Content deleted Content added
m {{FormerFA}} |
|||
Line 19:
* Remove posthaste. The "notable researchers" section is particularly disturbing; you can hardly do such a list justice, certainly not with only a dozen names. [[User:Sj|+sj]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 05:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
=="Invitation" to work on questionable off-topic article==
Work is currently in progress on a page entitled [[Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared]]. Also currently being worked upon is [[Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science)]] giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for [[NPOV]] in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :) [[User:Barnaby dawson|Barnaby dawson]] 21:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:We don't need a plethora of articles detailing everybody's views on this highly controversial topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for expressing various distorted politico-quasi-religious pseudoscientific views. For further information on creationism, the reader is referred to the Bible. There is an article on so-called [[intelligent design]], which already pushes the limits of what is acceptable on Wikipedia, although the "concept" does seem to be widely reported in the mass media. And what on earth has this got to do with computational complexity theory? -- [[User:130.94.162.61|130.94.162.61]] 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
| |||