nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 207:
Line 207: + + +
→Article plan: Accuracy, not neutrality.
: I apologise for my recent absence. I'm back now and I see that whilst I was away you have done your best to push your own agenda in the article. Very disappointing. I was hoping to co-operate on an article that was even-handed and represented both views clearly and without misleading readers. You appear to be able to talk the talk (on the talk page) but you are incapable of walking the walk (in the article). --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:30, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: I apologise for my recent absence. I'm back now and I see that whilst I was away you have done your best to push your own agenda in the article. Very disappointing. I was hoping to co-operate on an article that was even-handed and represented both views clearly and without misleading readers. You appear to be able to talk the talk (on the talk page) but you are incapable of walking the walk (in the article). --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:30, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I believe that the "agenda" that I've "pushed" is accuracy. Yes, it doesn't favourably represent the pro-evolution view that there are transitional fossils, but that's because there ''are'' no transitional fossils. The New Scientist article, in making such weak claims as those but calling them the "best documented" just served to show how little evidence there is for transitional forms.
:: I accept that the pro-evolutionary view is not treated very favourably in the article. But unlike Wikipedia, we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''. Is there anything in the article that is ''inaccurate''?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)