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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The latest on evolution from the Vatican

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)[reply]

Relevance to this article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Membership

I have updated the membership section to reflect new members, in line with the TiS website. Giford (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Openings in National Curriculum'

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag?

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)[reply]

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. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

From the tag (which is a variant directed specifically at WP:CSECTIONs), it was probably the section-title itself that sparked it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]