Talk:Creation geophysics/Hydroplates archive

I removed the 'geo-stub' and replaced with a 'christianity-stub', as I think Dr Walt Brown would be considered to be holding a minority position in the science of geophysics. --Randolph 04:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with you Randolph. I also think it would be appropriate to add a 'geo-stub' as well in order to appear on the list and therefore would have a someone interesting in geology expand it. Cheers Svest 04:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I'm not a big fan of multiple stubs. So I'll leave it to you guys to work out. My interest was making sure the article was clearly labelled under the category of Young Earth Creationist to clearly delineate it from conventional geophysics. I think the YEC categorisation is sufficient. Rebuttals of YEC'ists are not my forte. I'll leave that to others. --Randolph 05:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

all references are to pro-creationism sites, there is no mention that this "theory" is highly disputed and not taken seriously, etc. This article wsa added as a series of highly biased POV-pushing by an anon user. The little bit of cleanup that has happened since then is good, but nowhere near sufficientDreamGuy 05:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Dream, you got a point. I don't know Walt and not ready to make some researches around the net. But since Randolph says that he is more into religious science, than your template seems appropriate. Cheers Svest 05:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

DO NOT remove the NPOV tag until the problems with the article are fixed. DreamGuy 05:12, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Heh..sorry about that. Somehow I managed to edit over your addition of the NPOV tag, while I was fixing the links. --Randolph 05:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand people have a need to 'red flag' this article as non-scientific, but I'm a little disturbed by the lengths that editors have gone to, to achieve that goal. The category of Young Earth Creation is already under the category of psuedoscience, yet they feel compelled to place that category in the article as well? This is really going to far in the opposite direction. The article needs to be categorised either under pseudoscience or young earth creationism, not both. Young Earth Creationism is the appropriate choice. I'll edit it to reflect that now. --Randolph 18:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ive also removed the extra sub-heading placed under external links. It's simply not necessary to have that heading there. I get the feeling that editors think they are 'protecting' people from these pseudoscientific opinions, but I personally feel they are underestimating the intelligence of the reader. People come to this article with their own pre-conceptions already in place. It's not necessary for us to molly coddle the reader to see things from our veiwpoint. State the facts of the article and leave it at that. I really hope some of those editors with particularly aggressive stances against creationism will step back and stop holding the hand of the reader and let people think for themselves. --Randolph 18:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the first sentence to hopefully bring this to a conclusion quickly. "Hydroplate theory is a pseudoscientific theory proposed by retired USAF colonel and mechanical engineer Dr. Walt Brown of superfast continental drift in his book titled, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood." I hope that this will bring this little controversy to amicable conclusion. --Randolph 19:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Were this article about a military matter, the Air Force rank would be relevant. Had his specialty been in seismic analysis of nuclear explosions or some other discipline that applies to the subject, it would be pertinent. He is, however, described as a mechanical, not even civil, engineer. Hcberkowitz 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to critics and supporters

I've added a link to crtics of the hydroplate theory and flood geology. I've also removed links that were pro hydroplate theory, but all on the same website. One reference to each website should be sufficient for people to find the source of the information. I feel that this is sufficient to give a balanced point of view and hope that we can agree to remove the NPOV tag. --Randolph 18:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The use of 'weasel words'

I've removed the sentence saying that most scientist and geologists would consider this pseudoscience with no scientific support. This is quite obviously a case of using weasel words to convey an opinion on the subject without actually referring to references to support this claim. The use of weasel words is discouraged on wikipedia. It may be the case that most of the scientific community finds this theory unpalatable, but references to critics need to be found and quotes from those critics included in the article. Weasel words are not an appropriate shortcut to be used to avoid the 'footwork' of actually going out and finding critical references. --Randolph 19:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

And I put it back, because things that are common knowledge do not need to be extensively cited. By your rationale 99.9% of this encyclopedia would have to be removed. For this article to have any hope of becoming NPOV, the fact that this concept is not accepted by the vast majority of scientists must be present. Removing that information gives the false sense that this is something scientists actually believe. This is the same guidelines used on other creationism topics. You have a fairly bizarre view of the normal policy here. DreamGuy 20:16, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's using weasel words. The article is already categorised under a subcategory of pseudoscience, which is self explanatory. I'm finding your need to to place big red flags all over the article to be zealousness of similar kind as those that promote creationism. I'm going to divorce myself from this subject, as I'm not a creationist nor am I an over-zealous naturalists. I'll leave you people to your revert wars. --Randolph 20:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia 'policy' on pseudoscience and neutrality

I'd like to include this section from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article as a reference for this discussion;

===Pseudoscience===

"How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience." --Randolph 19:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Its worth noting that in giving all sides of this a fair hearing that there is ample resources on wikipedia that elaborate on conventional geology and current geological theories. A simple addition of a 'See also' section at the bottom of this article could point people in the direction of the more conventional scientific theories on geology. --Randolph 19:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the policy here, and your recent changes deviated from it. The important phrase here is:

the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Your removal of the statement that the vast majority of scientists consider hydroplate theory to be pseudoscience violated the basic task of describing a dispute fairly. The statement is also clearly proportional to the rest of the article, as the policy demands. Simply tacking the word pseudoscientific in hte first sentence does not solve the problem, largely because so many people fail to understand what that word means. DreamGuy 20:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

The word pseudoscience is linked to an article on pseudoscience explaining exactly what it means. I find your objection quite groundless and your assumption that people don't know what it means as presumptuous in the first place. --Randolph 20:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)