Category talk:Religion Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Mark Jones (Young Earth creationism article disputes) |
imported>Mark Jones |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Young Earth creationism article disputes== | ==Young Earth creationism article disputes== | ||
I have been developing the [[Young earth creationism]] article and trying to keep it in the spirit of the [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]], particularly as elucidated [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Alternative_formulation_of_the_policy:_assert_facts.2C_including_facts_about_opinions--but_don.27t_assert_opinions_themselves|here]], [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Expert_knowledge_and_neutrality|here]], [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone|here]], [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#.22Pseudoscience.22|here]] and [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Giving_equal_validity_is_wrong | here]]. However, I feel that some recent edits have been going against this. Parts are also being deleted and modified without adequate explanation or allowing opportunities for discussion beforehand. | I have been developing the [[Young earth creationism]] article and trying to keep it in the spirit of the [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]], particularly as elucidated [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Alternative_formulation_of_the_policy:_assert_facts.2C_including_facts_about_opinions--but_don.27t_assert_opinions_themselves|here]], [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Expert_knowledge_and_neutrality|here]], [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Fairness_and_sympathetic_tone|here]], [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#.22Pseudoscience.22|here]] and [[CZ:Neutrality_Policy#Giving_equal_validity_is_wrong | here]]. However, I feel that some recent edits have been going against this. Parts are also being deleted and modified without adequate explanation or allowing opportunities for discussion beforehand (this is not particularly inappropriate when the parts are known to be already under dispute). | ||
Could some editors from the Religion workgroup please take a look at the comments on the talk page and recent edits to the article and offer their guidance, particularly with regards to the comments [[Talk:Young_earth_creationism#.22Supporting_scientists.22_rephrasing | here]], [[Talk:Young_earth_creationism#Edit_to_.22Notable_supporters.22_section | here]] and [[Talk:Young_earth_creationism#Deletion_of_section_without_explanation | here]] in the talk page. | Could some editors from the Religion workgroup please take a look at the comments on the talk page and recent edits to the article and offer their guidance, particularly with regards to the comments [[Talk:Young_earth_creationism#.22Supporting_scientists.22_rephrasing | here]], [[Talk:Young_earth_creationism#Edit_to_.22Notable_supporters.22_section | here]] and [[Talk:Young_earth_creationism#Deletion_of_section_without_explanation | here]] in the talk page. | ||
It would be good to maintain a close watch on this article and talk page anyway as it is one of those most likely to veer of into non-neutral or unencyclopedic territory. Many thanks. [[User:Mark Jones|Mark Jones]] 17:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | It would be good to maintain a close watch on this article and talk page anyway as it is one of those most likely to veer of into non-neutral or unencyclopedic territory. Many thanks. [[User:Mark Jones|Mark Jones]] 17:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 16:27, 10 August 2007
Young Earth creationism article disputes
I have been developing the Young earth creationism article and trying to keep it in the spirit of the Neutrality Policy, particularly as elucidated here, here, here, here and here. However, I feel that some recent edits have been going against this. Parts are also being deleted and modified without adequate explanation or allowing opportunities for discussion beforehand (this is not particularly inappropriate when the parts are known to be already under dispute).
Could some editors from the Religion workgroup please take a look at the comments on the talk page and recent edits to the article and offer their guidance, particularly with regards to the comments here, here and here in the talk page.
It would be good to maintain a close watch on this article and talk page anyway as it is one of those most likely to veer of into non-neutral or unencyclopedic territory. Many thanks. Mark Jones 17:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)