Talk:Flood geology/Archive 2

message: This section is certainly relevant (I think the discussion of Augustine's views is especially interesting).  However, it is mostly a general discussion of Biblical accuracy and does not focus on the Flood.  I'd like to prune it (maybe moving part of it to another article... Young Earth creationism or Biblical inerrancy).  Any thoughts? -- Jpacold 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that would make sense given how wrapped up flood geology is with the doctrine of inerrancy. JoshuaZ 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't want to delete the whole section -- just shorten it and add a link to one of the broader articles on inerrancy.  My objection is that most of it (especially the second and last paragraphs) is too general for this article.  It deals with the overall debate instead of flood geology in particular. -- Jpacold 22:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Flood_geology#Reliability_of_Genesis|Reliability of Genesis]]

message: O.K. Schroeder, since you have reverted the edit on Age of the Earth, PLEASE supply a REFERENCE for the unneeded initial concentrations and non-closed-system hypotheses.  I.e., SHOW haw isochron analyses sidestep these issues.  Dan Watts 00:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a real<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ly closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.
To really "SHOW" how the isochrons "sidestep" the issues, we'd have to go into detail about each condition in which you were interested: all the energy regimes, and the particular parameter analysis that is done. Joshuaschroeder 00:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable.
What the article doesn't do is say exactly how the "comparisons" get done which is by means of normal parameter fitting. It is fully rigorous from a physical standpoint and the errors are characterized well by the central limit theorem since there are enough systems to give a decent gaussian model. Joshuaschroeder 00:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of the Earth

message: "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: an unfinished book", Chapter 19:39
*Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Augustine was NOT taking to task the 'reliability of Genesis', as the misquoted text is headed; rather, he was speaking about talking nonsense--perhaps, for example, being dogmatic about Arguments creationists should not use--and failing to maintain Christian integrity ("...maintaining his [the Christian's] foolish opinions about our books [the Bible] ..."). Furthermore, this passage is taken out of context of the whole (a/k/a quote mining), as Augustine goes on in Chapter 20 to condemn those that would take the word of men over the Word of God (which definitely shows he was not against the reliability of Scripture):
*But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above. But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord,73 and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel.
Therefore, I think that the quote from Augustine should be corrected, or stricken entirely. --138.130.203.177 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do it yourself.  Don't hold your breath for those who disagree with you to change it. Just because you have shown the premise to be false, doesn't meak that it will be retracted. Dan Watts 17:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustine -- misquoted 

message: My browser edit window kills the page after about 30K, which means, when I edited the intro, it cut the page off in the middle of section 6.  If somebody could please revert past my edits, I'd me much obliged.  My apologies!  Neocapitalist 15:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Flood geology, creation geology and diluvial geology are terms used by creationists to describe the study of geologic phenomena with reference to the purported events of the Great Flood as reported in Genesis. Creationists regard Genesis as providing a scientifically accurate record for the geological history of the Earth.  However, the scientific community widely disputes flood geology as pseudoscience.
Thoughts? Neocapitalist 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes the pseudoscientific status of flood geology sound like an opinion among scientists, whereas it's a fact of geological science. --Ian Pitchford 17:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Flood geology, creation geology and diluvial geology are terms used by creationists to describe the study of geologic phenomena with reference to the purported events of the Great Flood as reported in Genesis. Creationists regard Genesis as providing a scientifically accurate record for the geological history of the Earth.  However, the scientific community widely disputes flood geology, which relegates flood geology to the status of pseudoscience.
Neocapitalist 18:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Flood geology isn't a research program within geology. This is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion or consensus. --Ian Pitchford 11:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't know that the field of geology did any accepting/rejecting. It is sometimes quite surprising what one can learn from reading introductory paragraphs. Dan Watts 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Science is a process that is all about accepting and rejecting through the scientific method. Joshuaschroeder 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa 

message: This article  mayhave some bearing on the 'swimming grass' phenomenon. An associated AP report gives a (uniformitarian) date for grass to have appeared of at least 80 Myrs ago. Dan Watts 03:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: grasses as we currently know them (ubiquitous to plains) didn't show up until 60 Myrs ago. Joshuaschroeder 18:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass evidence 

