Talk:Of Pandas and People

message: I've seen charts which show the change from Creationist to Intelligent Design language in the editions of the book. Example here. A visual is a better way of explaining this than just pure text. That individual chart is likely copyrighted and can't be used. But if we were to get a hold of the raw data, we could reproduce the chart and then cite the source for the data. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a very good idea. Perhaps the data will be in one of Barbara Forrest's books or some such.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Nick Matzke created that graph, and likely would be happy to release a copy for use. -Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart: 

message: I came to this article acause I was just on FTN for something else and went down a rabbit hole, but since the sentence in question has apparently been subject to controversy recently I figured I should ask first before doing anything BOLD. What do people think about changing
to
?
My reasoning is that the current wording appears to put too much emphasis on its authors' views too early on for an article on the book, when what we are really saying is that the book presents this view and that is why it is notable. Its authors almost certainly espouse a whole bunch of views that aren't presented in the book, and mention of those doesn't belong in this article.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I wasn't a previous editor of this article, I don't see a problem with your suggested change.  —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 05:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I see no fundamental problem with this, though I would then drop the "—which its authors espouse". What do they espouse? ID? Or the Christian God? I would also replace "present" by "endorse" or "promotes", or "advocates for", or whatever: a book can present intelligent design by explaining clearly that it is, in short, bunk. And since that is the default view, it's not terribly interesting. What is interesting about this one is that it promotes ID.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, I added the last bit because I thought someone (me...) might get picky about whether the book "presents" ID or "advocates" for ID. If it was a social studies textbook, presenting ID would not necessarily be a problem. Maybe ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Shit. Missed the last part. Replacing with "endorses" works for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the current version. Shifting focus to the book is an improvement.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Its authors espouse ..." → "It presents ... which its authors espouse" 

message: No comment on the objective veracity of the claim, but I wanted a bit more information on the "Banned Book of the Year" claim, and was disappointed. Nothing should appear in the timeline image that isn't also included, and sourced, in the article text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it that DI post? It's not terribly interesting in itself, but the rest of the timeline seems informative.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article timeline image contains unsourced claims