Talk:Project Steve

message: of our nation's public schools.
The phrase refers to "our nation", but the scientists listed are from several different nations. Bobby1011 20:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The list is multinational, though the statement isn't, though no doubt all the Steves mentioned would oppose the teaching of pseudoscience in any school regardless of nationality or indeed whether it was a state school.  However, the US is a particular case because it's the centre of creationists' efforst and it also has the little problem of the establishment clause.  The NCSE is an American organisation.  btw, they also failed to mention religiopseudoscientific explanations for geology and cosmology in the text, but no doubt the Steves would oppose that too. — Dunc|☺ 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USAmerican? 

message: :Stephen Hawking (who, like Gould, is so eminent that he has appeared on The Simpsons)
Oh, please people – so references in popular culture are the measure of a scientist? – Tintazul msg 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientists named Steve, maybe.  Apparently, as they waste their time with this stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bart says: "Hawking's cool!" 

message: I'm not completely sure how appropriate my addition of Flying Spaghetti Monster was to the list, but the lightharded critisism of intelligent design/creationism is there, so I figured it counted as a similar vein. If my referencing it is POV or otherwise problematic, though, feel free to remove it. IMFromKathlene 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a "See Also" section

message: "Stephen Hawking (who, like Gould, is so eminent that he has appeared on The Simpsons [3])"
Although I agree both Hawkings and Gould are eminent, I don't think it is the place of an encyclopedia to make the assertion that their eminence is the causal effect to being featured in the simpsons. Also, this quote is more fitting of a profile of Gould, not project steve.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.138.113 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 February 2007
:Ok I edited it slightly. I did not write this, and it is not particularly encyclopedic, but it is a slightly wry nugget. Perhaps we should remove it, however. I know you think we are mocking Project Steve, but lets face it: Project Steve is already sort of tongue-in-cheek, no?--Filll 04:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are dead serious! And I want to be on the Simpsons, too! --Stephan Schulz 07:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpsons opinion 

message: I found a reference showing that Tipani was the Finnish equivalent of Steven, and I thought it gave some variety in the names. It is not good? I agree we should not overdo it. However, the only reason I put in the Finnish reference was that its true nature was questioned.--Filll 14:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipani 

message: Would you please stop propagandizing for Evolution on wikipedia.  Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisey cutter (talk • contribs)  03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping a Wikipedia article current is propagandizing? DC, meet Humpty-Dumpty. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, they changed the date, and the number from 818, to 820. Joseph Goebbels himself would be in shock. :S Lightnin Boltz (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Scott (or the NSCE) 

message: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Project_Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisey cutter (talk • contribs)  03:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in one day, the COI complaint was archived with, "No tendentious editing" as the comment. Way to waste time, DC. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the consensus seems to be that it is not a conflict of interest for NCSE to update the Steve count, I will continue to do so while that consensus obtains. Note that all anonymous updates of the Steve count from 66.47.51.78 were mine; in the future the updates will be signed by me. --Glenn Branch 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest notice filed 

message: The 9/11 "truth" movement seems as fond of compiling lists of experts as creationists. Does it deserve a mention in the "see also" section? --Cchunder (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that 9/11 truth is a bit far removed from creationism. It probably would be frowned on.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 Truth Movement?

message: These are from this list:
*
*:"And just as the Discovery Institute has a Dissent from Darwin petition, which attempts to cast doubt on “natural selection and random mutation being able to account for the complexity of life,” global warming skeptics have their own list as well."
*
*:"Last month's announcement that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize would be awarded for efforts to elucidate and publicize climate change was final confirmation for many Americans that global warming is real and not, as skeptics had claimed, an issue of scientific debate. Too bad the American public won't give the same support to evolution."
*:Brings up Project Steve in this context.
*
*:Not that we'd use it, but it's an interesting bit of denialist propaganda. As already noted in the comments below, it points out that Steven Chu signed Project Steve.
*
*:Compares the Oregon Petition to Dissent from Darwinism, pointing out Project Steve in this context.
* which refers to:
*
*:"Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."
*:"Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"
*
*:"Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming. "
*:Refers to the Morano list.
*
*:Shows how climate change denialism is joining evolution denialism in education.
At minimum, they show that this article should have some info (perhaps just links) related to climate change denialism. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential refs relating Project Steve to climate change denialism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Project Steve. 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/20060810185433/http://shovelbums.org/content/view/156/527/ to http://www.shovelbums.org/content/view/156/527/
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) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article is from a neutral point of view. The writer uses their words well and makes sure that the article stays neutral throughout the entirety of the article. It was very well written and I enjoyed reading it!
Dwr002 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the article from a neutral point of view?