Talk:Kurt Wise

message: It says that the sources cited were retrieved in August of 2008.  Since that time has not yet come, I assume this is a misprint.Professor Davies (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 18 of 2008 

message: I have reread the article in its entirety and I really think the whole thing needs to be reedited. Almost the entire article is full of criticisms and the one "positive" comment is one that makes an ad hominem against creationists...characterizing them as "propagandists." Again, I wonder why people who are so interested in discrediting this man are writing this article. Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix any of it other than by deletion. I guess a good suggestion would be to have a "criticisms" section?
-Garrett  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.72.159 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs improved, but keep in mind WP:NPOV on science. As creationism is not considered science, the article must represent this. Agg56tt (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly Negative Tone 

message: *a standalone criticism section...not one that includes his views with criticism.
-Garrett  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.72.159 (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add to it. Agg56tt (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops....left out something 

message: Per WP:SUMMARY I have copied the detailed analysis of In Six Days to its editor's article. There is some contention about the notability of this and related material in the AFD and it would be appropriate for editors to consider both articles as a main-summary pair, assuming that Ashton is retained. Sad to say, but it's still being fought for deletion after 65+ sources have been found. JJB 15:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In Six Days has been deleted as a source even though several grafs are quoted from it. Usually we include significant articles in biblios even if edited by another. I have no intent to revert at this time because three of my adds to Ashton were reverted, but a watchlister may have a comment. JJB 18:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was listed under books, but it is only a book chapter. In addition, as you say, it's in the list of references. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but because of WP:PRESERVE the recommended edit is usually change "Books" to "Bibliography". JJB 19:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people I know (myself included) don't even list book chapters on their CVs, because it is so easy to get them published. It's different in the humanities, but in the life sciences, only undergrads think that a book chapter is a big deal. Listing a mere chapter as one of this persons "important publications" borders on the insulting. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John F. Ashton (AFD) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kurt Wise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413145602/http://www.truett.edu/article-list/428-creation-research-center-established-at-tmc.html to http://www.truett.edu/article-list/428-creation-research-center-established-at-tmc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified