Talk:The Design Revolution

Creationism Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

NPOV and structure[edit]

Ian Pitchford rightly deleted the Dembski quotations and correctly identified this article as a "propaganda sheet for the book and should be deleted entirely or merged with he Dembski article." I agree.

It should also be pointed out that the structure of the article, laying out chapter headings with no detailed description of the book's content, no objective analysis of the same, and no mention of how the book was received is way outside both the norm and the guidelines for writing a great article. FeloniousMonk 16:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Ian about that and he thought that the quotes were too much. You can read it from our talk pages. What do you suggest for improvements? David Bergan 19:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much much much later and ... would suggest a revert WAY back to something like July 2005 that says what the book has. The article here seems to be sections (1) 2 para general about the book - OK except cite 1 seems a dupe of the generic 'list of societies rejecting ID'; (2) Criticism is just an unsourced list of names, no reason stated these were picked to list, seems just a hook to hang the cite to Perakh blog posting; (3) References, (4) External links which dupes the two Perahk cite and has deaedlinks at the Panda Thumb blog and the UCSD excerpts. I'll just do some cleanup and leave it to someone else to expand to 2006 substantial material. Markbassett (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Design Revolution. 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/20080328150011/http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]