![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
hehehe "evolved from an earlier creationist organisation".
Sweet Irony. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.79.193.117 (
talk)
20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that Drrll cease and desist making changes that are not supported by the cited text:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
When I saw on my watchlist the edit summary for your revert on the "evolved" quote ("This is the cited source's language & not in the least bit 'humorous'"), I made an educated guess that the quote was from Forrest's writings. I was so shocked to find that it was.
In addition, the statement "Its 'Friends of ARN' is also dominated by CSC Fellows" is claimed in the Forrest book. And that is completely unsourced in the book itself, as well as partially quoted directly in the WP article without quotation marks.
Yeah, Forrest makes several claims in her book that are represented in this WP article. Some of those claims by her are falsely sourced and some are unsourced. In stark contrast to the academic credentials of Numbers on the subject of creationism and ID, and in stark contrast to the reputation for evenhandedness and civility that Numbers (and Giberson) have earned from a wide variety of people, stands one Barbara Forrest.
Not only does this WP article have several sourcing problems, but so does Forrest's book upon much of this article is based. You have edited this article far more than anyone else. Excluding my recent edits and bot edits, you have made over 1/3 of the total edits here. Therefore, guess who should take some of the blame for the current sourcing problems and use of direct quotations without using quotation marks (and similarly for the long list of problems at the Stephen C. Meyer BLP). I would ask that Hrafn cease and desist making changes that are not supported by the cited text.
Similarities between Forrest book and current WP article text:
Drrll ( talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What a load of
WP:Complete bollocks:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
An alternative to lifting a somewhat lengthy POV quotation without the text being sourced at all and without using quotation marks, is to paraphrase another far less POV-pushing source that already is used in this article--the one by Giberson (simply says "SOR became Access Research Network").
Calling Meyer a "CSC Fellow" as the WP article does, or a "CRSC fellow" as the Forrest book does, is demonstrably false, as his sole role at CSC is that of Director. He is a Senior Fellow, but that is at the Discovery Institute itself, not at CSC.
Another major problem in the article is the case of WP:UNDUE when 40-45% of the entire article is devoted to a completely different organization (SOR). Exacerbating the problem even more is the fact that the material takes up almost 90% of the lead paragraph. Drrll ( talk) 10:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
hehehe "evolved from an earlier creationist organisation".
Sweet Irony. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.79.193.117 (
talk)
20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that Drrll cease and desist making changes that are not supported by the cited text:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
When I saw on my watchlist the edit summary for your revert on the "evolved" quote ("This is the cited source's language & not in the least bit 'humorous'"), I made an educated guess that the quote was from Forrest's writings. I was so shocked to find that it was.
In addition, the statement "Its 'Friends of ARN' is also dominated by CSC Fellows" is claimed in the Forrest book. And that is completely unsourced in the book itself, as well as partially quoted directly in the WP article without quotation marks.
Yeah, Forrest makes several claims in her book that are represented in this WP article. Some of those claims by her are falsely sourced and some are unsourced. In stark contrast to the academic credentials of Numbers on the subject of creationism and ID, and in stark contrast to the reputation for evenhandedness and civility that Numbers (and Giberson) have earned from a wide variety of people, stands one Barbara Forrest.
Not only does this WP article have several sourcing problems, but so does Forrest's book upon much of this article is based. You have edited this article far more than anyone else. Excluding my recent edits and bot edits, you have made over 1/3 of the total edits here. Therefore, guess who should take some of the blame for the current sourcing problems and use of direct quotations without using quotation marks (and similarly for the long list of problems at the Stephen C. Meyer BLP). I would ask that Hrafn cease and desist making changes that are not supported by the cited text.
Similarities between Forrest book and current WP article text:
Drrll ( talk) 20:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
What a load of
WP:Complete bollocks:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
An alternative to lifting a somewhat lengthy POV quotation without the text being sourced at all and without using quotation marks, is to paraphrase another far less POV-pushing source that already is used in this article--the one by Giberson (simply says "SOR became Access Research Network").
Calling Meyer a "CSC Fellow" as the WP article does, or a "CRSC fellow" as the Forrest book does, is demonstrably false, as his sole role at CSC is that of Director. He is a Senior Fellow, but that is at the Discovery Institute itself, not at CSC.
Another major problem in the article is the case of WP:UNDUE when 40-45% of the entire article is devoted to a completely different organization (SOR). Exacerbating the problem even more is the fact that the material takes up almost 90% of the lead paragraph. Drrll ( talk) 10:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)