Talk:Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism

PZ Myer paragraph

this paragraph is about a similar list, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎, and not about the parent article. It is inappropriate to extend the PZ Myers quotes and analysis to this article here.Northfox (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the blanket revert by Oddnature also reverted my other edits, without any reason given in editsummary.Northfox (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is almost identical. The two organizations share personnel. The two websites have similar and almost identical coding. It is noted in the text that PZ Myers was commenting on the other which was almost identical. So?--Filll (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, let's do it step by step. I removed the quite subjective claim that the list looks artificially long. Sorting by different keys makes it easier to find people, or to get a rough estimate in which fields they work, etc. This has nothing to with making it artificially long. Northfox (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Filll, the statements are quite similar but nevertheless not the same. I rewrote the paragraph to make that clearer. Also made it clearer that Myers criticized the Dissent list, not the Physicians list. Lets be as correct as possible here. No projection from one list to the other. For the rest, I kept the sentences and overall structure as intact as possible. The last part of that section (the figure is expected to rise) is still POV, but will propose a revision soon - no time right now. Northfox (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported POV

This article states that the document is an "appeal to authority" in support of ID positions. Now it may very well be, but the citation in support of that statement does not even mention the petition or its organization. The paper is asserts that ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. However, nothing in its 44 pages even mentions the organization or the petition. Being unsupported it's simply not neutral, so I've edited it. JimZDP (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of wonder why people think this topic needs its own article at all. People circulate petitions all the time. I've signed quite a few myself, more often because I felt sympathy for the signature gatherer than because I felt strongly about the issue involved. Borock (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was created back in a time when Wikiproject Intelligent Design thought there should be as many independent articles on the subject as they could possibly manage. Many of the topics have failed to generate ongoing coverage, so many of them have since been merged. If you feel strongly about this one feel free to propose a merger of it (Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns#Petition campaigns would appear an obvious target). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks.Borock (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I'm proposing merging this article into Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Every advocacy organization has different kinds of campaigns they run. I don't think this one is so special that it needs its own article. Borock (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: as far as I can see, direct/prominent coverage on the petition petered out fairly quickly (in fact I'm having difficulty finding a single non-broken citation in the article that actually directly mentions it), with most coverage being on the subject of 'do medical doctors support evolution' rather than on the petition itself. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE = no real notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I will go ahead and merge then, if no one else objects.Borock (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]