Talk:Discovery Institute: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Up to Apr 2007; Up to Jan 2008;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:02, 11 April 2008

Christianity Unassessed

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Creationism B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

216.163.84.151 (talk · contribs) / Discovery Institute Discovery Institute

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.

Truthologist (talk · contribs) / Discovery Institute Discovery Institute

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)[reply]

I did mention this under "See also section" in the last archives with not much comment. Anyways, --Tom 15:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the standard is that more than once per link per section is deemed excessive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 15:03, 28 March 2008 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,550,263 edits m Signing comment by Abcdefghiabc - "→‎Intelligent design and Teach the Controversy: new section" ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:02, 11 April 2008 edit undo Master Imrahil (talk \| contribs) 18 edits m →‎Intelligent design and Teach the Controversy Next edit →
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)