Changes

::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing?  "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact.  We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts.  Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion.  I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree.  "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false.  I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing?  "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact.  We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts.  Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion.  I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree.  "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false.  I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here.  Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century.  When he declared the [[Archaeopteryx] to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud.  The fact that some [[evolutionists]] cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the [[Piltdown man]]) does not change these facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here.  Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century.  When he declared the [[Archaeopteryx]] to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud.  The fact that some [[evolutionists]] cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the [[Piltdown man]]) does not change these facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions.  That is not evolutionary bias.  Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution),  and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is).  The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for '''exposing''' a fraud if they believed it '''was''' a fraud.  Are you saying that this is what they believed?  If not, then they could only be punishing him for his '''claim''' and its controversy.  One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions.  That is not evolutionary bias.  Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution),  and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is).  The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for '''exposing''' a fraud if they believed it '''was''' a fraud.  Are you saying that this is what they believed?  If not, then they could only be punishing him for his '''claim''' and its controversy.  One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

== Reversion explained ==