message: I'm confused by this section:
"If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then — paleontologists claim — fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen."
"Additionally, paleontologists claim that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was an abnormally high number."
The first paragraph seems to say that fossilized remains are too few.  The second paragraph seems to say that fossilized remains are too many.  I'm not sure what was intended, but it should be fixed.
:I think you're right, the text reads rather strangely and appears to contradict itself.  Not knowing very much about fossils and fossilisation, I can only speculate about the point that the writer/s is/are trying to make.  
:As regards the first point, it could be that, for an individual modern species, their density in the fossil record is low relative to that which we encounter today (which wouldn't make sense were a flood to be responsible for fossils).
:On the second point, it could be that, when one adds up all of the fossils of all species in a particular area, and if one assumes that they were all laid down in a very short period of time, then this suggests a standing stock of biomass much greater than that observed today.
:If this is what's meant, then it could be expressed better.  Further, if this is what's meant, there's still a problem.  Namely, the first point assumes modern population sizes, while the Genesis world purportedly contained all of the species, extant and extinct, at the same time (i.e. a lot more species than the present day).  Thus, the populations of ecologically similar dinosaur and mammal species would be sharing a resource that the modern mammal species would have all to themselves.  So one should expect modern populations to be larger.
:Anyway, either way this is a rather ambiguous section.  Would anyone more qualified (e.g. its author(s)) care to comment?  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleontological evidence 

message: I'm sure this will have been discussed before, but is it really necessary to describe science as "mainstream science" (or geology as "mainstream geology")?  It gives the impression that flood geology is also science, albeit a minority viewpoint, despite the point at the head of the article that specifically relegates flood "geology" to pseudoscience.  Furthermore, in a media-savvy world, "mainstream" has connotations that don't flatter science.  --Plumbago 09:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would be happy with the removal of the weasel adjectives. Joshuaschroeder 18:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Since it keeps creeping back into the article, can we agree that while 'mainstream' can be appropriate when describing a debate among scientists, like for instance, gradualism v. PE, it's a meaningless qualifier when comparing science to junk-science, and gives undue weight to the aforementioned junk-science. cornis 09:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the media to thank for this term: absent mainstream, a sentence like, "creation scientist say X, but scientists say Y" would be politically incorrect, hence the need for mainstream.  Anyway, I agree with you that it's a nonsense term. •Jim62sch• 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor removed "mainstream" from the article. This makes many statements false. Scientists who are creationists would disagree with many statements that appear to include them. That is why I added the Note to the top of the article, explaining that the term "scientist" in this article generally excluded creationist scientists. This was so we do not require multiple entries of "mainstream science" or "non-creationist scientists". Any comments? rossnixon 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Scientist", to me, means "has a science degree". No argument is possible. Do you have evidence of any self-described "creation scientist" who has no such degree? rossnixon 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *It is extreme POV to say that someone's science degree is worthless. (I don't know what "unaccredited schools" are - there are none in New Zealand.)
*"Acting as a scientist" is a very subjective notion. 
*Since all non-creation scientists rely on the presumption of naturalism when dealing in "origins" (non-observational) science, which is not subject to the scientific method, then essentially all non-creation scientists are not doing science. But I will allow you to continue calling them scientists.
*Creation scientists with PhDs don't have to submit to mainstream dogma in order to be considered scientists; they only do that sometimes to avoid being sacked.
*Can you point out any flaw/problem with the disclaimer note itself? rossnixon 02:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream 

message: There is no assumption made about loss or retention of either parent or daughter nuclei when one makes a determination of an age based on radiometric dating. All that is assumed is that the rates are known and then the parameters are fit. If one of the nuclei is out of equilibrium with other radionuclides, then the composition problems can be parametrized. However, no assumption is made as to the retention of components since the parameter fitting analysis allows for this to be fitted along with the age. --Joshuaschroeder 20:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me understand this.  We have some N parent-daughter nuclide ratios.  Then a fit of the 2N+1 {n*(parent(time0) + daughter(time0)) + (time - time0)} parameters is taken and the process does not need the initial daughter concentration?  Isn't this set of equations somewhat underdetermined? Wouldn't there be a family of {time,Daughter(time0)} values which would be solutions? Dan Watts 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There also is the ratio of parent and non-radiogenic-isotope of daughter. This constrains the solution space to one. There is a rather good FAQ at talkorigins.org. --Stephan Schulz 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To one, but that's no fun. Or is it? I'm confused. - RoyBoy 800 06:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiometric dating assumptions

message: This passage does not show a "priori" when examining data.  It merely shows a SCIENTIFIC approach and thus i resolve it should be deleted.  I haven't done it yet, to allow for commentary and so a consensus can be formed.  The offending passage is
"It is worth noting that the founders of uniformitarianism likewise had an a priori commitment before examining the evidence. For example, James Hutton, the "Founder of Modern Geology", suggested :
"the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle" (emphasis added)
(from ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785)"
Keio
:Agreed. I have been bold and editted this. --ScienceApologist 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased attempt at labelling uniformtarianism as dogmatic

