Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Big science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Response)
(Response)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
That's why this article is going to be expanded, to include detail and sources.  Saying that scientists lie and distort is one thing, but if there isn't anything to back that statement up then all this article would be is "our word against them", and we can't have that.  Just take a step back, look over the article as it is, and put some meat in it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 
That's why this article is going to be expanded, to include detail and sources.  Saying that scientists lie and distort is one thing, but if there isn't anything to back that statement up then all this article would be is "our word against them", and we can't have that.  Just take a step back, look over the article as it is, and put some meat in it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
:OK: from you, that's fine. You are someone to be respected. I am not going to take it from a saboteur and troll. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:14, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:14, 1 October 2008

This essay article needs a whole heck of a lot more references than the, uh, zero that it currently contains. HelpJazz 13:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"The aim of furthering 'world government' and the overthrow of national sovereignty"? This is pushing paranoia and hysteria to new levels of credulity. Sideways 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Rename or something

I suggest this article be deleted (since it was created to prove a point), moved to essay, or at least renamed. The term "Big science" is already defined. Please read the Britannica article on the subject for its definition and the history of the phrase. We can't just redefine established terms. HenryS 11:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Delete..... Hrm, on second thought, maybe move to essay with the proper redirects so that nobody in the future gets the bright idea to do it again. HelpJazz 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree with both of you. It's just not encyclopedic, & would take a lot of work to make it even remotely encyclopedic. Delete or move to essay. Sideways 11:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I would support moving this to Essay (definitely better than deleting it). On a side note, in the general case, I don't think we should let the main-stream media and others dictate term definitions for us. --DRamon 12:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
There are two problems: (1) I don't think Britannica is part of the MSM and (2) the term "big science" (and anything with "big" used to denote "evil capitalist" e.g. big oil, big pharma) was invented by the MSM. HelpJazz 12:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Mention of Conservapedia

A mention of Conservapedia is way over the top. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release. Also, the statement itself didn't mediate the rest of the article, it attempted to confirm the article's conclusions. HelpJazz 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I partially agree, which is why ultimately I think moving this to Essay is the best solution (since in that scenario, we can keep the Conservapedia references). --DRamon 15:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Response

I defy the drivel contained in the posts above, contributed by overt and closet Liberals and fellow-travellers at the cesspit. The Liberal clique has revealed itself in its full, unappetising colours. If any of you dogs had any sense of decency you would come out in your open colours and resign from CP; instead, you prefer to be cancerous cells, attempting to destroy it from within. Well, you will fail, anmd what goes around, comes around. Bugler 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

So rather than defending the statememts made in the article by responding to any of the specific criticisms we have raised in a meaningful way, you choose to insult the people who have raised them and reduce any free discussion to the level of accusations and pejoratives. I can't say that this surprises me very much, but I find it disappointing that, on what is intended to be an encyclopedia, certain individuals are allowed to declaim their own opinions as facts, contrary to the general consensus, and throw insults around which, if used by any other editor, would probably result in them being banned. Sideways 17:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
I have tried to make small edits with a clear edit comment on each, to make discussion easier. HelpJazz 19:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
The whole problem with this article is that it takes something that is already well defined and gives a completely different definition. The content here may or may not be true, but this is not "big science". I suggest rather than giving personal opinions about SCIENCE we start bringing academic references (EB) to the discussion. HenryS 20:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Academic references? HenryS, using professors and their collegiate cronies to verify science is like trying to drown a fire in gas. The article is fine the way it is going, but some of the information about it's aims should be both expanded and specified. PCarson 13:55, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Encyclopedia Brittanica is part of the science conspiracy? HelpJazz 13:57, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Big Science exists, and its malign tentacles spread across the globe. Don't deny this; it is a fact that the establishment exists to promote its liberal virews and crush dissent. By constantly damaging tghis article, you are playing into their hands. Bugler 14:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

PS: I am not deaf. Bugler 14:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
No, but you can't read. From the Commandments: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources". Just add some sources, and you won't need the tag. HelpJazz 14:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
you can't read Oh, and of course HelpJazz is never insulting... I know that everything in this article is the truth, and you and HenryS should trust me. My business is to create an encyclopaedia, and I try to keep busy making new articles. I don't notice you creating anything, except unnecessary trouble and fuss. Instead of me finding citations for you, if you feel it so important why don't you find some? You might find that doing some positive work for once, rather than a drip, drip, drip of carping and destructive criticism, would do you some good. And you would find out things that might help end your wooly-minded admiration of these Liberal charlatans. Bugler 14:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

That's why this article is going to be expanded, to include detail and sources. Saying that scientists lie and distort is one thing, but if there isn't anything to back that statement up then all this article would be is "our word against them", and we can't have that. Just take a step back, look over the article as it is, and put some meat in it. Karajou 14:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

OK: from you, that's fine. You are someone to be respected. I am not going to take it from a saboteur and troll. Bugler 14:14, 1 October 2008 (EDT)