I have more of a problem with those whose decision to believe in literal biblical inerrancy leads them to conclude that any evidence which is not superficially consistent with the King James Version is therefore wrong, and who edit accordingly. Not that Sam is necessarily one such, but his contentious edits to Human and other articles do indicate a viewpoint at odds with informed scientific opinion on this. The fact that many Americans agree is not really persuasive, since a goodly number also apparently believe that Elvis is still alive. Guy (JzG)
Encyclopedias are not about persuasion, they are about cataloging facts (like the % of people who believe in God in a given country). I'd appreciate it if you two stopped the rhetorical games and one-upsmanship, and focused on trying to help improve the articles in question. For example, providing a citation to [[Socialism]] showing that the socialist international opposes racism, and removing the statement currently there (that socialism opposes racism) would be a sign of rigour.
People who assume that theirs is an "informed, scientific opinion" in contrast to others who merely cite facts need to leave their opinions at the door. Books of reference are to have one agenda alone, the cataloging of accurate information. Simply because that information does not suit your POV is no reason to exclude it. Please review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy
SS
On 4/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:10:30 -0600, you wrote:
Yes, I mean democratic socialism or social democracy, not totalitarian movements which adopt some socialist elements or label themselves socialist while butchering millions. Of course they don't label themselves totalitarian.
It's not the first time I've come across Sam's line of reasoning. Saying that socialists were racist because the National Socialist German Workers Party were racist is about as valid as saying that democracies and republics are all police states because the German Democratic Republic was a police state. It is an absurd and easily demolished inference.
I have more of a problem with those whose decision to believe in literal biblical inerrancy leads them to conclude that any evidence which is not superficially consistent with the King James Version is therefore wrong, and who edit accordingly. Not that Sam is necessarily one such, but his contentious edits to Human and other articles do indicate a viewpoint at odds with informed scientific opinion on this. The fact that many Americans agree is not really persuasive, since a goodly number also apparently believe that Elvis is still alive. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l