EDMs 285, 286 and 287- is there good evidence to rubbish the claims made by the studies he refers to? If so, it may be a an idea to summarise and link to such evidence. AlStorer 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The current EDM details were added as preliminary info - the motions have only just been proposed. The EDM links will make it easy to click through and see any signatories, as well as acting a place where people can quickly dump info into the wiki. Depending on how things develop we can update the information. If there are signatories to EDMs, amendments to EDMs, or analyses of the studies in question, I'd suggest making pages for each EDM and these should contain more details, including references for the original studies. My guess is that it will go this way - see already http://www.nontoxic.org.uk/?p=205, http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/ and people are also talking about amendments.
- As always, help with these tasks is very much welcome - I've got a busy life! If you fancy helping then EDM 908 and EDM 423 are examples of EDM pages with extra detail and background that you can look at to see what works (or doesn't) on these pages.
- --Skep 11:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)