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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
It was brought to my attention today that Jeffrey Overstreet was misquoted in this article, and upon investigation, this seems to be the case. The cite link is dead, but is available at Archive.org, and it is clearly from a "Letter to the editor" (the quoted bit is in "spoiler" text at the bottom), and cannot be credited to Overstreet. It was hamhandedly removed once today by an anonymous editor whose edit was justifiably reverted. I've re-removed it with explanation, although I cited the wrong "updated link" in the edit summary; the moved blog seems to have dropped the post in question. Overstreet's treatment of the letter and the response to it may push some buttons, but in any case we can't attribute that quote to Overstreet, since it is from "Stuart Blessman [...] a student at the University of Minnesota." --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the article would be improved by tightening it up a bit. I certainly agree that Copyright_controversies got notable news at the time, but both issues fizzled out as nothing. I see the section as dead weight distracting from the far more important content in the article. I'd like to just dump the Copyright_controversies section. Does anyone concur? Any opposition? Alsee (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Waited 9 days, no objections. Edit done. Alsee (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Just because something is on the news for a short time doesn't give it enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed it was undue. If anything -- because there do seem to be several sources on the subject -- it might merit a brief one or two sentence summary elsewhere (in a "Production" section, for example). --— Rhododendritestalk | 23:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
A number of sources don't make something more notable. If 100 outlets report that Justin Bieber bought a new hat, does it merit mention in his bio? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually. This is part of how Wikipedia maintains a NPOV. Of course that example isn't a good one because 100 reliable sources wouldn't report that he bought a new hat. Kind of like asking "would we report that bologna cures headaches just because all the major medical journals said it does?" If it's not true, then the journals wouldn't say it is and we wouldn't report it. If the medical journals say it is, then we do report it because we don't actually determine truth or importance at Wikipedia. If 100 outlets reported Bieber buying a new hat, then there's probably something notable about that event -- even if we can't figure it out, it's still "notable" for Wikipedia purposes. --— Rhododendritestalk | 15:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)