message: Is there support for the statement below which appears in the Vapor Canopy section? If not, this should be removed as it would show a biased point of view.
. The vapor canopy model has lost favour and is no longer accepted by most creationist scientists.
65.165.142.98 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: it isn't a "hypothesis" unless it is going to be tested with observations. Since the explanation for the single fossil found is not going to be tested, the explanation is not a hypothesis. However, neither is it a guess because it is based on the understanding provided by context and other observations as well as knowledge of physical processes. --ScienceApologist 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still could be a hypothesis that is not going to be tested. But how about conjecture or surmisal? rossnixon 11:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  To me, "explanation" is a rather strong word which would suggest that the expert completely understands what's going on here.  I see what you're (ScienceApologist) getting at re: hypothesis (given the fossil's uniqueness, I doubt anyone's allowed to breathe on the specimen, let alone destructively test hypotheses on it), but it seems a more appropriate word either than "explain" or "guess".  Cheers, --Plumbago 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "My suspicion" is not a solid basis for an explanation (at least in my experience). This does not have to be a one-of-a-kind test. "Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil."  But then, I am biased and put in "scare quotes" (as I have been told). Dan Watts 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with the "scare quotes" is that it wasn't an actual quote. I wasn't trying to insinuate you were biased. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When a scientist explains a single finding

message: Since this article is already longer than the recommended Wikpedia article length, I want to suggest some changes to move less relevant information to more relevant pages.  In particular "Reliability of Genesis" has nothing to do with Geology, and shouldn't be on this page.  "Philosophical Objections" doesn't really belong here either - perhaps a one-sentence comment would be merited, but not a whole section.  [edit: I have subsequently extended this section to make it more balanced, but maintain it would be better for the whole section to be moved elsewhere.]  Similarly "Age of the Earth" is not directly relevant to Flood Geology, so merits a single sentence in the introduction, and then should be dealt with more fully under other creationist topics.
In addition to this, much of the information presented as being what Flood Geologists believe is actually not correct because, as my inclusion of the section "How creationists interpret the GC" was intended to show, there is no single "Flood Geology" paradigm.  This page would be better off giving a general overview of things that are broadly agreed today (rather than 30 years ago) in the creationist community, particularly discussing the problems with conventional geology that a new (catastrophist) geological paradigm has the potential to solve.  Information specific to particular Flood models should then be discussed in separate articles, rather than giving the impression that Flood Geology is a monolithic entity.  This would improve both the accuracy and the clarity of this article.
As an an example of how this page ought to look, I just looked up "Physics", "Chemistry" and "Geology" - each of which contains a brief overview of the history and main ideas of the discipline, and links to other pages that explore the detail, rather than trying to prove or disprove everything on one page.  Any comments? -- Ephrathah  15:39 (UTC) 12 September 2006
:Controversial subjects must be dealt with differently than non-controversial subjects as per WP:NPOV. --ScienceApologist 10:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Sections and Misrepresentation of Facts 

message: If you're going to include philosophical points from one side you must allow a response or the article is strongly POV.  What was wrong with my additions?  Please put them back (edited if you must).  I request a disputed neutrality flag be added to this page. -- Ephrathah 11:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that there are no "sides" to speak of. There is the flood geology supported by the creation science advocates and then there is mainstream science. The philosophical criticism is dependent on mainstream science demonstrating the flaws with flood geology. The general creationist critiques of mainstream science belong on the creation science or creationism page because they are not about flood geology per se. 
This puts "mainstream science" (geologic age of the theory: blink of an eye) in the place of both co-defendant and judge.  Criticisms of the theory, as you mentioned, belong on the respective pages of their theories' proponents rather than on this page.  It's time for an explanation, not an evaluation.
The philosophical objections are just sophistical fallacies.  Perhaps a joke will explain:
Greene and Hawking decided to have a contest with God.  "People don't need you anymore," Hawking said.  "We can make life in a test tube from dirt."
"You're on!" said God.  "You go first."
Greene stooped down to grab a handful of dirt.
"'Scuse me?" God interrupted.  "Go get your own dirt!"Alfarero 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That joke is funnier than you think. SheffieldSteel 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Getting back on topic, I don't think we're in a situation where science is both co-defendant and judge. Science may be the judge, but theories are what is being judged. To follow the law analogy, arguing as to whether or not something is unlawful is very different from challenging the law itself. SheffieldSteel 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Bias in Philosophical Objections 

message: Where do flood geologists believe the flood waters went to?  How can thousands of feet of water just disappear after a flood?  I think there should be some discussion, at least, on this topic. Brokenskittles 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: Into the ocean. Note: The mountains weren't so tall and the ocean was shallower before the flood. Long answer: Here is a creationist geophysicist's theory http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html rossnixon 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the water go? 

