See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

aSK:Content Review Committee/cases

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Cases to be considered by the Content Review Committee are to be placed on this page.

In the case of requests to copy articles written elsewhere, please read Copying from other sites first, and word your application accordingly.


Current Cases

Import parts of articles from Conservapedia

Back in 2011/2012 I wrote or rewrote six articles on Conservapedia. I no longer edit there since it became apparent that some editors were more interested in their own ideas than in considering information backed up by reliable references. What I would like to do is to move most of these articles to this site. Some rewording is almost certainly needed to get them at the right level for this site. Other auxiliary articles may also be needed. If this site already has such an article then I will consider carefully how I can add to that article. The relevant articles are:

--Unsigned comment by RolandPlankton (talk)

Hello Roland,
I will give you permission to copy these over, subject to the following conditions:
  • They really are your own work (I'm here referring to your reference to rewriting some articles; if you mean that you heavily modified them, and they are therefore partly the work of others, that is a problem; if you completely replaced what was there with your own wording, no problem).
    • P.S. I note that at least one of those articles has content by others, including me!
  • You add new content (in the same articles or in other articles) equivalent to the number of words you are copying. I'm not going to check the precise number of words; that is a guide only.
  • Copied content cannot exceed new content by more than one article's worth. That is, you can't copy all six with the intention of then adding new content (in case the latter never happens). You can copy one, add equivalent new content, copy another, and so on. Of course you can add new content to this site before copying a given article if you wish, but that is not a requirement.
Note that these conditions are not intended to discourage you, but in order to maintain a standard of not copying without restriction. I hope that you do copy them and further contribute to this site.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. RolandPlankton (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Backus-Naur Form now more or less complete. 1000 characters copied from Conservapedia, nearly 8000 characters added. RolandPlankton (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
pi now more or less complete. Copied own work, and (with permission) a section written by Philip J. Rayment. RolandPlankton (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

IMPORT ARTICLES - Egyptian Religion from CP

Request to import files from CP to develop a portal on ASK for Egyptian religion and myth, with possible later expansion to include language and history. All work have been properly researched, as the bibliographies attest. As part of an import of any of these articles, inline citations will also be added to those entires currently lacking them.

The content of the article as it stands now is entirely my own except for categorisation and light copy edit. If the latter is a problem I'm happy to import a version of the text that is entirely my own (18:59, 28 November 2008 edit of the page). I intend to expand on the mythology of ra either within this article or perhaps in a separate entry for the sake of readability. In either case, however, this article would be a necessary addition to the encyclopaedia for the reader to fully understand the Heliopolitan creation accounts.

Entirely my own work except for a single link. It needs expansion, as was noted at the time I created. I intend to expand it here into a complete entry explaining the concept and further exploring the role of Ma'at as goddess, and Her relationship to Ra.

Entirely my own work except for a recat, key knowledge for any understanding of Egyptian religion and culture (and politics) from the Middle Kingdom onward. This will either form the key article of three dealing with the Theban Triad, or, if readability permits, forming the core of a significantly expanded single article dealing with the Theban Triad in one large entry.

These articles are already reasonably well developed, and less extensive modification of them would be undertaken than on the others (mainly new knowledge, polishing etc.), though the article of neither may be expanded to elaborate upon Her OK and LP roles. The main reason for importing them is that they were originally intended as a core for a much more comprehensive treatment of Egyptian religion on CP which was thwarted. Here, it is hoped that project can be brought to fruition, and these articles would once again be the foundation of that. -- TheEgyptian User_talk:TheEgyptian 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I will grant permission for you to copy over these articles, although I'm a little hesitant with the number being copied. But you have indicated that several will have significant changes, and the remainder will be changed a bit also, so that helps. The more changes you can make to them, the better.
As for edits by others, I've just written this as a guide to what should happen in that regard.
...the article of neither may be expanded ... Over-reliance on your spelling checker? :-)
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss (acting as the Content Review Committee) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

