Talk:The Privileged Planet

message: The article is too small to be split, so I, recognising this, am against it. Bob A 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  film split suggestion 

message: When I first looked at this article, I was almost bowled over by the seeming POV of the first paragraph, until I realized that the "- despite clear scientific evidence-" was part of the "claims" of the book.  Grammatically, the part of the sentence starting "a view..." indicates closure of the "which claims..." part before it.  I'm not sure right off what the best way to rewrite this is, but it should be rewritten.  I'll think about it, but anyone else's ideas are welcome...
John Darrow (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it looks like that whole bit was rearranged by someone inserting POV (including a POV end paragraph which someone else has since removed).  I'm going to revert it back to what it was before that user came. John Darrow (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar of opening paragraph 

message: May be someone knows a place where we can find those talks or other statements of Gonzalez as MP3 now. I've not found them even with the wayback archiv. There they are listed at least in 2008:
*MP3/Quicktime files of Guillermo Gonzalez presenting his arguments
--Parzi (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP3 Statements of Gonzalez 

message: Guess once "The Privileged Planet" got tagged with the title "creationist"...Wikipedia editors did not see the need to add any more details about "The Privileged Planet" book contents. There is no summary of its basic hypotheses, conclusions. Most of the article covers Dr. Gonzalez's tenure controversy at Iowa State. A section should be added so readers can truly get a full overview of the Book. 
A book that was summarized and analyzed on Wikipedia was "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. Thus, someone can get an overview of this book. Perhaps some scientists can use a similar structure to analyze "The Privileged Planet".Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's a good synopsis of the book's contents and thesis? 

message: Dust jacket blurbs are not reviews. Consequently, they should not be mislabeled as reviews or treated as reviews. Posting the blurbs gives WP:UNDUE to how the book has been received by reviewers. SalHamton (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dust jacket blurbs are not reviews 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Privileged Planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206010539/http://www.csicop.org:80/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html to http://www.csicop.org/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed the unnecessary details in the description of the two creationists who liked the book (and of Jefferys). Which chemicals Skell fathered is not relevant to the issue at hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boasting