User talk:Jennafikshin

April 2018
Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Young Earth creationism have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm
I don’t know how the rebuttals against young earth creationism are relevant to the page. It seems argumentative. Are there rebuttals to the theory of evolution, in its introduction? Please tell me how this is constructive or informative for the reader interested in young earth creationism. The page should merely be a representation of the ideas and definitions regarding the topic. As it stands, you’re touting biased information. If there was a section under each and every belief system, entitled “Rebuttals,” well, every single page would and should have one. Please consider this position. Jennafikshin (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:PSCI for an explanation of Wikipedia policy on handling pseudoscientific topics such as creation science. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm 2
Um, nice try. The whole topic of the page is this specific pseudoscientific theory. Nothing has been hijacked. Jennafikshin (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia presents fringe topics based on what reliable sources have to say about them. So, we have articles on the Moon landings (Apollo 11 and numerous others) and an article on the fringe theories that it was all fake (Moon landing conspiracy theories). The Apollo 11 article lays out what happened (NASA landed humans on the Moon). The other article explains the "conspiracy theory" and what it "claims".


 * In such articles, we call pseudoscience "pseudoscience", conspiracy theories "conspiracy theories", etc. If you are look for articles lending credence to such things, in this particular case you might try Conservapedia. They're right on board with using "selected" sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm 3
Nope, I was not looking for an article that lent credence to anything—just a matter-of fact, standard sort of definition. How very political of you. Jennafikshin (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)