CP Copying

Hi, I'm going to leave Conservapedia, mainly due to issues with the Obama article and other things that the Lord has been speaking to me about. However, I have put a lot of work into writing several sports-team roster templates (mainly for the NFL and the Barclay Premiership) and several MMA-related articles. I will gladly post some links to the main things being copied (which would mainly be the templates and the articles on UFC Champions) and will post my "resignation" once editing is turned back on. Thank you for your patience, --JY23 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maths "deliveries" from RW

Pi has copied several maths articles here from RW. I think the aim was to preserve them, as it appears they are about to be deleted from RW. I know that part of the intent behind the copying policy is so that aSK has original content, but I have doubts that original articles on the same topics would be significantly different. On that basis alone I would think copying would be fine, but I don't think that's the only issue. These articles (or at least significant portions of them) were, I believe, first copied to RW from CP. I don't think that CP's copying policies have been breached, but authorship would look to be a tangle. What do we do with them? Do we put the article/attrib templates on them (or some variant)? BradleyF (LowKey) 06:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't violate CP's copying policy; it is so broad I think you could legally print articles off, bind them and sell the thing. π 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
At least until Andy says “stop”  :) . I have no idea how much RW editing happened after they were copied from CP. Although I think we should attribute properly, I was highlighting that this could be difficult/cumbersome (I didn’t actually have an issue with them being copies, for the reason stated). BradleyF (LowKey) 05:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea how much RW editing happened after they were copied from CP. Very little. π 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've left a message for him asking him to comment, so I've got a better picture before saying more. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that they were written by User:DiEb, User:SamHB and few other, including me, at CP I would say that they are almost entirely written by aSK participants. I think DiEb has the full list and all of their permissions to copy them, at least to RationalWiki, so you can aSK him.</lamehumor> π 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It may make no difference, but why were the articles copied to RW? Do they still exist on CP? And why are they to be deleted from RW? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea behind the logic of copying them to RationalWiki, but they were deleted for being off-mission. π 21:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was preoccupied with W. Dembski... Here's what I recall:

  1. When all the more able editors of mathematical articles got banned by the outstanding teacher Ed Poor, some of us thought to build up a resort of basic math articles at RW just to show how it should be done.
  2. This never got very far as there is not much of an audience for basic math at RW
  3. Subsequently someone decided that the articles were off-mission
  4. It's nice to see that these articles get a new place were they may be welcomed.

DiEb 09:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideology in modern education

I would like to belatedly ask permission to keep the above named section in the Education in the United States article i recently wrote, which i incorporated from the ideology section i wrote in the CP education article [1], and which has only one edit from a different editor (correcting a single instance of "it's" with "its.") I thought one could so add one's own writing, and originally i had intended to add new material to the CP article, but i ended up creating a new article for here.

Reasons? Well, i am grieved about the CP Bible project, and I felt aSK is where the Lord would have me put it, imperfect as my work it is. The Bible it is not. As both sites ought to be working together somewhat ideologically, and i plan to continue to add to CP, and WP licensing itself is liberal in the good sense, i would think this should not be be an issue(?)

As i had thought that I could use material I had written elsewhere, some time ago i had also used some of the material i had written on WP regarding slavery [2] in that article on slavery here, but which WP page has been somewhat edited, as has my work here, in making it more substantial and concise. Thank God for His mani-fold grace.Daniel1212 18:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I also used a paragraph from my education article here on my Cause and Effect web page, conversely, a good portion of that earlier work was included in the Historical nature section of the education article here.

