Talk:Deistic evolution

[Untitled]
Can we rewrite this in our own words, so we don't have to have an indented quote?

And should it be merged with naturalistic evolution?

How should this article - or the information in it - relate to the creation-evolution controversy? Uncle Ed 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't "redirect" this page to an article which fails to mention the religious doctrine of deistic evolution.

Also, is the Catholic position on evolution clear, or ambiguous? Do they accept or reject deisitic evolution? And who says so? Uncle Ed 17:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference needed to justify article
You cannot create articles out of your own original research. Please document exactly where "deistic evolution" as a religious doctrine is enumerated. Joshuaschroeder 20:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as you have resigned instead of telling me how Deistic evolution - based exclusively on sourced quotations - is "original research" - there isn't much more to say, is there?


 * Dunc, FM, care to pitch in? Uncle Ed 22:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this in any event. Or to be most accurate, Rationalwiki has fixed this and I have provided their fix to this wiki. Pandeist (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deistic evolution. 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/20061002172920/http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=79681 to http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=79681

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) 17:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite
Since it doesn't look like AfD is going to delete this outright, I'm proposing that this article be entirely rewritten to avoid having to link to an admittedly non-neutral wiki to comply with their Creative Commons license. Feel free to debate below. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why don’t you instead point to anything you think is actually wrong? No sense seeking removal of correct information for dislike of source. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Place to start. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, it's not the article content itself, it is the source. I am strongly in favor of limiting mainspace links to RationalWiki or Conservapedia to articles where one of those websites are directly relevant (like the sites' own respective articles and pages like list of encyclopedias). When you say "place to start," I can start working on the rewrite some time this week, barring any objections. I'm not looking for an argument, I only found this because I periodically check for WP:RS and WP:ELNO violations involving RationalWiki and Conservapedia. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems a waste unless something’s actually incorrect in the content. But improvements always possible. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As long as the version copied from RW remains in the history, we need to keep the attribution link. I think a rewrite is in order, but for copyright reasons we need the attribution to remain. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I had proposed deletion; to avoid that. I hadn't started with the rewrite as I had stated I would because the only person to comment didn't think it was needed, and I don't want to be that rouge editor who just does this kind of thing without consensus, but now at least two people agree. If we rewrite this completely, I would honestly vote to suppress the copied version and 86 the attribution since the attribution is practically an endorsement of a non-neutral source. Thoughts? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a very bad idea. It breaks history on Wikipedia. It also would mean that if someone had cited a prior version of the page somewhere, that permanent link would be broken, and if someone had reused the content per the license, they would be unable to show where it had come from. Page histories are important. Guettarda (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , same question as was given PCHS-NJROTC: is there anything in the article you think is actually wrong? Incorrect facts? Biased? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, plenty
 * The lead is too short, and doesn't really summarise all the major points of the article adequately.
 * It relies too heavily on quotes, and their use isn't really minimal. A Wikipedia article should summarise what reliable sources say, not just have quotes with a little commentary above and below.
 * It segregates criticisms and responses to separate sections instead of incorporating them into a general discussion. Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)