Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was
believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one
country according to one poll.
3 polls, have you read the links in question?
I'll disregard the rest of your name calling, mistatements of my
position, and personal attacks. I thought people who read
encyclopedias were better than this?
SS
On 4/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:05:00 +0200, you wrote:
Encyclopedias are not about persuasion, they are
about cataloging
facts (like the % of people who believe in God in a given country).
Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was
believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one
country according to one poll.
I'd appreciate it if you two stopped the
rhetorical games and
one-upsmanship, and focused on trying to help improve the articles in
question.
And I'd appreciate it if you stopped making tendentious edits to
support your highly specific POV and started "writing for the enemy",
and indeed stopped viewing every member of the community who disagrees
with you as the enemy.
Improving the articles is easily achieved by the simple expedient of
reverting your POV edits.
But I salute your chutzpah in coming to this list expecting to have
others support your tendentious editing.
For example, providing a citation to [[Socialism]]
showing
that the socialist international opposes racism, and removing the
statement currently there (that socialism opposes racism) would be a
sign of rigour.
And providing a verifiable citation to show that socialists are more
prone to racism than any other group would be an ideal staring point
for making the assertion in the first place. You have a history of
adding contentious text and then challenging others to disprove it.
This reversal of the burden of proof is one of the key criticisms on
your RfC.
People who assume that theirs is an
"informed, scientific opinion" in
contrast to others who merely cite facts need to leave their opinions
at the door. Books of reference are to have one agenda alone, the
cataloging of accurate information. Simply because that information
does not suit your POV is no reason to exclude it. Please review
Don't be an ass. Informed scientific opinion, even among many
scientists who are also Christians, is that humans and apes are
descended from a common ancestor.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l