Content deleted Content added
Line 776:
it does not adhere to Wikipedia policy (as i've cited above, but it was obvious even without the citation) and to claim it as worthy of FA status when it is so clearly biased in tone at the very beginning is shameful. you are giving the conservatives ([[Conservapedia]]) ammunition and you just don't give a rat's ass because you'ld rather see ID utterly crushed in the article (which will end up defeating the purpose of Wikipedia). [[User:Rbj|r b-j]] 06:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Excuse me, is it Sir? Madam? ''Hundreds'' of editors have participated in researching, writing, shaping, arguing and debating this article. Who the hell is [[user:Rbj]] to use this kind of ad-hominem attempt to shame those currently maintaining it into making the article read the way r-b-j wishes it would read. Or does the title of this talk-page section refer to ''all'' participants? except for r-b-j of course, and perhaps those who've argued for WP to essentially be a public relations conduit for the [[Discovery Institute]].
:::that is a deliberate misrepresentation (otherwise known as a lie) and it is noted. what i am arguing for is that WP does not play into the hands of the DI and other conservative critics of WP by having such blatent POV in the very lead sentence of an article. [[User:Rbj|r b-j]] 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:: I'll help address the errors in [[user:Rbj]]'s statement(s) above later on; after I cool off a bit. Have a very nice day. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
: I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to in the current version - yes, there is some bias in the current article. That's unavoidable IMHO - ID has consistently failed to stand up to any proper scrutiny. An unbiased article about ID would make no more sense than an unbiased article about a flat earth. Asking for an unbiased article is pretty much what the ID promoters have done in real-life - i.e. that ID be treated as respectable science.
| |||