Talk:Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
[edit] PZ Myer paragraph
this paragraph is about a similar list, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎, and not about the parent article. It is inappropriate to extend the PZ Myers quotes and analysis to this article here.Northfox (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: the blanket revert by Oddnature also reverted my other edits, without any reason given in editsummary.Northfox (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- The wording is almost identical. The two organizations share personnel. The two websites have similar and almost identical coding. It is noted in the text that PZ Myers was commenting on the other which was almost identical. So?--Filll (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- okay, let's do it step by step. I removed the quite subjective claim that the list looks artificially long. Sorting by different keys makes it easier to find people, or to get a rough estimate in which fields they work, etc. This has nothing to with making it artificially long. Northfox (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As noted by Filll, the statements are quite similar but nevertheless not the same. I rewrote the paragraph to make that clearer. Also made it clearer that Myers criticized the Dissent list, not the Physicians list. Lets be as correct as possible here. No projection from one list to the other. For the rest, I kept the sentences and overall structure as intact as possible. The last part of that section (the figure is expected to rise) is still POV, but will propose a revision soon - no time right now. Northfox (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unsupported POV
This article states that the document is an "appeal to authority" in support of ID positions. Now it may very well be, but the citation in support of that statement does not even mention the petition or its organization. The paper is asserts that ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. However, nothing in its 44 pages even mentions the organization or the petition. Being unsupported it's simply not neutral, so I've edited it. JimZDP (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