message: Have removed link to 'recolonisation' – no article under this head and any such article would transgress the Wikipedia prohibition of original research. ‘Recolonisation’ amended to ‘recolonisation theory’ to limit the term.
Have added some detail to say what recolonisation theory is.
Have deleted:
The main reasons put forward to support this hypothesis are (1) that it offers an explanation for why the fossils (particularly vertebrate trackways) are concentrated towards the end of the fossil record, not the beginning as would be expected if the Flood laid down the rocks, and (2) that it offers an explanation for rocks that don't appear to have been laid down underwater or that appear to have taken years or decades to form.  The main arguments against recolonisation are (1) that it appears to require a far longer timescale than a straightforward reading of Genesis would allow, and (2) that it requires a lot of post-Flood destruction in a relatively short time, which humans, animals and plants may not have been able to survive outside the Ark.
This is on the grounds of space, which is perhaps more usefully devoted to explaining what the theory consists of. The 'main arguments against recolonisation' are main arguments only from the point of view of YECs. Proponents of recolonisation have gone to some length to explain why the YEC interpretation of the genealogies as if they gave a chronology is not a straightforward exercise. When making the second criticism YECs understand 'a relatively short time' to mean a few hundred years, not the possibly tens of thousands that the main proponent of recolonisation (Steven Robinson) has been suggesting for post-Flood time. Fastnet 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How creationists interpret the Geologic Column today 

message: Australia has been populated for at least 51,000 years.  But there was no civilisation on the continent until it was colonised by Europeans.  Australia has no indigenous plants suitable for agriculture.  The Aborigines never got the chance to learn it from others ether.  Consequently, the very basis for civilisation was lacking!  Aboriginal culture was no civilisation any more then the Aurignacian culture.
2007-03-20 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
:Hmmm.  I suppose that depends on one's definition of civilisation.  Anyway, it's really an irrelevance.  In the article here, the point that's being made is that civilisations existed before/during/after the purported Flood.  As such, they constitute evidence contrary to Flood Geology.  If you're not happy with it, change "civilisations" to "cultures", or something similar (come to think of it, perhaps I'll do this myself anyway).  --Plumbago 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather eurocentric definition of Civilization.  And I though some Americans were bad.  Orangemarlin 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aborigines had no ancient civilisation 

message: Is this someone's idea of a encyclopedia article?  Where are all the necessary citations as per Wikipedia rules?  128.205.191.52 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What parts of the article do you think need the most attention.  There are 24 footnotes and 9 references.  I do agree that most of the creationists claims have no citations to back up their ideas and that some of the scientific claims should have more, but where would you start or do you think that some parts of the article are totaly lacking any citations at all? RiverBissonnette 22:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to respond to such a statement as the one made by anonymous 128.  You're right, Creationist articles are hard to source, unless you want to use things like Answers in Genesis.  And truly, the neutral POV would be describe Flood Geology, followed by a scientific perspective (which is easy:  there was no flood, well short of some massive local ones, such as the Lake Missoula glacial flood).  I don't think the article is THAT bad.  Orangemarlin 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a uncited monstrosity and joke 

message: I recently removed the Pseudoscience category tag from the page, because it already includes :Category:Creation Science which is a subcategory.  I'm trying to clean up the pseudoscience category, which contains huge amounts of redundancy due to the multiple vertical categories on many of its member pages.
Personally, I think creation science is nuts and is quite obviously pseudoscience.  However, that's not the point of the pseudoscience category.  We're not allowed to label things as pseudoscience, but only to point out what other verifiable sources say.  The point of the category is to declare that there is an association between the topic of the article and the topic of pseudoscience, which is why skeptics like Michael Shermer are included in the category, as well as general concepts like False precision that show up in pseudoscientific theories with some frequency.  As such, we only need to show that there is a notable association between Flood geology and pseudoscience, which there undoubtedly is (even the supporters would have to admit this).
So, I didn't remove the category because I don't think Flood geology is pseudoscience (quite the contrary) but rather because it's already included under a sub-category of pseudoscience, and I'm trying to reduce clutter in that category.
Unless there are further objections (I'll wait a while) I'd like to remove the redundant category.  --Sapphic 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As we are discussing your talk page, I don't mind reverting my revert of your revert, but I would think that pseudoscience should be a listed subject in :Category:Creation Science.  Orangemarlin 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure what you mean by that last point.. "Creation Science" is a type of pseudoscience, not the other way around.  I could add some text to the description part of the category page for creation science, but I don't think adding pseudoscience as a sub-category of creation science is a good idea.  --Sapphic 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to say that  Sapphic makes a good point. Anyone looking for pseudoscience will find the subcategory "Creation Science", so not only is there no need to list it in the main category as well, but this is positively discouraged in guidance, as I recall. .. dave souza, talk 22:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Creation Science is a subcategory of :Category:Pseudoscience.  In order to clean up the pseudoscience category I've been doing some subcategory sorting, adding or moving new subcategories under pseudoscience as needed.  Hope that clears things up!  --Sapphic 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sort of.  But shouldn't :Category:Creation Science also refer to :Category:Pseudoscience?  My issue is that all this creation science stuff is definitely pseudoscience, and it is referred to as such.  Orangemarlin 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Creation Science does refer to :Category:Pseudoscience — scroll down to the bottom of the first category, and you'll see that it's included as a member in the second.  Or (more usefully) go to the second category and you'll see that the first is listed as a subcategory.  Do you mean that the category description for :Category:Creation Science should itself mention pseudoscience?  I'm not sure I'm following your meaning.  --Sapphic 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You know I didn't see that at the bottom.  I was looking for pseudoscience in the list.  I'm going to say, yes I think it should itself mention it.  I just don't want pseudoscience to be hidden or difficult to find in the category.  Orangemarlin 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that it's important to identify pseudoscience, but I disagree with using the category system to do that, so please take the discussion to the talk page of the article so we can see what others think.  --Sapphic 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Category:Homeopathy is a sub-category of :Category:Pseudoscience, so anyone looking in the Pseudoscience category can find all the articles categorised as Homeopathy. Normally they  would not be put directly in the parent category as well, see the guidance below and check it out in detail if you consider it should be an exception...... dave souza, talk 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with both OM and Skinwalker: these sub-cats do not express right up front that the topics are considered pseudoscience.  •Jim62sch• 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point of a category.  Those types of assertions should be made in the article, where they can be referenced.  Incidentally, this approach makes it easier to get topics listed in the pseudoscience category, and diffuses much of the conflict that might otherwise arise in these situations.  Even supporters of a particular field would have to acknowledge that the field is considered to be pseudoscience by a notable number of people (which qualifies it for inclusion in the category) even though they'd still like to argue that their field isn't actually pseudoscience (which can be addressed in the article itself).  --Sapphic 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've stirred up a tempest, and it's not in a teapot.  I think the point of many of us is that some of these articles are plain and simple hooey.  Whether it's homeopathy, this article, or Creation science, it needs to be in the lead, in the body and in the category that it is a load of hooey, that is Pseudoscience.  Yes, I agree that it's there, but it's hidden.   If there was a discussion on your doing these changes, I would have liked to have participated.  If I were the only editor and this was the only article where anyone cared, you could say I was full of manure.  But I'm not and it isn't.  Orangemarlin 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Pseudoscience category 

