Content deleted Content added
Line 574:
****I can only disagree with you: Do any other featured articles open with an acknowledged bad quote? [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] <sup>[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]</sup> 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
* Support 1,3,2,5 in order of preference - Strong Oppose on 4. [[User:Morphh|<span style="color:green">Morphh</span>]] <sup>[[user talk:Morphh|<span style="color:chocolate">(talk)</span>]]</sup> <small><i>14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)</i></small>
*I see no reason to eliminate the DI's definition of ID from the first sentence. I predict that if it were replaced with a less verified and less notable definition, there would be no end to the arguments about how to state what the proposition or concept is. I would expect it'll need to be reconsensused every couple of weeks, pretty much guaranteed. I would maintain that any alternative to the longstanding use of the quote of the DI definition should be clearly an improvement, and should be agreed to be so by a clear consensus of participants in this discussion before being put into use. I think the simple solution, now as before, is as Tevildo said, to use the quotations, which is the way it was earlier before they were removed in error and the article was locked in that position. As to the propositions 1 through 5 above, I advocate #1, with the proper quote verbatim and with proper quotation marks. The proper quote is: "... certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
==Proponents sentence==
| |||