I felt aSK is where the Lord would have me put it
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony
No further comment. 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Theresa Wilson
Well, at least someone is reading this page.
If i were claiming infallibility, or as a man was not subject to any authority, you would have reason for such distrust, and certainly if my impressions of what God's will was always coincided with my own desires I would not trust mine at all. In reality, it often does not.
All souls make judgments as to what is appropriate, based upon moral values and often inner impressions, but for the Christian, the subjective is to be subject to the objective, the Bible, and they should be able to demonstrate that their decisions are thus based. Those who abuse its authority do so because it has authority, and such is typical of cults, and their abuse is made manifest by examination of that authority, while those who reject any transcendent, objective moral authority feel free to do whatever is "reasonable" to them, which, as men like Mao, Pol Pot, etc, showed, is a moral compass that can easily point south. Daniel1212 17:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also reading this page, but unfortunately (for this request) have been very busy lately. Daniel, the section in Education in the United States is hereby approved, given that its only a fraction of the article, and this is your first request. Please place the {{article}} and {{attribution}} templates on the page as explained in ask:Copying from other sites.
I'm also happy to approve the section regarding of the Slavery article on similar grounds, although it's not clear to me how similar that is. If the section is substantially as you wrote it on Wikipedia, please apply the templates to that article also. If you've substantially rewritten it, then the templates (and the permission) are not required. (I've been working on reproducing an article here that I wrote on Conservapedia, but I'm not copying it; rather I'm rewriting it.)
Philip J. Rayment 13:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC), acting as the Content Review Committee.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." I would expect God to give us a desire for what He wants us to do, so this coincidence is not of itself a reason to be distrustful. Philip J. Rayment 13:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, i will try to add the attribution tags. But my work on the WP page on slavery and Christianity that i adapted for here has long been deleted or much changed, so I do not think that should be an issue. But i do not think using one's original work or compilation, unedited by others (except for like typos) should be restricted from being used wherever they want. Why is this site not using Creative Commons? Thanks. Daniel1212 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That your work on Wikipedia has been changed is not the point of the templates. They are a declaration that the material is your own, so that nobody can accuse you (assuming you are being truthful) or us of misappropriating someone else's work. So they are required even if the work has been changed by others since. The fact that it has been changed does make it more likely to receive permission to be copied here.
Your desire to use your own material wherever you want must be balanced against this site's right to choose what it will accept. I have decided to have this site comprise original content (in articles), although allow a few exceptions. That is also the reason to not use Creative Commons; to retain control of what is used elsewhere. It also has the advantage of not requiring contributors to release their work for all and sundry to use; if they wish to, that is their choice, but about all they are required to do is release it to this site to use. At least one contributor here (I forget who) has put a statement on their user page placing their own work under a CC license. That is his choice. Philip J. Rayment 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about protecting against charges of plagiarism, and since i use the same user name on WP and CP as here that can be easy to check as regards this case. My main concern is wanting to make sure original content (not including work of others) i write here can be freely used by myself or others, versus the wiki having a copyright claim to it, though i certainly believe attribution should be normally be given. (I consider my work, despite its shortcomings, as part of Christian ministry, and that the Bible is opposed to Christians restricting the dissemination of gospel truth, music, testimonials, etc, by criminalizing the free sharing of such without formal permission, and usually payments, as many in Christian ministry do. But giving attribution should be practiced, and misusing or profiting off free material is worse. That being said, copying and pasting or otherwise repeating the material of someone else is not the same as somewhat reiterating a degree of what we heard or read in compiling our own work. Thus copyright law has some degree of interpretation, with degree, type and purpose being factors.)

But in adding the {{article}} and {{attribution}} templates should i attribute my work i used here to the wikis or to myself? Also, as mentioned before, I incorporated a small portion of one of my sites pages [3] in the Education in the United States which has the ideology section i wrote on CP (and i had noted that in the edit summary when i made the edit). Thanks. Daniel1212 15:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See here for an example of proper usage. --TimSTalk 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it, done it. Thanks. Daniel1212 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eureka Stockade

