2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + + +
User talk:Ymmotrojam/Scientific Theory of Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 01:55, March 22, 2007
, 01:55, March 22, 2007no edit summary
:Yeah, lets just work on making as strong an article as we think will be allowed. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah, lets just work on making as strong an article as we think will be allowed. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
What sections do we want to add?
What sections do we want to add?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
There is lots to add....but before we jump in I, at least, need a gut check on this. What exactly is it we are doing here guys? Is this really worth it? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
There is lots to add....but before we jump in I, at least, need a gut check on this. What exactly is it we are doing here guys? Is this really worth it? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think it's worth it. The goal is to have a copiously cited verifiable article on evolution to present as an alternative to Conservative's presentation. On any other cite, we'd fess up and say ours is correct. Here, we just want to "teach the controversy" and have it accepted. As a final solution, I thought that the disambiguation compromise was a good one. I think even [[user:Conservative]] didn't mind it - he didn't delete it a second time and I know he was online :-O. So I think it was gaining acceptance, and would work next time.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)