User:Ungtss/FAQ

Creationism FAQ

Welcome to the creationism thread of pages! We look forward to working together with you to build npov articles. Because of the controversial nature of the topic, there is often a great deal of ideological conflict on the topic, which can get very emotional and heated. In an effort to prevent this, here is a brief summary of the rules for npov. Please, if making edits that may seem controversial to the other side, consider whether your edit is consistent with these edits. Also, please, if reverting the edits of another editor, please identify which of these policies (if any) the edit violates.

1. Remember the topic. The primary purpose of these articles is to describe and document the facts and views of creationism and creationists. Critiques and criticisms of those views belong on the pages, but are secondary to the views themselves, and should therefore neither replace nor precede the views themselves in the page.
2. NPOV, not SPOV. Wikipedia policy requires a neutral point of view, not a scientific point of view. The wikipedia npov policy on Pseudoscience is very clear. Articles should not imply that a viewpoint is either correct or incorrect -- they should simply report facts and views in a neutral and even-handed fashion. Views held by scientific consensus on pseudoscience should be quoted, cited, and summarized views held by scientists, and not stated as fact. Stating them as facts for purposes of the page will only lead to endless edit wars with people who disagree with the view. Citing them will end the edit war before it begins.
3. To insert a point of view, cite a source. As described on the NPOV page, cited statements are facts, not points of view. If you want to add an opinion, find someone reputable who said it, quote him/her, and cite it. Do not add your own opinion, uncited. This is called personal research.
4. Compete, don't delete. Do not delete cited quotes, summarized statements, or polls relevent to the topic. Revert deletions of those statements by others. If you feel an article is unbalanced, add balancing views from cited sources of your own. Instead of censoring, let the reader hear what the other side says, and then blow them away with a high-quality cited statement that defeats the statement you find to be bogus.
5. Conciseness. Ideally, articles would be composed of three creationist ideas, three scientific responses to those ideas, and be under or around 32k. If an article grows beyond that point, break it out into topical articles.