I would like to copy cp:Eureka_Stockade to aSK. I did not create all of it, but most of it is my work. The article was created as parody by Bugler, and improved/corrected by Philip J. Rayment. The rest of the content is my own, which amounts to all but a couple of sentences (as can be seen here). We already have a redlink to Eureka Stockade here, and I would hope to improve the existing content after copying. LowKey 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Permission granted. Philip J. Rayment 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee.)
Thanks. LowKey 01:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley phenomenon

Here. Sole author.--Elvis is King 15:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, please read Copying from other sites first, and word your application accordingly. Being the sole author is a requirement, but is not a reason to reproduce the article here. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The reason is that I was unaware of this policy and had imported it here already, and was seeking to retroactively approve the piece. I believe that it is an essential part of modern culture and would be of value to this site.--Elvis is King 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've not forgotten this, and have been agonizing over whether to approve or not. Your first sentence, the one that purports to be a reason, is not a reason to reproduce the article here; it's a reason why you are now asking, that's all. Your second sentence does qualify as a reason, but would apply for almost any copied article. But given that it's your first request, I'll agree that Elvis Presley phenomenon can stay. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Please see the article talk page. I think that the article should be merged into the Elvis Presley article. LowKey 05:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I had read that when you first posted it, but forgot where it was. I'll reply there. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


Request to copy Conservapedia Greek alphabet article

[4] Every edit is mine (including those by ScottW, who was admittedly a sock puppet) but for one user adding a category. This was the only substantial thing I created on CP, and the only thing I would like to request a copy of. I think it's a fairly good starter article, and it's obvious that no one on CP cares enough to add more to a fairly important and notable subject. Thanks, YossarianSpeak, Memory 07:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yossarian, I would have liked a better reason (you haven't clearly said that that you will improve/expand it, for example). But because it's likely to be your only one, and you're the first to ask and I'm feeling like agreeing, I'll give permission. We'll want to put a template on it in future to indicate that it's been copied, but as we don't have that yet, just put a note on either the top or bottom of the page for now. And in return, perhaps you could have a look at ask:projects/Article information box! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 10:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee for now.)
Sorry, I meant to be more clear that I intended to add more. It needs more fleshing out, and I was gonna spend a few hours after school's done (in about a week) lengthening and editing it. I just had a quick look at the info box page, and it looks mostly good. I'll have a think on it and make a comment a later today. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 11:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to CP

Do we want to allow links to Conservapedia, in particular, Atheism, Evolution, and Homosexuality. --TimStalk 11:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If the links are considered appropriate by a consensus of editors, then there's no problem. If no consensus can be formed, then it should come here for a decision. In that case, I'd expect to see a link here to the discussion(s) that failed to reach a consensus.
I'd also expect that our articles on those topics will eventually (before too long?) be comprehensive enough that we don't need to link there for further reading, and sources that are more primary would be better for reference links.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Copying a set of literary articles

If you'd like them, I can copy over the original versions of a few dozen literary articles (long stubs mostly) that I wrote at CP: Emily Bronte, Charlotte Bronte, Wuthering Heights, Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Boris Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago, A Study in Scarlet, The Lost World, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Thomas Hardy, Around the World in Eighty Days, Bleak House, The Three Musketeers, The Return of the Native, Jane Eyre, Crime and Punishment, Les Miserables, Phaedo, War and Peace, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. Publius 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the second sentence on this page, which I've just added. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

'False religions' category

The following discussion (sans decision) was originally posted on Philip J. Rayment's talk page.

Also, somebody is manually changing instances of some of these to "False Religions". I changed them back to ensure consistency but was told that doing otherwise violates the POV of this Wiki. I think that we should decide which is correct, one way or the other. Historian 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me (point to) an example? Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Historian 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a look. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have consulted some other trusted members for advice, as a sort of de-facto Content Review Committee, and have made the following decision.

We will not label any other religion as a 'false religion', whether by categorisation, bald statement, or otherwise. However, that does not preclude the relevant articles from explaining why other religions are false religions.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC), acting as the Content Review Committee.

