Talk:Creation Science Evangelism removes section of copyright controversy in Wikipedia article

The previous article on this topic smelled vaguely of an attempt to "bash" a certain group, by a certain group that had very different views - it toed the line on 'newsworthy vs. grudgematch'.

This article, in its current form at least, is too far to the "grudgematch" sense, to legitimately be considered a news story. Sherurcij 05:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No grudge match. The subject of the article removed material critical of him/her four times. Seems notable regarding the ongoing controversy as shown with yesterday's news story from the Christian Post. Shown2233361 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Going to prison is newsworthy, somebody from his company editing his Wikipedia article isn't though. It's enough to draw attention to it on the appropriate Wikipedia discussion page, and warn the user not to vandalise in the future.  But we can't realistically report every time the subject of a Wikipedia article removes unflattering comments about themselves. Sherurcij 06:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * People whitewashing their own wikipedia pages is news, which is why there are several wikinews articles about other instances. Why can't we have articles about wikipedia vandalism? What is your citation for that? This seems like a good project to mention the event on, especially since some parties are considering ligitation against Hovind (as his group tries to cover it up). I'm going to leave newsstory/not news tag, but I'm not convinced it should have a developing tag. C56C 22:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You should see what the Church of Scientology has done, then ask yourself if this is notable enough. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think many editors would argue that CoS's behavior is newsworthy and I at least would agree with them. However, I am inclined to see this case as very borderline. Whitewashing attempts on Wikipedia are very common. I deal with at least 1 a week from a very involved party. JoshuaZ 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think Scientology's efforts/games should be included. C56C 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent tagging
I understand all the tagging but the NPOV tag. What NPOV issue is there? JoshuaZ 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about that as well as that is was unpublished. C56C 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Its been several hours and no reason was given, so I removed the changes. Shown2233361 04:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No more discussion? C56C 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)