message: Hi.  I noticed that you removed the pseudoscience category from the article.  You said it was already within a subcategory.  Well, first, I couldn't find a subcategory, so I assumed (I know, my bad) that it was some underhanded attempt to hide the category, because, zout alors, you were trying to do something sneaky.  Then I looked at your contributions, and you did it to dozens of articles (well, i gave up counting).  Can you please explain what you're trying to do, and where is the subcategory?  Flood geology is most definitely a pseudoscience, so if you don't think it is, we should discuss it on the talk page of the article.  However, if there is some wiki thing that I don't quite understand, then a quick explanation will be very nice!!!!  Thanks, I appreciate your taking your time to  guide me in this matter.  Orangemarlin 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Creation Science is a subcategory of :Category:Pseudoscience.  In order to clean up the pseudoscience category I've been doing some subcategory sorting, adding or moving new subcategories under pseudoscience as needed.  Hope that clears things up!  --Sapphic 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of.  But shouldn't :Category:Creation Science also refer to :Category:Pseudoscience?  My issue is that all this creation science stuff is definitely pseudoscience, and it is referred to as such.  Orangemarlin 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Creation Science does refer to :Category:Pseudoscience — scroll down to the bottom of the first category, and you'll see that it's included as a member in the second.  Or (more usefully) go to the second category and you'll see that the first is listed as a subcategory.  Do you mean that the category description for :Category:Creation Science should itself mention pseudoscience?  I'm not sure I'm following your meaning.  --Sapphic 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You know I didn't see that at the bottom.  I was looking for pseudoscience in the list.  I'm going to say, yes I think it should itself mention it.  I just don't want pseudoscience to be hidden or difficult to find in the category.  Orangemarlin 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that it's important to identify pseudoscience, but I disagree with using the category system to do that, so please take the discussion to the talk page of the article so we can see what others think.  --Sapphic 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Category:Homeopathy is a sub-category of :Category:Pseudoscience, so anyone looking in the Pseudoscience category can find all the articles categorised as Homeopathy. Normally they  would not be put directly in the parent category as well, see the guidance below and check it out in detail if you consider it should be an exception...... dave souza, talk 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with both OM and Skinwalker: these sub-cats do not express right up front that the topics are considered pseudoscience.  •Jim62sch• 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point of a category.  Those types of assertions should be made in the article, where they can be referenced.  Incidentally, this approach makes it easier to get topics listed in the pseudoscience category, and diffuses much of the conflict that might otherwise arise in these situations.  Even supporters of a particular field would have to acknowledge that the field is considered to be pseudoscience by a notable number of people (which qualifies it for inclusion in the category) even though they'd still like to argue that their field isn't actually pseudoscience (which can be addressed in the article itself).  --Sapphic 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've stirred up a tempest, and it's not in a teapot.  I think the point of many of us is that some of these articles are plain and simple hooey.  Whether it's homeopathy, this article, or Creation science, it needs to be in the lead, in the body and in the category that it is a load of hooey, that is Pseudoscience.  Yes, I agree that it's there, but it's hidden.   If there was a discussion on your doing these changes, I would have liked to have participated.  If I were the only editor and this was the only article where anyone cared, you could say I was full of manure.  But I'm not and it isn't.  Orangemarlin 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocated from [[User_talk:Sapphic]] 

message: What does any of this have to do with the subject of the article? "Flood geology" is specifically the pseudoscience of trying to reconcile the geological record with the Biblical flood story. The end of the Pleistocene may be recent geologically, but in terms of human history was very long ago. In what sense could the evidence discussed be related to the Biblical flood? TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, it has nothing to do with it, at least directly.--Filll 16:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed evidence for a recent global flood 

message: I've semi-protected this page for a while, as there was a lot of IP disturbance. These edits in particular are problematic, as the sources cited do not seem to verify the information they purport to support. For example, the sentence which reads Evidence that there was a large comet impact event on the Laurentian Ice Sheet covering Northern Canada towards the end of the Ice Age that suddenly triggered a mega super flood of several super floods occurring simultaneously. was supported by this link, which mentions the word "flood" just once, with no mention of superfloods, or of numerous superfloods occurring simultaneously. Other "sources" appear equally problematic, and as this sort of material has been added numerous times recently by various IPs, semi-protection may be in order. Comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That anon editor has tried to put that impact event thing on here a dozen times or so.  There is no evidence of an impact event on the Laurentian Ice Sheet. Orangemarlin 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page semi-protection

message: Orangemarlin reverted my contributions with the rather oblique comment that this is a "creationist" article. I point out that there is no such thing as a "creationist" article on Wikipedia. All articles are representive of the entire encyclopedia and are not owned by any one perspective or ideology. We need to be aware of the policies of verifiability, reliability, and neutrality when reporting on these subjects. As such, my contributions represent a more verifiable, reliable, and neutral (that is, dispassionate) treatment of the subject. If other editors disagree with me, I challenge them to make their cases directly rather than simply reverting. --ScienceApologist 02:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that creationist beliefs should be stated, described, examined critically and dismissed. By pretending they do not exist, we do not do our jobs in writing an encyclopedia.--Filll 03:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh absolutely. We do need to present them as they exist. My version does a fairly good job of this, I'd say. I'd like to hear your opinion, however. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Filll. I'm sorry to see you revert Orangemarlin's excellent edit, Science Aplologist. Please note that his/her version is factually the same as yours, but written in a much more neutral and dispassionate tone. To simply revert the whole of it, and then "challenge" everybody else to not revert you, is... well,  not good practice. I have reverted to the Orangemarlin, as the better version. I challenge you not to revert wholesale, but to look carefully at all the formulations and rewrite any particular detail you have a problem with, in a neutral way.  Bishonen | talk 09:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orangemarlin's "excellent edit" was a revert. You seem to be parroting my post above and offer nothing substantial to back up your claim. I'm going to go ahead and revert back because I find this kind of commentary to be a little bit like gaming here. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Orangemarlin's well-justified removal of creationist pandering was kept, so his actual edit I preserved, it was only his revert that I undid (the old-fashioned way). --ScienceApologist 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure which is best, but we should strive to be clear and succinct but still accurate. I am glad we agree that creationist views should definitely be described as clearly as we can.--Filll 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to get as many well-referenced and common creationist views out there as possible and provide an immediate comparison to scientific explanations. It is important that the facts are not segregated from the lies and that ducks are called ducks. Weasling away from accurate descriptions of creationist views is unfair to our readers and opposed to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I'd say. --ScienceApologist 13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct.--Filll 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article as it is now is a bit unbalanced.  It's certainly not NPOV, much of it is written in attack mode.   We all agree that flood geology is bullshit, but we might want to not be so blatant about saying so in the article. •Jim62sch• 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen is indeed an excellent editor, but her revert of my edits back to Orangemarlin's revert was neither well-justified nor well-grounded in any editorial rationale. I have commented on her talkpage to that effect. As for this new accomodationist spirit emerging, I'm not sure what to say. I don't think flood geology is "bullshit", I think that it simply contradicts geology. People need to indicate where the version is "attacking". These vague accusations are not going to get us to an agreeable article. --ScienceApologist 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "This is a creationist article"

