Talk:Zach Johnson

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TK (Talk | contribs) at 16:25, 9 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Prominent?

He is prominent among a new generation of Christian athletes - Where is this information from? Who else is on this list of prominent Christian athletes? Seems like an opinion/gossip line to me. Jrssr5 15:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it doesn't to me, or to Andy. He is the winner of the Masters, therefore he is prominent. --~ TK MyTalk 15:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

How is it evidence of a "new generation"? There is nothing in the link to support that claim. --Cgday 16:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It certainly shows that the idea of a new generation of Christian athletes exists.
WhatIsG0ing0n 16:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 :: it shows a individual has faith - it's says nothing at all about a generational trend. --Cgday 16:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


  • Well, I am sorry if you don't agree about what is self-evident. --~ TK MyTalk 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The point of an ecylopedia is not that something is "self-evident" but that well-sourced reference can be made for a claim. --Cgday 16:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • So, you can talk, but cannot look, and find the source? You like to edit, but not "do"? Or are you perhaps just a "concerned" citizen being vigilant? --~ TK MyTalk 16:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Who's going to look for a cite that they cannot add to the article because it's been protected? Crackertalk 16:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I certainly don't expect you to, Rob, even though it has been explained many times, users can slap the copy they want to add here, on the talk page. But that isn't "good enough", I understand. In the meantime, I added the citation. ;-) Another non-issue made into a "issue". People have time to carp and complain, yet little time to actually create articles, that I do understand. The whole point is, if someone can take the time to add copy, and add templates, they should also have the time to do a simple web search for the missing citation. As I hastily created the article, Andy and Hoji were each adding citations and checking it. I am sorry it wasn't up to someones expectations. I tried many times to resolve this locking issue, but people just switched the channel rather than try to accomodate another point of view. So be it. User "Conservative" has the right idea about dealing with "complainers", IMO. --~ TK MyTalk 17:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Copying

The section of this article labeled “2007 Masters Tournament” seems to be in violation of the rules of Conservapedia. It is largely copied form the Des Moines Register article on the event (some sections nearly word for word) and yet the page only labels the Register article as one of the “References”. The register article is here [1].

A comparison of the text of the register article shows that several passages were take as direct quotes or as such a close paraphrase that a direct reference should be given not just a small hypertext link along with a number of other articles giving the false impression that these words are the synthesis of a number of sources rather than a cut and paste.

Register:

Johnson, the 31-year-old son of a Cedar Rapids chiropractor, showed a practitioner’s patience — at least on the surface — through difficult conditions over three rounds and today.

Conservapedia article as of 5:30 pm EST 4/9:

Johnson, the 31-year-old son of a Cedar Rapids chiropractor, showed a practitioner’s patience — at least on the surface — through difficult conditions throughout the four rounds of play.

Register:

No player from Iowa had finished in the top 10 of a Masters, with the highest finish being a tie for 11th by Davenport’s Jack Fleck in 1962.
Fleck is the only other Iowan to win a major championship, beating Ben Hogan in an 18-hold playoff at the 1955 U.S. Open.

Conservapedia article as of 5:30 pm EST 4/9:

No player from Iowa had finished in the top 10 of a Masters, with the highest finish being a tie for 11th by Davenport’s Jack Fleck in 1962. Fleck is the only other Iowan to win a major championship, beating Ben Hogan in an 18-hold playoff at the 1955 U.S. Open.

Register:

"This is very surreal — very, very surreal," Johnson said.
Johnson said with a cracking voice as he talked with CBS near the 18th green that the victory meant even more on Easter, as he credited Jesus and his late grandfather for helping him steel nerves.

Conservapedia article as of 5:30 pm EST 4/9:

"This is very surreal — very, very surreal," Johnson said with a cracking voice as he talked with reporters near the 18th green that the victory meant even more on Easter, as he credited Jesus and his late grandfather for helping him steel nerves.

Someone who can edit this article ought to change it quickly, especially as it is liked from the front page. --Reginod 17:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


  • I will be happy to unlock it, if you mean to "repair" it, Reginod. Otherwise, I would inform you that direct copying is not against our rules, and we do not insist that contributors para-phrase and distill everything into original copy. For a short article like this, one could only use so many words to distill into ones own words, eh? So do you wish to repair it? --~ TK MyTalk 17:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
em.. forget your rules, you do know it's against the law to steal someone's copyright material without permission? --Cgday 17:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
It's kind of funny that the copying even includes the typo ("18-hold playoff) in the Register article. Murray 17:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Uh, copying IS against the rules, TK. Not that you care much about that...
Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.
Would you like me to request a phrasing change of our first Conservapedia Commandment, based on your post here? --Sid 3050 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
After your comment I reread the rules and I can’t see how you can say copying is not against them. Commandment number 1 reads “Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.” I can’t read this to mean anything other than that copying from non-public domain sources, like the Des Moines Register, is against the rules. (Further I think at the article stands it is in violation of commandment number 2 “Always cite and give credit to your sources,[1] even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.” Since the direct quotes are not marked as quotations and it is not clear where they are taken from).
I can’t see how, after reading those Comandments, you can argue that copying from a non public domain source and then not marking the direct quotes with quotation marks and then not citing exactly where the direct quotes were taken from is not in violation of the stated rules of Conservapedia.--Reginod 18:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Wasn't my add. So, I take it this is once again the disrupting squad here to point out flaws and discredit, but never fix anything? --~ TK MyTalk 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I’ve made a number of what I believe are helpful additions to Conservipedia and so I resent and object to being tied in with “the disrupting squad here to point out flaws and discredit, but never fix anything”—that is nothing but an ad hominem attack and a baseless one at that.. I’d have simply added the citation and moved on if the page were not locked, and if there was not a request on the Articles for Deletion page to report copying, “Use Conservapedia:Copying to track articles that have no problem with topic or content, but which seem to draw heavily on material copied from elsewhere.” --Reginod 18:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

How are we going to fix something on a locked page? are you saying you will unlock the page so that we can remove the copyright material? At the moment, you are tell us to put out the fire across the street while you have us locked in a jallcell. --Cgday 18:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, look closer. Someone added to my original. The page is unlocked. Please make sure you improve it, and not strip it bare....that might be considered sabotage. --~ TK MyTalk 18:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it was. The edit shows that YOU added the info. --Sid 3050 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The above comment had been "lost" during TK's edit (Oops?) --Sid 3050 18:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Sid, you are right, and I was wrong, part of that copy was the original I started with. --~ TK MyTalk 18:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Removed all material against commandment 1

I have removed all material that is in breach of commandment 1. Can someone else check my edits and confirm I have not removed anything that is not a copyvio and not against commandment 1 --Cgday 18:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Sign - so TK has reverted the article so that it a) contains a straight lift from Wikipedia (against Commandment 1) and also b) contains a straight lift from a copyright source - again against commandment 1 and also is a straight forward breach of US copyright law. Great job. what are the rules for here again? --Cgday 18:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I see nothing "lifted" from Wikipedia. Please support your assertion. I warned you removing the material, rather than re-writing it, was nothing more than the act of a vandal. Do not criticize without solutions. --~ TK MyTalk 18:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

References

  1. Des Moines Register [1]