Jump to content

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 192.158.61.142 (talk) at 19:13, 19 August 2009 (→‎NPOV: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Talkbottom

Content Fork

I would note that User:EarlWhitehaven has created a WP:CFORK of this article at Expelled controversy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an intentional fork, without any effort to use summary style. The semi-informative diff of the current versions. Just merge it back in, I think.   M   07:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes Change

The actual percentage is 10% not 8% as the page says, it's a minor edit but I can't make it since the page is not editable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strictscrutiny (talkcontribs) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I have updated this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Miller

Kevin Miller is now working on a film about Kent Hovind according to this press release. Should we include a note about that in the article? It seems as of yet that Miller is not notable enough for his own article nor is this new film. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see something more than a press release. Sometimes (I'm not speculating this is the case here) press releases are too much like "the checks in the mail" and it may be premature to put anything here yet. Good catch, though - I'll keep my eye out. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 10:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Evolutionary scientists"

Can we construct a better title for that section? Shermer isn't a scientist. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PZ Myers on the phone for the conference

Do we have any non-blog sources for that exchange? If not, I'm not sure it should be included in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I believe that this article lacks NPOV. Those editing the article appear to be using words and phrases that have a negative connotation instead of using more diplomatic ones. (ie "claims", as opposed to "according to"; or "alleges", as opposed to "reports" or something less inflammatory).

At the very least, I'd like to state that adding the tag for contested NPOV is simply an admission that NPOV is contested, not that the article is incorrect. I apologize for not signing proper - noob.