message: Local floods do not explain similar names, people, and other details found in the flood stories.
The edit is Local floods do not explain similar names, people, and other details found in the flood stories.
20:09, 26 June 2007 Art Carlson (Talk | contribs) (56,002 bytes) (Undid revision 140803746 by Yqbd (talk) unsourced) 
20:04, 26 June 2007 Yqbd (Talk | contribs) (56,099 bytes) (→Comparison with geology - Local floods do not explain similar names, people, and other details found in the flood stories.) 
Believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories can be found in many cultures, places and religions, not just in the Bible; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past. Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology. Some commentators have suggested that a massive local flood in the Black Sea area, or possibly even the huge rise in sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age, may be responsible for the preponderance of the flood myths in the Near East and across the world. Local floods do not explain similar names, people, and other details found in the flood stories.
===The Same Source===
The source for the edit is the same source used for the rest of the paragraph.
I believe "Believers in Flood Geology" suggest flood stories is evidence of an actual event in the historic past not just because the flood stories have a flood. The flood stories have other similar details like names, people, number of people. "Anthropologists" and "commentators" respond to the event of a flood by saying local floods happen. I do not see an explanation about the other details in flood stories from "anthropologists" and "commentators". Therefore, Local floods do not explain similar names, people, and other details found in the flood stories. --Yqbd 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still unsourced and as POV as all get out.  I reverted. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source for the rest of the paragraph? --Yqbd 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Believers in Flood Geology" know about local floods and point out flood stories because of the details. --Yqbd 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What? •Jim62sch• 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with geology - 

message: The source for the edit is the same source used for the rest of the paragraph.
I believe "Believers in Flood Geology" suggest flood stories is evidence of an actual event in the historic past not just because the flood stories have a flood. The flood stories have other similar details like names, people, number of people. "Anthropologists" and "commentators" respond to the event of a flood by saying local floods happen. I do not see an explanation about the other details in flood stories from "anthropologists" and "commentators". Therefore, Local floods do not explain similar names, people, and other details found in the flood stories. --Yqbd 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still unsourced and as POV as all get out.  I reverted. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source for the rest of the paragraph? --Yqbd 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Believers in Flood Geology" know about local floods and point out flood stories because of the details. --Yqbd 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What? •Jim62sch• 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Same Source

