Changes

Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done.  You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues.  This is a great article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done.  You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues.  This is a great article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks.  I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way.  On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters.

:Thanks.  I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way.  On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

 

:To the extent of not glossing over certain usually ignored aspects of the controversy, I hope the article always remains POV.  But I do want the the tone to be disinterested and objective--that of a historian or a political scientist.  That is, in my opinion, the article should be about the controversy.  Not a propaganda piece to declare that one side or the other is or should be the winner.  Regarding sources, to the extent possible, I hope that only notable and ideally disinterested published sources are used.  (Yes, I used Ann Coulter's book, but this is a conservative encyclopedia, and while her tone is caustic and undeniably POV, her logic is, in my opinion, sound, and backed up by other disinterested sources such as Larson.)  In particular, I hope the use of creationist (ICR) and evolutionist (Panda'sThumb) websites as sources are minimized, and if used, '''clearly identified''' in the text of the article.  Likewise, the use of policital action organizations as sources should be clearly identified when used, because, as interested parties to the controversy, their conclusions, research, and statements should be clearly identified.  On the other hand, sources like Larson and Numbers (and others who have done similar disinterested treatments) are excellent sources for this largely socio-political controversy.  The use of interested parties is of course usually unavoidable when discussing the scientific and philosophical aspects.  [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)