Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::I'd reply, but I'm still shunning. I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section. ] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'd reply, but I'm still shunning. I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section. ] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok you anti-science hacks. Go for it. You own it but you know it is so obviously biased it is really helping the creationist side. First you say AIG is no good then you use it as a source. Get into the comedy business. Good bye and good riddance. How I unlist to this silly endeavor or could someone please BAN me? Thank you. This is a waste of time.] 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 16:35, 22 October 2007
Level of support for evolution was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 21, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Evolution. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of evolution or argue for or against evolution please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
Imbrella has still failed to raise any specific issues with this article, so I have moved this thread to her talkpage (if you want to debate her further, then do so there). An article's talkpage is a forum for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a soapbox for vague complaints and rants. HrafnStalk12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I venture that we shun Imbrella - unless he/she brings up a valid point, just ignore it. I've wasted enough time here. Imbrella - if you bring up a point we consider worth addressing, we will address it. Otherwise, consider a complete lack of response to your comment a consensus that your suggestion has no merit. We all monitor these pages, so we're all reading your comments, and we have all read what you've written to date. And to date, consensus is a complete lack of merit to your contributions. Go elsewhere. Edit. Come back and read. If you still feel the need to post, do so in an appropriate manner. WLU14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
this cite #91 goes no where
In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.
Numerous copies of the article in this citation do in fact exist. The link in question was semi-broken (in that the portal it led to would not give easy access to the article), so I relinked it to a still-viable copy. No real issue -- the sort of thing that real editors handle all the time, without making a song and dance on the talkpage about it. HrafnStalk14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd reply, but I'm still shunning. I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section. WLU15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok you anti-science hacks. Go for it. You own it but you know it is so obviously biased it is really helping the creationist side. First you say AIG is no good then you use it as a source. Get into the comedy business. Good bye and good riddance. How I unlist to this silly endeavor or could someone please BAN me? Thank you. This is a waste of time.Imbrella16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
