SA319

Welcome

Hello, SA319, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes.

You may want to begin by reading these pages:

• Help
• Rules
• Links to useful pages
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested pages or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen right away. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes).

If you need help just click here and type {{helpme}} and your question and someone will reply to you shortly.

Good luck and happy changing! Druddigon (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

SA319 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Rus793. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ken Ham, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. YouTube is not a reliable source. Also, be careful to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in the debate section. This isn't about showcasing Ham's beliefs and causes, it's a biography BLP. Thank you. User:Rus793 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You may want to edit and improve the stub article Creation Museum. Also, there is no article on Answers in Genesis and if you can, you might want to start it. Just follow our guidelines and policies when you do. Editors here will give you any help you might need. If you have any questions ask them here or post a question to Wikipedia:Simple talk. Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! SA319 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another thought is that instead of going back and forth about which debater said what in the Ken Ham stub, consider creating (if you know how) the article Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. There is one on the English Wikipedia en:Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. It can be copied if you follow the guideline Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. Anything you don't understand, just ask. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point please STOP. Any disagreements with what I have shown you or edits to the page need to go to the talk page for discussion first BRD. I am not going to edit war with you, my intention is to help you edit here. So please stop until we get some things about what you want to add cleared up. That way you can go about it the right way. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. My edits weren't POV and I provided reliable sources. You in fact told me to do so, so you have to understand I'm a little confused on why you reverted my changes. It's directly published by AiG; if you'd like, I can link directly to their website. Someone else included Bill Nye's objections in there, so it's fair to include Ken Ham's answers. That's not POV. Thank you for your time SA319 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

First, and to reiterate, the page isn't about the debate with Nye. To keep adding what Ken Ham said about this or that is taking the debate section away from maintaining neutrality. When I edited it yesterday, I included only each one's basic starting point per the sources. It isn't important (to this article which is about Ken Ham) who replied with what. As I mentioned there is an appropriate article for that, it just hasn't been started yet. If you need help starting it I can help you with that later, not just right now. Our NPOV article is about disputes, not neutrality. I forgot that when I first mentioned it. For anything not covered in our own rules we follow the English Wikipedia. That explains the neutrality policy. It's at: en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please take the time to read it and I'll answer any questions. You need to also read our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'd recommend you read all of it, but especially What kind of sources should I avoid?. Lastly, the page formatting you changed is covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections_and_headings. I'll be back on and off and if not then tomorrow. See what questions you have and we'll go from there. I appreciate your patience. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I added Ken Ham's main starting points; I don't know if you saw that. Thank you for your time. SA319 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

They were already in the article and sourced. I see one citation is missing but I can replace it. I looked at what you wrote and we still have a problem. The source is an unreliable source described (by type) in the Reliable sources guideline. You can't use it for this purpose. Also, the unsourced information is continuing the debate and this is not about the debate. It also isn't neutral when you have Ham said this, then he said this, and he commented about what Nye said. What you added was all about Ham and not Nye. ↓↓for your patience, we'll get this. User:Rus793 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidently my intentions weren't made clear, so let me do so here (Please note: I am not saying this in a mean-spirited way):

Here is what was said about Bill Nye:

Nye argued that radioisotopic and ice core data shows that Earth has existed for far longer than 6,000 years.[3] He also added that using the Bible's description of the Ark it could not float.[3]"

And here was what was said of Ken Ham

"Ham's position was the world was created about 6,000 years ago. He also defended his position that all animals alive today descend from those aboard Noah's Ark.[3]

I wanted to make it more balanced.

Do you want more opinions from other editors? User:Rus793 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I realized I added more than what was said of Nye, but if someone wants to add more Nye, that's fine. My addition was still brief. I was adding one brief paragraph on the section of the debate in Ken Ham's section, not a long summary. I can work on a debate page, yes.

OK, it is gone for now and for the reasons I explained both here and briefly in the edit summary. It isn't fair to other editors to create biased materials and expect them to find sources to balance them. It just doesn't work that way. Every editor here is responsible for their own edits and to follow the guidelines and policies the best they can. As I said, as you're getting started here other editors will help you.

"It also isn't neutral when you have Ham said this, then he said this, and he commented about what Nye said."

Well, several sentences above has "Nye said this, Nye said that," and you haven't seemed to have an issue with that. And I don't expect you to, because it's a brief summary of his opening statements. And my summary on Ham was his opening statements. I can only say, "Ham said this, Ham said that." I also don't have anything about Ham commenting on what Nye said during the debate. Here's what I added:

"Because someone who believed in evolution had said that "Creation is bad for science," Ken Ham provided a list of several scientists who had done a lot of stuff who were young earth creationists. Ham asked Nye how he could explain the laws of logic and physics in a naturalistic worldview, and asked him to give one example of something that could only have been invented from an evolutionary worldview. He also showed the difference between what's called historical science and observational science, and gave an example of that with biological adaptation. In addition, he talked about moral absolutes from a naturalistic and creationist worldview. "

Yes, the person who believed in evolution is Bill Nye, but his statement is reflective of a large amount of evolutionists, and Ham was responding to them as a whole. It was just one of his opening statements.

