![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
I'm proposing merging this article into Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Every advocacy organization has different kinds of campaigns they run. I don't think this one is so special that it needs its own article. Borock ( talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
I'm proposing merging this article into Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Every advocacy organization has different kinds of campaigns they run. I don't think this one is so special that it needs its own article. Borock ( talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)