Talk:Truth in Science

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)


 * Relevance to this article? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

'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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)