Talk:Science for the People

message: The extremely-long quotes should be shortened. I'm not sure if there is an official rule, but direct quotes that are more than about 10 lines long should be avoided in encyclopedic articles. Spylab 14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorten long quotes

message: :Image:Science for the people mag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Science for the people mag.jpg

message: Since their domain expired, has the organization too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.201.51 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain has expired 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Science for the People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060618120537/http://www.lrainc.com:80/swtaboo/taboos/wilson01.html to http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wilson01.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150923060339/http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/techcultforum/videos/31775-science-at-mit-from-the-cold-war-to-climate-change to http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/techcultforum/videos/31775-science-at-mit-from-the-cold-war-to-climate-change
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Science for the People. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928192107/http://www.scienceforthepeople.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21 to http://www.scienceforthepeople.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:generalrelative, Science for the People identifies as part of the "broader-left" on it's own website.  I would imagine this is sufficent to label the group as "left-wing" if not socialist.  
https://scienceforthepeople.org/2018/04/12/dual-nature-of-science/ 2600:1012:B049:3409:2C3A:43A1:4B7C:1ED4 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, thanks. I'd suggest that a statement saying basically just what you've said ––  –– belongs in the article body. I'm not sure that a simple self-designation is enough to put it in the lead though. Generalrelative (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I went and added the content that I believe is DUE, as stated above. Generalrelative (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization identifies as left-wing