User talk:Steve Dufour/sandbox

Steve, hope you don't mind; I did a few minor cleanup edits on the external links section. -Exucmember 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good; much more objective and NPOV. It no longer reads like a small-minded attack article. I think there needs to be a criticism section, however. Perhaps it doesn't have to have all the petty criticisms that are in the article at present. For example, quoting a critic as saying Wells "clearly lied" seems about as petty as if someone were to criticize a certain editor by publishing a similar statement I made in response to that editor's repeatedly quoting me as saying things that I never said even after I pointed out the error. -Exucmember 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism can be folded into the relvant section. i tried to do that with the pigilucci section David D. (Talk) 08:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this represents a white wash as opposed to NPOV editing. i think the point of this exercise is to get something that is acceptable. Removing all criticism will never allow this to see the light of day. Is Darwinism a real term? If not the "Darwinism" as used is probably correct. David D. (Talk) 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that those who are not aware that Darwinism is a real term might want to take a relatively minor role in editing this article, rather focusing their attention on articles which involve core topics about which they are more knowledgeable. -Exucmember 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the context used in this article it does not seem to be used correctly. Is it refering to Wells criticising Darwin or evolution? Darwinism is much less than the whole. Maybe i should have phrased it as "is Darwinism a real term to describe evolution?" David D. (Talk) 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Yes, I took out the criticism. On the other hand I did not put in any praise. I think the article is much more effective just giving the facts on Jonathan and letting people make up their own minds. Steve Dufour 09:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an improvement. There are plenty of other articles on the merits of evolution, intelligent design, HIV, etc. Some of the criticisms were just so petty that they were silly. Roger 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems strange to not discuss the impact of icons. It should at least be identified as a critique of evolution that is not accepted by the mainstream science. Without that context the content and impact of Well's critique is basically ignored. This seems strange for a bio. Not to mention this sandbox effort becomes less useful, since the goal here is to reach a compromise article that will reach consensus. If that is not the goal why are we bothering? David D. (Talk) 18:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David. The book (and Wells' other writings) generated quite a response from the establishment scientific community. One could even claim that that's the only reason he's notable. The article needs to discuss, at some reasonable length, the reaction of mainstream science and the impact of Wells' work. It does not have to bring up every petty criticism, engage in name-calling, imply conspiracies, contain known factual errors, use phrasing that goes beyond its references, drone on and on about the criticism without presenting Wells' theses fairly, and in general read as though it was written by enemies, but it does need to report the criticism. -Exucmember 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole article on the Icons book. There is criticism there. What more do you want? The WP article on Wells says, "Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community." That is silly and false. It would be more informative to find someone who has some specific objection to some assertion in the book. But then things get complicated. Some of Wells's assertion are true and accepted. Wells claims that some biology textbooks have been modified as a result of his book. I don't know whether that is true or not, but criticism of Wells in a Wells biography should at least contain Wells's side of the story. Roger 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there are only two sentences on Icons, which are similar to each other, in different parts of the article. There is nothing about his other writings. This could be expanded, and the response by others mentioned. It is common on Wikipedia for there to be a summary and a link to a "main page," and it seems that would be a good model here for the Icons section of the Wells article and the Icons article.

In the section "Evolution and Intelligent Design," Wells views and assertions are presented, but nothing is said about how these assertions have been received by the mainstream scientific community.

Your statement "criticism of Wells in a Wells biography should at least contain Wells's side of the story" is certainly true, and at present the main article at Jonathan Corrigan Wells‎ falls short in this regard and makes that article unbalanced.

The article should contain some of the criticism that has contributed to Wells' notability. It should be criticism that reasonable visitors to Wikipedia would find valid, even if unconvincing to every such visitor. It should not be absurd, irrelevant criticism that makes the reader think back to try to remember whether he/she has ever seen a more lame or hollow attack in print, such as:

"The main proponent of the idea that the human immunodeficiency virus HIV is not the causative agent of AIDS has been Peter Duesberg. Wells's publisher, Regnery Press, also published Duesberg's book, which argued that the HIV explanation for AIDS was the product of a government and industrial conspiracy."

-Exucmember 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that a book that attacks commonly accepted textbooks might be controversial. Someone can check the Icons article or reviews for more details. If Wells wrote a book on the Iraq War, would you have to say that it is controversial? That some people are for the war, and some people against? Roger 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)