Talk:The Science Network
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Image copyright problem with File:Beyond Belief banner.jpg edit
The image File:Beyond Belief banner.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Advert edit
This article is written like an advertisement, and is not neutral in tone. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Although I'm a big fan of TSN, I have to agree with Cirt's assessment. This article needs work to conform to POV rules. I saw in the history that an ad tag was recently removed, but for goodness sake, the lead refers to TSN as a "no spin zone" (without even a quotation) and provides a direct link in the text to TSN's website. If anyone thinks I'm wrong on this, please let me know. In the meantime, I'm replacing the ad tag as a motivator for the article to conform to the rules.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Merger proposal edit
I think that Beyond Belief (symposium) should be merged into this article since they are about the same organization. Besides that very little sourced information is available about either one.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge, which would also encompass:
Cirt (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I support your additional suggestions Cirt. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I support the idea of merging Beyond Belief (symposium) into The Science Network. I disagree with the elimination of so much of the information that has taken place since May 20 on related articles, e.g. [1] For comparative treatment of other conferences, consider Foo Camp or Open Space Technology, which need more citations but have not been razed back to uninformative rubble while waiting for rewrite. Then, if we do merge the symposia with the sponsoring foundation, what do we do with the material Wikipedia previously had about the individual conferences? In my opinion, since readability is more important than conserving pixels, the way Beyond Belief (symposium) previously treated this was a good one[2] -- it gave a paragraph to each event with a link to that conference's own article. I don't see that eliminating the individual conference articles serves a good purpose, although of course the articles should be better written. betsythedevine (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that information should not be lost. However any information on any of the conferences is also information on the sponsoring organization. Nothing needs to be lost by putting it all in one place. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The material removed was both 1) Wholly unsourced and 2) promotional/advertising/spam tone in nature, and not NPOV. Best to start anew, with all sourced info, to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Lots of WP articles have primary sourced material included, it's just not enough to establish notability.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- The material removed was both 1) Wholly unsourced and 2) promotional/advertising/spam tone in nature, and not NPOV. Best to start anew, with all sourced info, to secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that information should not be lost. However any information on any of the conferences is also information on the sponsoring organization. Nothing needs to be lost by putting it all in one place. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I support the idea of merging Beyond Belief (symposium) into The Science Network. I disagree with the elimination of so much of the information that has taken place since May 20 on related articles, e.g. [1] For comparative treatment of other conferences, consider Foo Camp or Open Space Technology, which need more citations but have not been razed back to uninformative rubble while waiting for rewrite. Then, if we do merge the symposia with the sponsoring foundation, what do we do with the material Wikipedia previously had about the individual conferences? In my opinion, since readability is more important than conserving pixels, the way Beyond Belief (symposium) previously treated this was a good one[2] -- it gave a paragraph to each event with a link to that conference's own article. I don't see that eliminating the individual conference articles serves a good purpose, although of course the articles should be better written. betsythedevine (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Removed controversial material about Templeton Foundation edit
The material about the Templeton Foundation is controversial to say the least. It adds nothing to this article.Neurorel (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Neurorel
Deprodding edit
The references show articles in the New Scientist and New York Times, both reliable sources. Given multiple reliable sources, this proposed deletion is not uncontroversial and so I am deprodding. --Mark viking (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Deprodding again in 2019. The reasons given by @Mark viking: still apply. Notability is not temporary. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"Beyonf Belief (symposium)" listed at Redirects for discussion edit
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Beyonf Belief (symposium). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Beyonf Belief (symposium) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 01:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)