Talk:Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Early thread
This definitely needs some editing.--Filll 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Spam? Orangemarlin 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the first version of this page, it was basically an advertisement for this organization which appears to be another arm of the Discovery Institute. I decided to study the vaunted claims of this organization and put them in their proper perspective. Basically it is a teeny tiny fraction of the fields represented, which really have nothing to do with evolution. This is just more nonsense from creationist luddites and hate-mongers and illiterate backwoods bible thumpers.--Filll 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] past activities
the paragraph is outdated. What about the fall 2007 activities? Did they take place? The sentences should be changed to the past tense, if they did, and should be deleted if there is no source confirming that they took place. Northfox (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the PSSI hasn't written anything about the results of the events they had planned, except for the Jan 2008 Spanish ones, and as the only media coverage they have gained since 2006 appears to be a couple of comments by their CEO on the recent Florida science standards debate, we have no way of knowing if the other events took place. HrafnTalkStalk 02:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that the organization has sort of fallen apart. It did not take off the way they expected it to. Then they started to charge substantial fees to belong. The DI has not really promoted it. The website has not been updated a lot. It was basically a bust. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeh, their plans seemed to be a bit too ambitious to carry out without some major external funding, and most probably the DI & others didn't want to spend too much on an organisation that wasn't generating major publicity. I'm suprisied that they managed to do the Spanish gig, to be perfectly honest. It'd be interesting to get a 3rd party account of exactly how substantive it was. HrafnTalkStalk 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Panda's Thumb has this write-up on their Spanish tour, based on articles in the Spanish version of Skeptic. HrafnTalkStalk 08:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Link
It appears that the link to footnote one is broken (article no longer exists). Without that citation, when it makes the statement that the organization is based on a logical fallacy (appeal to authority) it's nothing but the POV of the page's author. They may be very well trying to appeal to authority, but it needs a cite, otherwise it's POV. JimZDP (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are aware when references are given with other information like title, author, publisher etc that you can look them up and repair the links yourself right?--Filll (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm also aware that uncited POV pushing can be completely removed. As I'm not the one pushing the POV, it seems I can do one of two things 1) research a position I didn't assert; or 2) delete the POV. I believe I'll opt for the latter. JimZDP (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, I was able to download a copy of that paper, and it's main position is that ID is simply repackaged creationism. Howeve, not only does the author NOT state that the petition is an appeal to authority, she doesn't even mention the organization, let alone the petition. Plain and simple - nothing in that document stands for the proposition that the organization or position is an appeal to authority, and using it as a citation for that proposition is at best misleading, and borders on outright dishonesty. So I'm editing out that POV pushing. 75.49.225.27 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bais
I think this article is obvisously full of author opinions. It seems at one point it was slanted toward creationism and now it's clearly slanted against this organization. See: "standard creationist strawman of evolution"; "standard creationist objections to evolution"; "a misleading nonsense phrase"; "mined quote". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.203.240 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