On the references, the guideline is that references should be third-party and reliable. Here's the best I've found so far:

https://www.icr.org/article/8050

http://www.icr.org/article/nye-vs-ham-debate-no-true-scotsman/

https://www.icr.org/article/8026

If it doesn't have connections to Ken Ham it should be OK. You can use it with the template <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate=5 July 2015}}</ref>. It's the same as used in the new article I created for you Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. User:Rus793 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it won't be easy to find summaries for the debate by a third party. It's owned by Answers in Genesis, I believe. I would also prefer those sources to be Creationists, because, just being honest, evolutionists aren't always well-mannered towards AiG, and I don't know if I'll be able to find any reliable summaries that will actually include Ham's statements. If you don't believe me, you can investigate for yourself. This is one example: one time, The Huffington Post said that Ken Ham said that "aliens are going to Hell" (which he didn't), because Ham affirmed that he didn't believe in aliens.

But if you find any good ones, I'll use them.

See below ↓ User:Rus793 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Anyway, I have to thank you for the behavior you've maintained so far. I don't know where you are on Creation/evolution, but many evolutionists might have blocked me already out of their own bias. So thank you for not adopting such behavior.

But, more importantly, can I interest you in something? I don't know what you think of Christianity, but I highly recommend this website: www.needGod.com

---

Here's an additional resource: www.evolutionvsGod.com

Thank you again for your time. SA319 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of you and I appreciate it. It's not appropriate to discuss personal opinions here though. Any editor who uses numbers in their username is probably someone who appreciates privacy—at least a little. But even if I were a member of Ken Ham's congregation I would still need to maintain a neutral point of view. Think of it as a hat you wear while you edit. As I mentioned above I started the page Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate page for you. I did find 6 reliable sources. Those that arguably leaned one way or the other certainly had usable information in spite of any leanings. That said, read the NPOV policy link I created for you and keep it handy. Just make a good effort to follow it the best you can. When you edit, you can use any of the source citations already in the article. Most have a named reference. Look up the linked source first, I made sure they were all available with a click, then paraphrase what you read and add the information. This is the appropriate place to add information about the debate itself. If you can, create links to other simplewiki pages, keep the sentences short and keep any new sources you add in the same style as that already in use. Again, any questions just ask. User:Rus793 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate

I just went over some of your edits on this page. One problem stood out immediately: failed references. Source citations are not decorations on a page, they are there to verify the information is correct. Wikipedia:Verifiability says we should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. Wikipedia:No original research says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, as well as any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." I can explain any part of this you don't understand. Users here are editors not authors. We don't write these pages from our own knowledge, opinions, ideas or speculations. Editors compile information from reliable published sources. We then cite those sources so readers know the information is accurate—as they would expect from an encyclopedia. I hoped you would look closely at the article and see this. The six sources already cited can be easily read so you could have obtained good reliable information from any of them. Likewise, anything you add to the article must come from a reliable source. You can't copy anything verbatim but you can paraphrase the information into your own words. But a reader must be able to clearly recognize that the cited source verifies the information in the article. Again, any part of this you don't understand clearly, please ask. Have a good evening. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the admonition. I hope i did so, as I will always seek to be honest. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Thank you for your time. SA319 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you did it intentionally. Unfortunately we don't have a tutorial or classes for how to edit. Editors and administrators give warnings to correct another editor if they get off-course. We explain what rules were bent or broken. Once you understand how something works, it's not difficult at all to edit. There are a few things to know here but you learn as you go. With a good attitude you can be as good an editor as you want. We always need good editors. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question you posed in your last edit summary "Is it really necessary to have a reference since a can't find one?" When you add information to an already source cited article, yes, it should be source cited. Additionally, "If someone sees that there is information in an article that does not have a source, then the information may be removed" (WP:CITE). That's any article. The fact you can't find a source indicates the information didn't come from a reliable source. So for two reasons it shouldn't be there (the other being it meets the definition of original research (OR)). The idea is, use the information from published reliable secondary sources. Then it's not OR. It's OK to have a general idea of the topic you're looking for. But be ready to use the information you find. Searching for a general topic is much easier than trying to match an already written statement with a source. Some researchers can do it, but it is usually like shoving cooked spaghetti up a straw. That's assuming it's an intellectually honest statement to begin with. Bottom line, do it the right way—it's just easier. BTW, do you have a sandbox where you can experiment or keep new articles you're working on? Wikipedia:Sandbox has a link near the bottom of the page that will create one for you. User:Rus793 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes that replaced (also added to) a couple of your edits. Please take the time to examine them closely to see what was done. They were all based on the above discussion. I did manage to source a few statements in the article. I also changed the statement in at least once case to better reflect what the source said. One complex statement proved too hard to source so I replaced it with something from a source of equal value (to the article). The page can still use more information so go ahead using the examples in the article. I suggest you find a few good reliable sources then add that part of the debate. The event lasted 2½ hours so we can't begin to cover the subjects discussed in any detail. But see what you can do with it. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)