Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

Revision as of 22:27, August 5, 2011

Student Panel's Decision

After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at User talk:CPanel, and we will do our best to resolve them.

Sincerely,
The Conservapedia Student Panel --User:CPanel

The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:

The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ CPanel 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Student Panel

I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:

• "the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
• "to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
• "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
  • The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
  • Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, Date of the Exodus is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
  • Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article has changed in major ways since then.
• "Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or should apply) anymore.

I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --Sid 3050 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.

Since the Student Panel decreed this in April 2007, User:Conservative has edited this article over 1000 times (see here). The original version as approved by the panel can't be seen here at Conservapedia, as the article was deleted & recreated without edit-history a couple of times afterwards (see here). This is quite surprising, as the article is protected: why should authorized personal edit the article in a way that these edits have to be hidden?

Fortunately, the version from Mai 1, 2007 can be seen here - courtesy to the wayback machine.

The differences are stunning: Not only is this approved version much shorter (roughly a third of the current article), all the parts linking evolution with Atheism, liberalism, etc., are missing!

These parts seem to change the article in a major way. And they are definitely not helpful when formulating an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution.

So it seems that the Student Panel should review this article again!

RonLar 15:18, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

The article still reflects that macroevolution is pseudoscience so no real sweeping changes were made - just enhancements. Given that Andy's first homeschooler group liked my work, I think we all know that all I have to do is make a call to Andy explaining things and Andy and his Christian homeschoolers will endorse my efforts. In short, this is an evolutionist Pickett's charge. I have talked to Bible believing Christians and they like this article. I hope this clears things up for the evolutionists and atheists. Conservative 16:21, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Thank you. Then let's not do anymore reversions of these polite editors comments on this discussion page, please. Rob Smith 16:23, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservative, the disclaimer indicates that the student panel decides about the editing of this article, not Aschlafly. You position seems to be that you follow their wishes while ignoring what they are saying.

We other don't have this luxury: we have to follow what is written. For the sake of clarity something has to be changed:

• either your way of editing
• or the disclaimer.

RonLar 16:58, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

RonLar, why are you so interested in this disclaimer? I doubt most CP editors - and virtually no readers - knew it existed before you started talking about it. Why does it matter so much? If it were me, I'd just leave it. Jcw 17:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Anyone how reads the article and tries to change something will find the disclaimer: it's often the only thing which is there on the talk-page.

And then you see that despite this disclaimer the article is edited over and over again...

These are things which irk me: I ask myself - how can it be? How many changes were there?

And then I get miffed, as it gets difficult to answer these question, as the article was deleted over and over again.

And so, I look deeper into, just to see that the dichotomy can't be explained.

So, we there is an objective contradiction between the disclaimer and the edit history. Ignoring such a thing is just not my way.

Hope that helps.

RonLar 17:13, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

These are valid questions and justifiable points. I can't guarantee you'll get an answer to your questions, but nonetheless, it is very appropriate that this talk page is where they should be raised, and an accurate record of the user comments be maintained here. Rob Smith 18:27, 5 August 2011 (EDT)