User talk:2601:83:4201:8970:E0D1:A569:7379:8A84
June 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm StephenMacky1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Teach the Controversy seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You're mistaken that Wikipedia has to give equal balance between evolution and creationism. The validity and reliability of content is based on their weight in reliable sources. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well,your undoing of my Wikipedia edit is a mistake because Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral,as you just said.Wikipedia is not neutral in that it favors one idea,evolution,over another,creationism.So,my edit is neutral.Wikipedia is not neutral in evolution because it champions evolution as a fact,while it denogrates creationism as pseudoscience.I believe that all ideas should have equal respect. 2601:83:4201:8970:E0D1:A569:7379:8A84 (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello anon. Please see WP:NPOV (particularly WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PSCI). As an encyclopedia, it cannot give equal validity to every idea or concept. If it did, it would not even be an encyclopedia no more, but would be more accurately described as a forum or a blog. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- You said ,and I quote from you,"If it did,it would not even be an encyclopedia no more," You are using double negatives.A double negative equals a positive.So,saying "If it did,it would not even be an encyclopedia no more," is actually saying"If it did,it will be an encyclopedia",only further strengthening my claim that Wikipedia should give equal balance between evolution and creationism. 2601:83:4201:8970:E0D1:A569:7379:8A84 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Reading with comprehension is not your strongest ability. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why did you say that? 2601:83:4201:8970:E0D1:A569:7379:8A84 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Reading with comprehension is not your strongest ability. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- You said ,and I quote from you,"If it did,it would not even be an encyclopedia no more," You are using double negatives.A double negative equals a positive.So,saying "If it did,it would not even be an encyclopedia no more," is actually saying"If it did,it will be an encyclopedia",only further strengthening my claim that Wikipedia should give equal balance between evolution and creationism. 2601:83:4201:8970:E0D1:A569:7379:8A84 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello anon. Please see WP:NPOV (particularly WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PSCI). As an encyclopedia, it cannot give equal validity to every idea or concept. If it did, it would not even be an encyclopedia no more, but would be more accurately described as a forum or a blog. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |