Talk:The Edge of Evolution/Archive 1

message: References 7 and 9 are improperly formatted and/or incomplete.  They don't link to anything.  It appears they are supposed to link to signed reviews appearing on Amazon.Com.  Perhaps an editor who is conversant with the intended references and the correct way to code such a reference can fix this up. Moulton 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Hrafn42 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to reviews on Amazon.Com 

message: Here's a Q&A with Behe from Simon & Schuster, could have some useful information in it.  WLU 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: Paul R. Gross has a review of Edge in the October 2007 issue of The New Criterion: Design for living. I think this section from it might be worthy of inclusion in the article, as it's a good summary of Edge's scientific flaws:
I also liked this bit highlighting the shortcomings of those endorsing the book:
HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul R. Gross review 

message: I've renamed the current "positive reviews" section to "dustcover endorsements" as they come from the book's dustcover (as Gross mentions above & as listed on the book's Amazon listing). As far as I know, there's been only one positive independent review: Pa. scientist again attacks evolution in The Philadelphia Inquirer by Cameron Wybrow. HrafnTalkStalk 05:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [*This is a librarial classification, misleading as to contents.  Dr. Wybrow's books touch on historical aspects of religious thought, but both are heavily concerned with the philosophical foundations of the modern view of nature, and hence of modern science, as he indicated in his P.I. byline.  This goes to show that Wikipedia editors should read the primary print sources, not rely upon internet summaries or library entries about them.]Inspectre 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a "librarial classification" specifically for the classification of dissertations. As such, it offers reasonable [prima facie]] evidence of the field of Wybrow's thesis. The only other reliable classification I can see for Wybrow's field of expertise would be the department that he presumably received his PhD from, "Religious Studies", which would presumably lead to him being characterised as a "scholar of religion". Regardless of the exact characterisation, any meaningful characterisation would demonstrate that Wybrow has no qualifications whatsoever to evaluate the scientific pretentions of Behe's book. HrafnTalkStalk 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: [*This is not the place to debate the Wybrow-Shallit exchange, which has nothing to do with the correctness of Wybrow's statements in the P.I. review of Behe.  Readers of the above comment, however, may well, upon consulting the exchange, decide that the "acrimony" came from Shallit, and that Wybrow's original purpose in criticizing Dodd's review was not to side with Behe or ID, but only to establish that Dodd had argued unfairly and ad hominem.  It's apparently Wybrow's view, based on his published comments, that the whole ID-Darwinism debate is poisoned by ad hominem remarks and arguments, when it should concentrate on reason and evidence.  If that is where Wybrow is "coming from", I would think that any objective Wikipedia editor would be glad of it.]Inspectre 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers are more likely to draw the conclusion that Wybrow is a crank with an axe to grind on this topic. HrafnTalkStalk 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dustcover endorsements versus positive reviews 

message: Behe's amazon blog really should have a place on the page, I think the external links section would be best.  Grating as it is, smug and self-aggrandizing as he comes across (to me), it's an appropriate external link, unless someone can think of a reason not to put it in.  WLU 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable inclusion. HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behe's blog 

message: While I don't disagree with with the more summarised form  on the reviews that WLU is introducing, I do think there are a few important things to keep in mind:
*It should clearly indicate the fields of expertise (with WP:RS where the reviewers aren't themselves sufficiently prominent to have their own wikipedia articles) for reviews that we explicitly mention, to allow readers to evaluate how credible their opinions are.
*Given that we hake given full affiliation for Snoke & Skell, it seems reasonable to offer the same courtesy to Dawkins.
*Behe's characterisation of Malaria (& of HIV) have been heavily criticised. Given that this is in neither Behe's nor Snoke's area of expertise, I think at least equal (and probably greater) weight should be given to this criticism as to Snoke's inexpert praise of it (per WP:UNDUE). I'm trying to track down a WP:RS for this.
HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be nice if Behe had a wikipage on his 'theory', so they could go there.  Putting them up here would be iffy, depending on what the entries themselves say; they could be a further extension of his critical reviews perhaps.  I don't think I have time to have a look at them right now, but if you add them, I'll have a look later.  Regards adding the fields of expertise, I think it's OK when they don't have their own wikipage, but a waste of space when they do.  If you can track down a reference for Snoke's spurious praise, I think a "However, X has pointed out that this is not Snoke's area of expertise" and any other relevant info.  I do think however, the page is moving away from a page about Behe's book towards the fine line of attempting to disprove the book.  Something we should be aware of.  WLU 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think including 1-2 words on fields (or in the context of many other articles, a few words on who the person was, to give them context) is "wasting space" or against common editing practice, and think it unreasonable to expect readers to look up articles on each and every person to find out who they are. I'm not calling Snoke's praise "spurious", merely inexpert (he's a physicist, not a microbiologist). Given that I've yet to see anybody with any relevant expertise who has anything nice to say about Behe's characterisation of malaria, it struck me as unbalanced to include only a physicist's opinion of the matter. HrafnTalkStalk 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Has this been offered up for inclusion?  WLU 15:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, probably because three of the four paragraphs in it are simply summaries of reviews already referenced by the article. HrafnTalkStalk 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only read the Ruse info, I just read the rest.  Agreed.  WLU 16:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I've added more reviews (negative ones) that give WP:DUE WEIGHT (ha!  Wikipedia joke!) to the status of Behe's book per science and scientists.  I've tried to include only sources that have some notability, either actual publications from book reviewers or national-circulation periodicals, or websites with wikipages that accordingly have passed WP:N.  I also think that the sunclipse page that compiles all the reviews for EoE could possibly be a valid EL as it's got basically all the reviews ever published on-line for the book, positive (1) and negative (many more).  The negative reviews obviously comprise a significant portion of the page, about as long as the contents summary.  I think this is actually a pretty good thing, since it demonstrates the substantial negative reception the book has received from the scientific community, and documents the flaws in the book.  I think this nicely tailors the page to WP:UNDUE - the view that the book is anything but substantially flawed is by far the minority.  
Also, I've lost track of the objections previously posted on the talk page - if anyone would like to propose further, possibly controversial changes, could you do me the favour of either popping a message on my talk page to point it out, or start a new section below this one?  Thanks. WLU 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due weight