message: Believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories with similar details can be found in many cultures, places and religions, not just in the Bible; this, they s 
The edit is Believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories with similar details can be found in many cultures, places and religions, not just in the Bible; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories.
(cur) (last)  21:01, 26 June 2007 Jim62sch (Talk | contribs) (56,002 bytes) (rv to last good edit by Art) 
(cur) (last)  20:51, 26 June 2007 Yqbd (Talk | contribs) (56,104 bytes) (→Comparison with geology - because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories.) 
Believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories with similar details can be found in many cultures, places and religions, not just in the Bible; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories. Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology. Some commentators have suggested that a massive local flood in the Black Sea area, or possibly even the huge rise in sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age, may be responsible for the preponderance of the flood myths in the Near East and across the world. 
:An NPOV version of the text you want to insert would be: Believers in Flood Geology also claim that flood stories with similar details can be found in many cultures, places and religions.... Deciding on whether or not a feature of a story is a "similarity" is a judgment call. And it still needs to be sourced. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you saying they are claiming: with similar details, or flood stories with similar details can be found in many cultures, places and religions? There are similarities in the flood stories. Please, read the Wikipedia article flood stories and the references at the article. --Yqbd 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are necessarily similarities in all flood stories. They all involve a flood. Beyond that, the only strikingly similar story I know of is the Ziusudra/Utnapishtim/Atrahasis one from Mesopotamia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Provide the source so it can be proven -- that is your job, not mine or anyone else's.  And no, the edit explains nothing.  •Jim62sch• 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flood stories is the source for similar details in the flood stories. There are also external links in flood stories if you want more detail. For example, Parallels Parallels between versions of the Ancient Near East flood myths. --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you know why Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories besides because they all have a flood? What is wrong with because they believe local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories. --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is POV about adding the reason why Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories? --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology. What is the source for anthropologists highlighting that "that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts"? --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the source for Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories? The same source would show the reason why Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories which would be because they believe local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories. --Yqbd 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, "because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories", is a supposition without basis.  It is also flawed as various flood stories have many differences as well.  And, it's unsourced. •Jim62sch• 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, read the context of "because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories" as it is preceded by "they suggest" and "evidence of an actual event in the historic past". You probably don't believe flood stories is "evidence of an actual event in the historic past", but that is what "they suggest" "because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories". We don't need your POV in the paragraph because you think it is flawed because of your flawed reasoning. We know there a differences in the stories. We are making it clearer to the reader why flood stories are brought up which is because of the similar details! --Yqbd 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you actually disputing this fact, "that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts"?  I can't think of one ancient civilization that grew and flourished that was not located at a water source. •Jim62sch• 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the answer is no to Are you actually disputing this fact, "that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts"?  --Yqbd 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add them yourself, if you think they belong.  Orangemarlin 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Idiots like amatulic need to be banned. WP:CIVILITY will not work on them. --76.214.201.28 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of effectiveness or veractiy, calling another editor an idiot is in violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:CIVILITY). If you want to play in this sandbox, abide by the rules. --Art Carlson 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting language ("idiots") for someone touting civility. Nothing I wrote was uncivil, just pointed and factual. Weasel words should be eliminated, and questionable claims should be tagged until citations are provided, or deleted. -Amatulic 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with geology 

message: The source of the edit is Flood stories and the same source of Believers in Flood Geology also point out. The edit also better explains why they suggest flood stories with similar details are "evidence of an actual event in the historic past". --Yqbd 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide the source so it can be proven -- that is your job, not mine or anyone else's.  And no, the edit explains nothing.  •Jim62sch• 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flood stories is the source for similar details in the flood stories. There are also external links in flood stories if you want more detail. For example, Parallels Parallels between versions of the Ancient Near East flood myths. --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know why Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories besides because they all have a flood? What is wrong with because they believe local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories. --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is POV about adding the reason why Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories? --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology. What is the source for anthropologists highlighting that "that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts"? --Yqbd 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the source for Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories? The same source would show the reason why Believers in Flood Geology also point out flood stories which would be because they believe local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories. --Yqbd 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, "because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories", is a supposition without basis.  It is also flawed as various flood stories have many differences as well.  And, it's unsourced. •Jim62sch• 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, read the context of "because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories" as it is preceded by "they suggest" and "evidence of an actual event in the historic past". You probably don't believe flood stories is "evidence of an actual event in the historic past", but that is what "they suggest" "because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories". We don't need your POV in the paragraph because you think it is flawed because of your flawed reasoning. We know there a differences in the stories. We are making it clearer to the reader why flood stories are brought up which is because of the similar details! --Yqbd 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you actually disputing this fact, "that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts"?  I can't think of one ancient civilization that grew and flourished that was not located at a water source. •Jim62sch• 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the answer is no to Are you actually disputing this fact, "that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts"?  --Yqbd 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate and NPOV Edit

message: Feel free to add these to the article for me. --Yqbd 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add them yourself, if you think they belong.  Orangemarlin 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I tagged the section with a weasel words tag (for using the words "some" and "most" here and there), and tagged specific sentences and phrases requiring citations. Please do not remove these tags; either find proper citations or delete the sentences. -Amatulic 04:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Idiots like amatulic need to be banned. WP:CIVILITY will not work on them. --76.214.201.28 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of effectiveness or veractiy, calling another editor an idiot is in violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:CIVILITY). If you want to play in this sandbox, abide by the rules. --Art Carlson 09:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting language ("idiots") for someone touting civility. Nothing I wrote was uncivil, just pointed and factual. Weasel words should be eliminated, and questionable claims should be tagged until citations are provided, or deleted. -Amatulic 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words and citations needed