Alfred Nobel

As user Ian St. John I wrote this article on Alfred Nobel. I would like to add this here, expand and add references. Genghis 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved. See also my comments to Yossarian above. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee.)


I wrote most of Nephilim on CP. Before I worked on it it was a single sentence (which is no longer in the article), and a single link (which I retained). No one has edited it since I stopped contributing at CP. I don't plan to expand the article itself much, but would create one here anyway, and I still have my own copy of the marked up source. I would hope to wikify the article and use redlinks to grow the article base. BradleyF (LowKey) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Approved on the grounds that it is your first request and you will be improving it, even if that's mainly with links, plus making it conform to our Style manual (Introductory sections). Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Building trades, classical music

Can I copy my original (CP) articles here? Oh, and kan I haz upload rights to add pikchers of machines? ħuman Number 19 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Human, you might to read the guidlines, particularly regarding large numbers of articles, and then provide some more detail.BradleyF (LowKey) 05:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. My user page there lists many articles I created, and there were two main thrusts, as mentioned above. I'll come back and list them and ask again? Is that more appropriate? I was very frustrated to be blocked there just when the spring construction season came upon us and I could have added pretty pictures to the building trades articles... ħuman Number 19 06:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute at Islam

See also Talk:Islam for details. I am convinced that TheoryOfPractice is inserting POV counter to the Biblical worldview as fact. Discussion has so far proven innefective, resulting mostly in insults. Ask that either the page be locked or involved editors be advised to avoid further editing in the article until resolution.BradleyF (LowKey) 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary. You've only been arguing for a couple of hours, after all. New3.pngPink(Inertia presides over burnt modernist strides) 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have been arguing. TOP has merely been insulting. It was TOP's edit that I said was fine, and then TOP changed it, and insists that Muslims know who Allah is but Chrisitans don't know who God is. TOP is trolling, pure and simple, as the discussion you have been having on that user's talk page would indicate. I tried compromise, but TOP would have none of it.BradleyF (LowKey) 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to hold off making a decision on this just yet, pending more specific information exactly what is still in dispute (it appears that some compromises have been reached). I do have a concern about a couple of points in the existing article, but it appears that they are very recent changes, and have not been specifically discussed, or had much discussion, on the talk page.
As a general rule, however, whilst the article can (and should) say that Islam teaches that Allah is the same as the Christian God (assuming that is exactly what they claim), it is quite proper for the Christian view rejecting this to be in the article also.
In the meantime, I've blocked TheoryOfPractice for a day for uncivil discussion.
Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee)
Suddenly, I'm getting this massive case of Deja Vu to Conservapedia's early days, back when they still pretended Andy wasn't Benevolent Dictator For Life. Weird... --Gulik 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


I would like to apply to copy my article on Nostradamus from Conservapedia. This is the last revision that reflects solely my work: Historian 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't supplied a reason for copying the article here, per aSK:Copying from other sites. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the subject matter is important in answering the objection that successful biblical prophecy is not unique given that it is often presented as a counterexample in that regard. I am willing to make some modifications/expansions to differentiate the material from that posted elsewhere, and I do not plan on making any future requests to copy material. Historian 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Permission granted, and thanks for your contributions. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss (acting as the Content Review Committee) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Section in Biofuels

I would like to copy an section of cp:Biofuels to the biofuel article here. The section is entirely my own work, and I would largely duplicate the content to create the same section here. I have posted the content of the section to Talk:Biofuel. BradleyF (LowKey) 13:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Permission granted. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee)

"Moon hoax" from Simple English Wikipedia (SEWP)

