Talk:Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

message: This article contains almost nothing about the book and its content. It's nothing but anti-creationist propaganda and censorship. The article needs more information about the book itself, instead of the opinions of its critics.  -Thinktank33 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If that's true, why is the following statement in the article?
"The fallacy in Denton's argument was that there is really no such thing as a "living fossil", all modern species are cousins."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.20.179 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Because it is cited to a reliable source, and represents WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint on the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is VERY biased. It's a sad fact that you have to live with. Perhaps you can fix it, but make sure you have some reliable sources. See WP:IRS. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is very biased towards verifiable reality, giving due WP:WEIGHT to majority expert views, and has no place for unsubstantiated opinions of editors. The sad fact is that some editors seem unable to accept this. Wikipedia WP:TALK pages are for specific proposals for improving the article, backed up by verification from reliable sources. Comment unrelated to this can be deleted or archived, which may be the best option for this thread. . dave souza, talk 06:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you determine who's an "expert". It's quite subjective. Zenkai251 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Anybody wishing to argue with/educate Zenkai251 further may wish to take a look at this thread and this comment, before deciding if doing so serves any good purpose. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

text: (With respect to this disruptive edit, I would point out that the linked-to background has every relevance to Zenkai251's abuse of WP:AGF on the topic of 'bias' and WP:DEADHORSEing on the topic of reliability of sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually, my statement of fact has everything to do with improving this article and every other article on wikipedia. If we can remove bias, wikipedia will become a much better place. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:TRUTH™ rears its ugly head again. <yawn> 08:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, your posts keep getting weirder and weirder. Zenkai251 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Truth, unlike an opinion, is not open to reasonable debate. Any reasonable person presented with The Truth will agree with it, so by definition, any debate or resistance must be unreasonable." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia "Un-biased?"

message: From Amazon.com the U.S. edition of the book was published by Adler & Adler in April1986, but using preview to see the copyright page it says "Originally published in Great Britain by Burnett Books Ltd., produced and distributed by the Hutchinson Publishing Group. Cpyright © 1985 Michael Denton". This info is summarised in an NCSE article. Alibris has a copy for sale and gives the ISBN: 0091524504 ISBN-13: 9780091524500 so this edit is incorrect, but the ISBN number and publisher shown is for the U.S. version. . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have revised accordingly, the infobox didn't work with both editions so I've used what info was available on the Burnett edition. Amazon.co.uk gives the publisher as Ebury Press (18 Mar 1985) just to add to the fun. The US edition template info is shown below in case it's useful. . dave souza, talk 13:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication date

message: Substituted at 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. 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/20021020083714/http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html to http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.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) 23:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified