Talk:James Tour

message: Why is his article on chemical terrorism considered controversial?  Is it because some people said it gives away too much information to potential terrorists?  The point of controversy should be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most probably the title: "Better Killing Through Chemistry" either led some to believe he was advocating chemical warfare, ot that he was being insensitive. Unfortunately this statement is unsourced, so we can't find out. Hrafn42 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The descriptive verb, "sparked" (as in Tour sparked the article...) is not inaccurate but it's imprecise.  A more accurate and informative phrasing would be something along these lines, "Tour carried out a simple experiment revealing how easy it is for anyone to procure all the materials necessary to make Sarin nerve gas without triggering any alarm bells in the security establishment.  His experiment sparked the editors of Scientific American to run an article ...."   Also, kudos to ZayZayEm for yeoman work to reference the illuminating SciAm article and clarify who wrote it and why.  Moulton 10:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Bravo.  I like "credited" because it's both accurate and it avoids casting Tour in a negative light for his part in the story.  The controversy arose not because of Tour's discovery, per se, but because the editors of SciAm made the decision to publicize his alarming discovery.   I still think the prose can be improved a bit, so that the sentence conveys the essential story in concise, fluid prose that reliably concords with the essential facts.  Moulton 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial article

message: I feel that the article does not convey to the general public enough about why he is wikipedia-worthy (for lack of a better term, sorry) for those in the chemical and material sciences.  For instance, the wording "involved in other work, such as the creation of a nanocar" seems to give the impression that his nanocar work is not as noteworthy as the work referred to in the opening statement.  His list of publications (on his linked website) actually reflect recent development along the line of nanocars, and his article on its discovery was "the most accessed paper of all papers published by the American Chemical Society in 2005" according to the research page of his website.  This is general knowledge within the chemistry community, and is verifiable by searching for what are ranked "Hot Papers" by Thomson ISI®'s Essential Science Indicators.  In short, he is famous for his nanocars.  I would hence like to suggest addition of a section in the article, perhaps entitled "Synthesis of nanovehicles", which could discuss the, well, research on nanovehicles. I think his involvement in "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" should only be secondary to his primary work as a chemist.
That being said, I must confess that I am usually only a viewer of Wikipedia pages and have never attempted to actually contribute to any articles (I don't really know how, to be honest), which is why I have stated this as only a proposal rather than provided any actual text to add.  Tell me what you think (please don't bite!)...
Bahaw (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps more info on chemistry? 

message: How does this fit with nanotech?--Organicshmoreganic (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. We need a LOT MORE about nano-cars. It's all done by synthetic chemistry, very very slow and carefully ... and then they get a car made out of a handful of molecules that can drive on a gold surface. He made one that has a ratchet so that it can only go one direction. I think he even got one working with a gear (low/high). It's very impressive.  Lehasa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found some cool 3D renders of them. Any idea if we could use them? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  synthetic organic chemist? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519124655/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031215122151/http://nanokids.rice.edu/ to http://nanokids.rice.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Contrary to most biographies, this biography omits information about his early life and education. 
I'm particularly interested to know if he had any Jewish education at all. 
As far as his own life-account he didn't receive any substantial Jewish upbringing. His friends studied to fulfill their bar mitzvah -he implies he did not. Living in a Jewish neighborhood does not imply having a Jewish life. His main experience with Judaism is one interaction with a Rabbie, which he simplistically interprets as rejection. This particular episode he chose to share his life as a Jew, involves a complete lack of a Jewish community life -which he patently still hasn't experienced.
It should be stated that he's actively endorsing  "Jews for Jesus" portraying himself as a smart Jew with no education in Judaism who focused on making money & honors. While highly educated in science, he promotes himself as a completely spiritually illiterate man that blindly fell into idol worship, neglecting his Jewish roots, and hiding away all inner contradictions in Christian texts. In his own writings, he uses the TANACH to reconfirm his religious bias and completely ignores and disregards the hundreds of blatantly purposefully misleading and forged translations, additions and suppressions of the original Hebrew scriptures. 
He is another case that conveys the spiritual vacuum among people, Jewish or not, that is being filled with emotional glue, but with little to no stature for real spiritual growth.
Sources: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/impact-of-the-scripturesfaith-of-a-scientist/ and his word Wikipedia profile
 Davidrojaselbirt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  no biography of his early life & education? missing 

message: Why does it say he believes in intelligent design when the very article that this page sites he clearly says he is NOT a proponent of intelligent design and that he doesn’t see a way that one could derive intelligent design from science. This needs to be fixed. 2601:603:C80:9580:F592:EA5D:5F28:4795 (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: let me help you.  He actually GETS PAID BY THE DISCOVERY INSTUTUTE to write articles promoting intelligent design for them.  why are you clowns all so ignorant? 121.98.228.243 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Refer me to an article in which HE himself advocates for intelligent design. 2601:603:C80:9580:91C2:EFA7:89E6:939C (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: His current hobby seems to be getting angry at anyone investigating the origin of life. For example, this: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/on-the-origin-of-life-james-tour-exposes-the-irrelevance-of-lee-cronins-research/ (He devotes three Youtube videos to attacking a pop science presenter called "Professor Dave," who was apparently too polite about Doctor Cronin's abiogenesis experiments.) For him addressing evolution, you might try this: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/james-tour-and-the-challenge-to-theistic-evolution-from-synthetic-chemistry/ Wyvern (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to with intelligent design. And he is not getting angry at people investigating the origin of life, he’s angry at people overstating their knowledge about the origin of life through data that he says, doesn’t support what they’re advocating. What does this have to do with intelligent design? Nothing. Does he say evolution is false? No. Does he say that the data indicates that there is intelligent design? No. Does he advocate for intelligent design? No. 97.113.105.135 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also worth noting that Dave is the one who attacks Tour. Tour has been incredibly polite to Dave. Dave calls Tour all kinds of names. In fact, Dave sounds an awful lot like the logged-out poster with IP 121.98.228.243. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent Design 

message: "He is a top researcher in his field" seems over the top. 2A02:14F:177:9FE7:DA33:D282:3640:2FBF (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He is, undoubtedly, a top researcher in his field. The controversy arises from his unscientific statements outside of his field. RobotGoggles (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead give stats like H index or i10. "He is a top researcher" says who? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tour has been voted one of the top ten Synthetic Organic Chemists. I've noticed a lot of vandalism by anon IP addresses on here. Tiggy The Terrible (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  He may be editing this page a lot. 

message: Hob Gadling, why are you removing his perspective on Origin of Life?  This is his bio, not the abiogenesis page.  This is his perspective and has received quite a bit of media coverage on it.  It might be your opinion that it is "anti-scientific" but that's your opinion and not consistent with wikipedia policy for neutral point of view.  If you read his position page, Tour's arguments are purely scientific.  If you have anything from abiogenesis scientists that dispute his chemistry, we can discuss including them here. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we can't include, briefly, his own perspective, fringe or otherwise, on the origin of life in his bio article. Seems perfectly relevant to the article's subject, especially since it's included in the section header. If there are better sources than his website, just use those. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. That's why. We do not scan the writings of people for what we find interesting. That is what secondary sources are for. We cite those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The gist: it is a mystery because we don't know which of the 6 or 7 hypotheses about the origin of life is the right one. This does not mean that the hypotheses are bunk or unworkable. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't saying that they are unworkable or bunk.  I think he agrees with you.  All he is saying is that we aren't close to understanding the chemistry behind origin of life and that there is a misconception in the general population about that fact. PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Read WP:FRINGE. Your opinion that they are "purely scientific" is your opinion. And read my edit summary. As a service, I am copying it here: . The essential point is "self-published" - WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY are also good to know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you basing that this is "anti-scientific propaganda?"  Just because you said so?  Where is he wrong?  Why don't you have any citations of other credible origin of life scientists disputing his chemistry? PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in discussing this part. As I said, it is a self-published primary source and therefore not useable, that is enough for the purpose of this page. If you want to talk about your opinion that it is not anti-scientific propaganda, you will have to do that in another part of the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's his biography.  It has nothing to do with whether he is correct about the chemistry of abiogenesis or not.  He has devoted a tremendous amount of public time espousing his view, videos of him have received over 1,000,000 views.  His position has been very public and has received a substantial amount of coverage and notice in the scientific community.  It shouldn't be kept out because it's your opinion that it is "pseudoscience." PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally to all the policy pages mentioned above, you should read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Life