User talk:Janthony

I've reverted your most recent edit to the creation-evolution controversy page. Please make sure that all your edits are neutral in the phrasing and presentation and our well sourced from reliable sources. Since this is a very controversial topic it may be better to discuss possible changes on the article talk page before making them to the article. JoshuaZ 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, but I'm a bit uncertain as to how this edit violated NPOV, since I clearly stated the reason given by reputable scientific journals as to why creationist literature should be given a hearing only as religion, not as science. The phrase "unwilling or unable to publish" implies that creationist scientists lack the credentials or the willingness to publish articles to mainstream journals, which is misleading, since scientists with brilliant careers behind them who reveal their creationist viewpoint have often found their articles rejected even when the subject of the research has nothing to do with evolution or creation at all. I think the original statement is clearly more slanted than my edit, since it leaves a reader under the impression that creationist scientists are in some way not real scientists, or they would present their ideas in the usual way. The truth is, for better or worse, the journals don't publish anything betraying a creationist bias, and that decision should be attributed to them, not to the unpublished scientists.

Also, any references for this are obviously going to come from the unpublished scientists themselves, or others sympathetic to them, not from the journals, who can't be expected to advertise practices that could be viewed as censorship. Would that be considered reliable sources? Janthony