Talk:Wikipedia Newspeak

I removed some of the blog-style language from this piece. I was going to add a {{fact}} to the last sentence (the WPP do not want... etc.), but I figured it would just be better to ask on the talk page. HelpJazz 14:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Hmm, so 'the term "theory of evolution" exists on about 1.8 million sites, according to Google, but is censored as a legitimate term on Wikipedia', eh? Then how come the second line of the Wikipedia article states, '"Theory of evolution" redirects here. For more on how evolution is defined, see Evolution as theory and fact', and, when you click the link to go there, the first sentence is, 'Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature. The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, with the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about.' Surely this is simply an indication they want their encyclopedia to be precise? After all, even creationists accept what Wikipedia describes as the 'fact of evolution' as fact, except they call it 'microevolution'. Urushnor 15:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)