2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: − + − +
no edit summary
You mean putting the NGC link back?
You mean putting the NGC link back?
Yes, of course.
Yes, of course.
If the linked article is relevant to this topic it should be included, even if it does not agree with Mr. Schlafy's view.
If the linked article is relevant to this topic it should be included, even if it does not agree with Mr. Schlafy's view.[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:AllFish's critique is correct (I shouldn't have called it a journal - not peer reviewed), but I think his conclusion is, too - the publication is still more scientific than the current "no publication" citations on the page. I'll add another citation.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)