5,580
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay:Big science (view source)
Revision as of 16:21, September 18, 2008
, 16:21, September 18, 2008→Rename or something
::I agree with both of you. It's just not encyclopedic, & would take a lot of work to make it even remotely encyclopedic. Delete or move to essay. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 11:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with both of you. It's just not encyclopedic, & would take a lot of work to make it even remotely encyclopedic. Delete or move to essay. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 11:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:: I would support moving this to Essay (definitely better than deleting it). On a side note, in the general case, I don't think we should let the main-stream media and others dictate term definitions for us. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 12:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:: I would support moving this to Essay (definitely better than deleting it). On a side note, in the general case, I don't think we should let the main-stream media and others dictate term definitions for us. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 12:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two problems: (1) I do'nt think Britannica is part of the MSM and (2) the term "big science" (and anything with "big" used to denote "evil capitalist" e.g. big oil, big pharma) was ''invented'' by the MSM. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)