Talk:The Privileged Planet

film split suggestion
The article is too small to be split, so I, recognising this, am against it. Bob A 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments Regarding Scientific Consensus Statements
The issue of claiming consensus of the scientific community is a problematic one which has surfaced on many other Intelligent Design related articles throughout Wikipedia. To avoid similar problems developing here, I strongly recommend that any statements that invoke the notion of 'scientific consensus' (either for or against the issue) be backed up with a clear, verifiable reference. Otherwise, if such a reference is not readily obtainable, leave the statement out altogether.

The guidelines outlined in this article [] may be helpful in this regard:

'''All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. ''' The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

Rare Earth Hypothesis vs Intelligent Design in Microbiology
Be careful to draw a distinction between the textbook's support for the Rare Earth hypothesis and opinions that may exist within the scientific community with regards to claims of Intelligent Design in Microbiology. Though both arguments attempt to infer intelligent causation as the best explanation, they need to be treated separately. Quotations, statements or sound bytes relating to Intelligent Design in Microbiology may not necessarily be applicable to the Rare Earth Hypothesis, and may not have been intended to lend support either for or against it.

Grammar of opening paragraph
When I first looked at this article, I was almost bowled over by the seeming POV of the first paragraph, until I realized that the "- despite clear scientific evidence-" was part of the "claims" of the book. Grammatically, the part of the sentence starting "a view..." indicates closure of the "which claims..." part before it. I'm not sure right off what the best way to rewrite this is, but it should be rewritten. I'll think about it, but anyone else's ideas are welcome... John Darrow (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like that whole bit was rearranged by someone inserting POV (including a POV end paragraph which someone else has since removed). I'm going to revert it back to what it was before that user came. John Darrow (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

MP3 Statements of Gonzalez
May be someone knows a place where we can find those talks or other statements of Gonzalez as MP3 now. I've not found them even with the wayback archiv. There they are listed at least in 2008:


 * MP3/Quicktime files of Guillermo Gonzalez presenting his arguments

--Parzi (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's a good synopsis of the book's contents and thesis?
Guess once "The Privileged Planet" got tagged with the title "creationist"...Wikipedia editors did not see the need to add any more details about "The Privileged Planet" book contents. There is no summary of its basic hypotheses, conclusions. Most of the article covers Dr. Gonzalez's tenure controversy at Iowa State. A section should be added so readers can truly get a full overview of the Book. A book that was summarized and analyzed on Wikipedia was "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. Thus, someone can get an overview of this book. Perhaps some scientists can use a similar structure to analyze "The Privileged Planet".Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dust jacket blurbs are not reviews
Dust jacket blurbs are not reviews. Consequently, they should not be mislabeled as reviews or treated as reviews. Posting the blurbs gives WP:UNDUE to how the book has been received by reviewers. SalHamton (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Privileged Planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206010539/http://www.csicop.org:80/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html to http://www.csicop.org/sb/2005-09/reality-check.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Boasting
I removed the unnecessary details in the description of the two creationists who liked the book (and of Jefferys). Which chemicals Skell fathered is not relevant to the issue at hand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)