I'd like to ask for permission to copy the Moon Hoax article from the SEWP. I've written about 98% of it (my user name there is my real name, Лъчезар). It stems from a deleted English Wikipedia (EWP) article, a copy of which is still available here. As it can be seen, only a few sentences have remained from it. The reason for my request is to expand the number of readers. The SEWP has much less readers than the EWP. But my bitter experience shows that the latter has a very biased point of view on this issue and would never permit the inclusion of the article there. I will be regularly updating the article here too, as I do at the SEWP. Thanks, whatever you decide :) --Lucho 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lucho, I just want to let you know that this is not being overlooked. I have been considering this, and have now decided to consult with a couple of other members to get their opinions also. The problem as I see it is that this site desires to have unique content, and the fact that you intend to maintain the SEWP copy of the article along with this one goes against that goal. But I'll come back with a definite answer after getting those other opinions that I mentioned. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee).
OK, albeit I don't quite understand the problem, let me know when you come to a decision, and I'll sure accept it, whatever it is. Thanks! --Lucho 14:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lucho, the article can stay, but with conditions which you may or may not find acceptable.

  • First, any article on this site is open to editing by others. That should be taken for granted, but I mention it in light of the following points.
  • This site does have a policy of keeping articles short (see Main Page). The length of the article has already been noted on the talk page, and the article as it stands is well over twice the length of our current longest article (136kB vs. 52kB). This can be remedied by a combination of removing unnecessary material and breaking it into several smaller articles.
  • The bias of the article has also been noted on the talk page. Although the article clearly shows evidence of an attempt to present the content in a neutral manner, there remains a bias towards the moon landing being a hoax. It is important to note also that A Storehouse of Knowledge does not have a policy of being neutral. Rather, it has a policy of being truthful, in cases where we are convinced that the truth can be determined. There is a good chance that editors here will alter the article to say that the moon landings were real. At the very least, expect it to be altered to remove any pro-hoax bias.

If all that is acceptable to you, the article can remain and be moved back to article space. And thanks for your patience.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (Acting as the Content Review Committee)

Thank you! I understand the conditions. But in this case I may not be able to update it with my changes. Let's do this: The article will remain in your hands and if you prefer, move it to the main space, edit it, etc. But please don't do what the people at Citizendium did with an early version of it (see here). In this case it's better deleted than crippled this way...
Regarding the policy of being truthful, as far as I understand, this is in the religious sense of Absolute Truth. Has a high Church authority spoken on the issue? If so, please let me know. If not, how do you know the truth here? Remember what we all thought just a couple of months ago about the global warming. And it turned out to be a "Climategate" (hoax)! --Lucho 12:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the point is that we don't want an article that is only being edited by one person. This project is meant to be a collaborative effort. We also don't want to have an article that is exactly the same as an article on another site. We allow copying articles as a starting point, but from there we want our article to diverge from articles at other sites. --TimStalk 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I don't plan any major revisions, so I can only do section-by-section editing from now on (as I did today). The more so as I can't edit the article as a whole anyway, unless I clear all its contents first (otherwise I get time-out errors). Section-by-section editing isn't a problem for me though. --Lucho 14:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it was not said in any religious sense. It was said in the sense of being correct or accurate. Just as we can say that it's the truth that the current Prime Minister of Australia is Kevin Rudd, or that England is separated from France by the English Channel, or like a court can say that a person committed a crime, it is all done on the basis of the evidence. True, we are not infallible, and may at times declare something to be the truth which isn't, but that doesn't mean that we go through our lives being afraid to declare anything the truth. Of course, we need to be satisfied that we have examined the evidence properly and have not allowed incorrect biases, incomplete or selective evidence, or other factors to affect our conclusions. But the Global Warming example is a poor one, given that there have been critics of those claims for a long time; it was never something that could have been claimed with certainty, despite its true believers claiming as much. (And no, ClimateGate is, akin to evolution, about a scandal of people manipulating the data to show what they truly believe to be the case; it was not about a hoax as such.) Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "Climategate" was not a hoax but shows how the masses can be lead to believe in lies using the immense power of mass-media. --Lucho 14:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools

visitor navigation
contributor navigation