Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a after discussing it on the closer's talk page.
The current wording of the paragraph goes against policy by implying the fringe views are equal to mainstream science — if it's to remain then, even on the basis of , we should be clear that the pundit is promoting a fringe view.
Such a terrible shame that no one at the publisher cares about the quality of the app.
The closest analogy there would be something like young-Earth creationism or Ayurvedic pseudo-medicine, where claims are born of a particular version of a particular religion and then promoted as science.
Is there any reason this should be here? I have evil in my heart dear God for these greedy monsters and i pray that one day i can look back on this day and pray that you can forgive me for my own complacency in not fighting harder for good men to do the right thing! I find that hard to believe.
Tags The Hill has removed its comment section, as there are many other forums for readers to participate in the conversation.