Talk:Critical Analysis of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is a very long introduction. Perhaps it should be shortened and the relevant issues given their own heading? Twipie 05:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the revert?

FeloniusMonk, I think you should explain quite quickly why you reverted the amendments I made, particularly since you hid your reasons for the reversion with accusations of "reverting significant viewpoint and weasle words". I changed virtually none of the content of the article in my edit, merely the order and structure, so such an accusation is extremely unfriendly!

Since I consider my revisions to be a significant improvement over the original, with it's extremely lengthy introduction and repeated information, I will revert back to my version later today unless you can give me a good reason why not. GDallimore 10:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because a significant viewpoint appeared to be deleted and WP:BOLD#...but don't be reckless. says that at controversial topics discuss substantial changes on talk before making them. After looking more closely I'm not certain that the viewpoint indeed deleted so I've reverted myself and will improve your version. My apologies if I was wrong. FeloniousMonk 07:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, don't forget the bit further down that page concerning WP:BOLD#Reverting. On a more constructive note, you mention the removal of a major viewpoint. Looking at the shortened introduction myself a bit more carefully, I think I do see something that is missing and could serve to balance the introduction better. Let me try an edit to improve. GDallimore 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)