Talk:Scientists and Engineers for America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dead link[edit]

The link to youtube regarding Stephen Colbert's The Word is dead. What's the standard for providing such an attribution without a hyperlink? Twifkak 02:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


What's the purpose of the Vega external link? Is this SPAM? (Vegan + SPAM jokes not required.) Or is there some meaningful content that it is supposed to provide that is not yet referenced in the body of the article?

I propose that barring any further clarification of its merits, the link be deleted.

Alphaman 04:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it possibly be related? TheVega page does talk about

    • "Vega is a not for profit trust which broadcasts science programmes for free over the internet. Our programmes feature experts in science and engineering and many are or have in the past been broadcast on mainstream television."

So it might not be a joke.須藤 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess my late-night point was that it is not SEA, it is not sponsored by SEA, it is not endorsed nor referenced by SEA, and it is not mentioned in the main body of the article. If related, then we need some kind of association made evident in the body, better made by someone who understands the relationship and who can explain it to the rest of the world. From my uninformed perspective, it looks like SPAM. Given the technical gist of the site, I would hazard to say it is related, but such needs to be clarified. --Alphaman 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Discovery institute?[edit]

This is a factual article about a scientific organization. Does a quote from the discovery institute really have a place in this article. Could other criticism from legitimate sources be substituted for quote from an organization whose sole purpose is to obfuscate the truth. Wikipedia's purpose is to present accurate information and through the review process remove misinformation such as this quote. Surely there has been some critical quotes from FOX that could be used instead.Williambhunter (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)