editor includes the statement, whether or not the statement is factual is not something that has been agreed. It may be factual, but it may be that he thinks it's factual when it's not, so the quote marks are to indicate that the supposed "fact" may not be a fact, just as have used quote marks around one use of the word in this sentence.

The reason that the word "secular" was there was in an attempt to make the statement factual, i.e. correct, because it is not correct to make the statement that "geologists believe..." if this indicates that there is unanimity on the issue. For the record, many of the people running Conservapedia are creationists, and Alexjohnc3's edit comment insinuating that this is something undesirable is offensive.

Philip J. Rayment 21:11, 4 November 2007 (EST)

I doubt every single "secular" geologist believes Earth is over a billion years old. There's probably a few who believe that the world doesn't actually exist and is really just a simulation, just as there are some Creationist geologists. I didn't mean to be offensive, but you might as well have said, "secular evilutionists believe the world is 4.5 billion years old and that we're all monkeys!" Putting the world "secular" before words like "geologist," "scientist," etc. is a technique often used to imply that scientists don't have actual reasons for accepting the validity of a view. Alexjohnc3 18:11, 15 December 2007 (EST)
I would suggest that there are far more geologists who who believe that the world is around 6,000 years old than who believe that it doesn't exist. That's little more than a red herring. And how is what I said equivalent to calling someone "evil"? As for why the word secular is put there, on the contrary, it's not to imply that they don't have actual reasons, but to imply that their reasons are based on ideology rather than facts. Philip J. Rayment 01:40, 16 December 2007 (EST)


Since this page is linked to throughout Conservapedia, I have protected it from general editing. That does not mean who don't encourage suggested changes! It does mean it needs to be protected from potential vandals and mischief makers. Please post your suggestions for inclusion here, and an Administrator will be happy to open it for you, or discuss your ideas here. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:25, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hi. First I think this page should be unprotected, because it is in need of an updating every once and a while :). Second, shouldn't...
Etiquette rule: Favour improving another person's edits rather than deleting them.

Be changed to "favor" ? Thank you, Wahrheit (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

I've just unlocked it. I put that no reason was provided for locking, overlooking that a reason was provided here(!). Oh well. I still think we can try leaving it unlocked again.
As for the spelling, that's perfectly accurate English. Not American, granted, but as the page was not written by an American, that explains the use of (in this case), Aussie English.
Philip J. Rayment 05:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)