Talk:Discovery Institute: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Abcdefghiabc - "→Intelligent design and Teach the Controversy: new section" |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abcdefghiabc|Abcdefghiabc]] ([[User talk:Abcdefghiabc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abcdefghiabc|contribs]]) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abcdefghiabc|Abcdefghiabc]] ([[User talk:Abcdefghiabc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abcdefghiabc|contribs]]) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
That seems like an unfair assessment to me. Having not read much about the trial, however, I am in little place to judge. Please avoid treating ID like it was a 'Freemason conspiracy.' It deserves an open debate just like every other scientific theory. -Master Imrahil 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:02, 11 April 2008
![]() | Christianity Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | Creationism B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Articles are linked too muliple times
Is there any good reason that articles are be linked too multiple times? Per WP:GTL, that does not seem necessary? I removed a FEW but there still are a LOT more still in the article. I brought this up a while ago but here we go again. If this has aleready been addressed or there is a different consensus I apologize ahead of time. Cheers! --Tom 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did mention this under "See also section" in the last archives with not much comment. Anyways, --Tom 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the standard is that more than once per link per section is deemed excessive. HrafnTalkStalk 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some people just don't know otherwise. It might be an idea to check the history in such cases and inform the editor responsible of the layout conventions. Richard001 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the standard is that more than once per link per section is deemed excessive. HrafnTalkStalk 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design and Teach the Controversy
Should be mentioned that the Discovery Institutes biggest and most intelligent front men, chicken out of the dover trial, as they knew it would be shown ID is just creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghiabc (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems like an unfair assessment to me. Having not read much about the trial, however, I am in little place to judge. Please avoid treating ID like it was a 'Freemason conspiracy.' It deserves an open debate just like every other scientific theory. -Master Imrahil 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)