Talk:Truth in Science
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Truth in Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The latest on evolution from the Vatican
[edit]Re Vatican statement: see Oct 5th article on the National Center for Science Education website: http://ncseweb.org 7 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.214.89 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Relevance to this article? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Changes to Membership
[edit]I have updated the membership section to reflect new members, in line with the TiS website. Giford (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
'Openings in National Curriculum'
[edit]This appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill of a very minor piece of creationist quote-mining. If we mentioned these every time a creationist was caught at such dishonesty, creationism-related articles would be flooded. I think that, unless the mining is particularly prominent or egregious, it doesn't rate mention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
POV tag?
[edit]There's a tag dated November 2010 on the Criticism section, but I can't see any discussion here about it. Whilst it would be stylistically better to incorporate the criticism into the rest of the article, I don't see this as a POV issue, just a style one. Should we remove the tag?Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be more in favour of simply removing the not-particularly-accurate section-title & the fairly generic prefatory remarks, and raise its two subsections to top-section status. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I suspect that will be uncontentious, since the tag was probably applied due to the disparaging(ly accurate) but superfluous first paragraph.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- From the tag (which is a variant directed specifically at WP:CSECTIONs), it was probably the section-title itself that sparked it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I suspect that will be uncontentious, since the tag was probably applied due to the disparaging(ly accurate) but superfluous first paragraph.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class Creationism articles
- Low-importance Creationism articles
- B-Class Intelligent design articles
- Low-importance Intelligent design articles
- Intelligent design articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- Start-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles