User talk:ZfJames/Archives/2018/July

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alt-right

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:InfoWars

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:InfoWars. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi ZfJames. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 20:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you've retired, but hopefully this will be handy if you ever change your mind. Thanks for your contributions! Swarm ♠ 20:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• I see you got into a dispute at Liberty University shortly before you retired. Is that what it was about? I wish you wouldn't leave over it. It's a legitimate disagreement worth discussing civilly on the talk page, or perhaps on WP:POVN. In my opinion, it's generally inappropriate for an article about a religious topic to go out of the way to discredit said religious topic. I think most people would agree with that and sympathize with where you're coming from, myself included. However, that particular bit of content does say it's 'taught as a science', so there is a reason for the article to say that. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed or modified, or that a compromise can't be hammered out. I know it's frustrating when you run into disputes like this, but there are plenty of resources out there for editors who do, so that they don't get frustrated and quit. I hope you will reconsider! Best regards, Swarm ♠ 20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Swarm and I'm back to improve Wikipedia! I honestly just got discouraged when I saw a legitimate point of view (I did not state whether or not I thought it was accurate, but it is a legitimate point of view held by a number—not the majority, but a number—of scientists) completely written off in an article unrelated to the topic. If something is taught as a science, then doesn't that meant that it is a legitimate view per the scientific method (everything should be thoroughly investigated) even if it is not the currently accepted notion? Some viewpoints are sufficiently 'fringe' to be ignored, but when a large university (and numerous smaller ones) teaches it as fact, then the theory/hypothesis/whatever-you-want-to-call-it should be given the basic courtesy that anyone would afford to a commonly-accepted view. Well, I won't bother you with the details of my point, but I appreciate your note a lot!  :) I would love to take this issue to the Talk:Liberty University page but I'm frankly not sure how to do so (in terms of formatting). Do you have any advice? —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to it, just click "New section" at the top of the page and articulate your opinion. I'd be happy to start the conversation, if you'd like me to. Just to be clear, Wikipedia's content must reflect the weight of sources, so any attempts to discuss creationism through the lens of science are obviously going to be viewed as "fringe" and the mainstream scientific consensus is going to have to be presented to counterbalance it. Basically, it will never be presented as a legitimate scientific view on Wikipedia because of the scientific consensus, and any time it is mentioned within the context of science, there will also have to be a mention that it is thoroughly discredited by science. The question here, however, is whether it should be mentioned within the context of science in this article. I've read the sources, and I'm not convinced. I don't see any hard claims that Liberty "teaches creation as science". Perhaps you could look at the sources and let me know if you agree? Swarm ♠ 21:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The best explanation that I can find for not including creationism as a science is because it's based on faith (directly) and therefore is inadmissible as a scientific theory. Basically, I see your viewpoint and I understand the reason behind creationism's current position. I think that I would have to agree with you, Swarm regarding the lack of verifiable hard sourcing for the claim that Liberty "teaches creationism as science." The best sources that I can find only suggest that Liberty teaches science as a means to prove creationism (not the same thing). I'm finding that the statement as provided in the text would become factually accurate if I took out the phrase "as a science" since creationism is taught there. As far as whether or not it should be mentioned, I would say that I personally feel that it is a reasonable addition—with changes to make it less divisive. The article does cite two sources (1 and 2) although they are kinda 'eh' as far as sources go.

My suggestions are as follows in the red section (with reasoned arguments):

• Add a link to the notion article in the aforementioned word in the phrase: "the notion that the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago." The word 'notion' can easily be misinterpreted as a gratuitous departure from the informational (or impartial) tone that Wikipedia is supposed to adopt. Alternatively, the phrase could be changed to "which is the idea that the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago" since the word 'idea' covers a wide range of concepts and generally is considered to have no net implication (positive or negative).

• Remove the phrase ", a Pseudoscience," from the wording of the article. The addition of a pejorative term here is unnecessary since this is not the main article on creationism and anyone interested in further information can apply to the creationism link included on the page. If we wouldn't spend a few sentences describing what creationism is, then even a short phrase identifying creationism is also inappropriate (unless there is a set limit to the length of an irrelevant topic's description on an unrelated page, which I haven't seen). Furthermore, the pseudoscience reference as a qualification (to identify a fringe theory) is also unnecessary because the phrase "a viewpoint rejected by the...majority of life scientists" more than qualifies the creationism theory given the article's intended scope.
• Remove the phrase "as a science." There is little to support the idea that Liberty teaches that creationism is a science unto itself as that phrase suggests.
• Remove the word "overwhelming." It is impossible to quantify (and does not itself provide a valid assertion of quantity), which makes it a perfect example of a word to watch.

Here is the proposed revision with the changed/removed sections in bold in the old version:

Current Edition:

Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism, the notion that the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. Creationism, a pseudoscience, is taught as a science alongside evolution in biology and earth science classes, and students are instructed that the former offers the better explanation of biological diversity; a viewpoint rejected by the overwhelming majority of life scientists.

Revised Edition:

Liberty University teaches young Earth creationism, which is the idea that the Earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago. creationism is taught alongside evolution in biology and earth science classes, and students are instructed that the former offers the better explanation of biological diversity; a viewpoint rejected by the majority of life scientists.

What do you think? Should the section be included in the article in your opinion? I would probably throw in a weak support for excluding it if I was asked. If it was left, I think it would need revisions which won't be popular. What do you think about the revisions? I don't feel that changing the status of creationism on Wikipedia is necessary, but I do feel that a neutral tone in articles is important and this one caught my eye as being decidedly not-fitting to the article. Thanks again for your help! If you made it all the way down here, I apologize for the time it took to read this and I commend you for your fortitude!  ;) —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 01:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I made it! I don't really have any problem with your proposed changes themselves, but I'm still unsure about the bit that says "creationism is taught alongside evolution in biology and earth science classes". I'm not sure that's true. It's a Christian university that teaches creationism as a required class, but I don't see either of those sources directly claim that it is taught in actual science classes. The school's catalogue itself says that "creation studies" are their own classes and have their own center, and describes them as "interdisciplinary", drawing from many different things, including science. So, I would be inclined to agree with you that discussing some science, as well as numerous other things, while teaching creationism, is not the same as teaching "creationism as a science". Perhaps the "creation as science" concept should be removed from the section entirely and then we look at wording from there? I don't think that claim is supported by the sources. Swarm ♠ 19:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right... Let's just remove the science sources and see what works best... Maybe some other people would have ideas as well if we opened the issue on a talk page. Do you want me to create the new section on the talk or do you have other ideas, Swarm? —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and start the discussion! I'll chime in there. Swarm ♠ 10:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: It turns out that my summer has been super, super busy, so I probably won't be available to start the discussion for a little while. I just wanted to give you an update so that you would know what happened to me. :P I will still start the discussion, so you don't have to worry about that. —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)