User talk:Nefariousski/test/FAQ

I'm not sure it's a great idea to say "There are other web-based projects which offer treatments of this topic that you may find fit your tastes if you continued to be offended by this approach."

What this is really saying is "If you don't like it you can LEAVE!!", which I don't think is a very helpful message. We should just stick with clarifying what this project's policies are, IMO. Gabbe (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean, the policies themselves are made by a consensus of us users. If a person feels that Wikipedia's policies are wrong and offensive, they can try to convince others in changing those policies. They'll probably fail, but it is nevertheless an option available to all users. Therefore we shouldn't imply that a person who dislikes our "approach" may "leave Wikipedia alone" so to say, since this is not their only available recourse. Gabbe (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Editors that disagree with some aspect of the project are still perfectly capable of worthwhile contributions. Disruptive editors on the other hand should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Ben (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those on the "other side of the aisle" can surely contribute to the article and surely are likely to know quite a bit about the topic as long as their edits are well sourced, don't fall into fringe categories and maintain NPOV.  We shouldn't steer people away from the article even if they are a pain in the ass.  Policy is on our side and with said policy those who disrupt or damage the integrity of the article can be delt with.Nefariousski (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should say the term creation myth has a precise definition. I mean, compare to the term planet. Thoughts? Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As an astronomer, I find it pretty funny that after the IAU ruling everybody just kinda rolled over and accepted that "planet" has a rigorous definition. It seems to me that the general public is craving that sort of declarative and definitive action, even if, as the general public, they disagree with the authoritative body (and boy, do we astronomers get a lot of hate mail from all sorts of people about the demotion of Pluto -- for some reason people don't think that they can have their own definition if they want). So, in my mind, the term "creation myth" is every bit as precise as the term "planet". The only difference is that there isn't some "International Mythological Union" that is supplying a definition that everyone will get all excited over. YMMV. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's actually the strongest justification of usage of the term over other terms such as "Creation Narrative". The fact that it is formally defined and that different reliable sources provide almost the exact same definition lends to it's precision.  Even moreso than the definition of Planet which has been in flux in recent history the creation myth as a distinct and defined term has been stable and in use for quite a long time.  Nefariousski (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point was, though we might be thinking along different lines. When someone tells me that X has a precise definition I assume there is some sort of objective criteria implicit in the definition. The term planet just came to mind as an example that most people would be familiar with. Likewise, most mathematical terms can be given a precise definition (independent of some "International Mathematical Union"). But what about the term number? Is -2 a number? Of course we say it is, not because of some precise definition of the term number but simply because relevant experts agree that it is. I think the term creation myth suffers the same symptoms as the term number, though by no means as extreme - we can at least offer some distinguishing points of a creation myth. Of course, this is no reason to avoid using the term lest we remove the term number (and countless others) from our pages for the same reason. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any final comments? I'd like to add this FAQ to the article tomorrow unless anyone has any objections or further edits they wish to make / suggest?   Nefariousski (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)