Changes

Oxford FOI statement
Line 390: Line 390:  
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
== Oxford FOI statement ==
 +
 +
It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)
2,002

edits