User talk:Anne-shirley

Welcome!
Hello, Anne-shirley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Paleo Neonate  - 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Creation Research
Hello. This message is about edit which has already been reverted by another editor. Although you are right that Wikipedia should be non-partisan and must avoid attack-articles, it should still reflect what reliable sources (WP:RS) say on the subject. While creationism itself is outside the scope of science, being religion, some groups attempt to portray their particular version of creationism as science, while dismissing (or denying) much of actual science to support their claims. This practice is called pseudoscience and Wikipedia has special policies relating to pseudoscience as well as related arbitrary sanctions (see WP:ARBPS and WP:PSCI). Scientific theories not being hypotheses (and different to the colloquial "theory" meaning, see scientific theory) and evidence for evolution and common descent being overwhelming (i.e. see evidence of common descent), it is important for Wikipedia to represent the view of reliable sources by experts about the subject. This is part of the neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policy, where subjects must be presented with due weight (WP:WEIGHT). Young Earth Creationism being a minority (fringe) view, like flood geology, Intelligent design and Creation science, articles on the actual scientific fields (of for instance geology or biology subjects) should not even mention YEC beliefs as an alternative to evolution, abiogenesis, big-bang or age of the Earth, etc. Of course, articles dedicated to the YEC topic (like this one), should cover it, but must also clearly specify to the reader that the mainstream scientific consensus disgrees with YEC arguments, to avoid misleading the reader. These articles should also avoid promotion (WP:SOAPBOXING). It is similar to for other topics like alternative medicine, the paranormal or climate change denial, where the scientific consensus must also be clearly indicated. I hope that this helps to understand the meaning of NPOV in relation to Wikipedia. Thank you, — Paleo Neonate  - 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)