Talk:John D. Morris

message: He his YEC chums claim that he is a geology professor.  They do not mention which university he is supposed to be a professor of.  If he is it is clearly a fundamentalist Christian university with an appropriate statement of faith, but which one? — Dunc|☺ 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, found it, San Diego Christian College. — Dunc|☺ 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology professor? 

message: Most of this article is cited to Morris himself & his ICR, and it is not difficult for any creationist, no matter how obscure, to get a mention on TOA. Therefore the only citation supporting notability is the (apparently fairly brief) mention in Pigliucci. This really isn't enough -- hence the tag on the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I have no great affinity for the views of the ICR, but as a regular science contributor to wikipedia (and a secular university faculty member) have to question the objectivity and influences that are evidenced in the discussion here in Talk.  We are to report information from reputable sources, and not to sit in judgement over the subjects of our reporting—this is encyclopedic, and not editorial work. And when bias is clear in Talk one must presume that it contributes unfairly to decisions regarding text of the article. Perhaps these influences are why there is so little informative substance in this article, e.g., about where JD Morris has lead the organization since the death of his father, its founder? This is the information I came to find, to no avail. Similarly, is it standard at wikipedia to report the incomes of heads of NGO/not-for-profits?  If so, fine.  If not, what is the point of reporting it here (except perhaps to insinuate that he is overpaid)? Hence, the overt and subtle distastes of the editors of this article seem clear, and this is disappointing (even though I would likely agree with the substance of the underlying disagreements).  Objectivity regarding our subjects is not the aim for only those with whom we agree; it is the aim for all, and the test of our mettle as editors. LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.63.82 (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question attitudes displayed by working editors, and am critical of existing content of site 

message: I'm uncomfortable with this.  The full quote is Lucy included almost a complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and excluding the foot).  I am therefore updating the quote itself.  Comments welcome. Mongoletsi (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I rolled this quote into the quote before it (for it was a reiteration of part of the longer quote). I then fixed the broken link supporting the longer quotation.  See the next section for a full description of added text, and justification. Cheers. LeProf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucy Skeleton 

message: This is advanced warning that as a biographical article on a living individual, about whom earlier POV questions have been raised, the article needs us to ensure that missing citations regarding statements of record and other facts are placed in a timely manner.  I'll make sure that all current "citation needed" tags are dated, and will return in 6 mos. or so to ensure that they are addressed.  Note, it is the responsibility of the original editor (or others interested) in placing these missing citations, and not the responsibility general wikipedia community to do so (though anyone can help that has the needed information, and wishes to). But there's no gainsaying that doing post-hoc/forensic fact attribution is both tremendously inefficient, and encourages the original scholarly sloppiness that it seeks to obviate. (Hence the response of this editor to facts without citation, at the 6 month point, will be deletion.) No offense intended, just making clear a path to get the facts substantiated, in a timely way, for a biography of a living person.  Cheers.  LeProf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the two "citation needed" tags was already six moths past, so I attended to it today. I fixed that text—by rolling it into the preceding quote, which it reiterated in brief, and I fixed the broken link to that longer quoted source. I also qualify this source, in two ways, by expanding upon the nature of the source when it first appears ("UseNet", "private organization"), and later by noting that the source does not itself provide further citations to support its extraordinarily broad claims. (Note, I could not find, at the source/organization web page, any indication of scientific credentials for the organization, which may explain the tenor of the quoted material.) Once again, while I do not hold to Morris' ideas (about Australopithecenes or much else), we do the argument no service by choosing such poor citations as this UseNet, anti-creationist source, to serve as Morris' rebuttal. It is pure fairness to note the sources clear bias and scholarly shortcomings (until interested editors can replace it with better, more reliable scientific information).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your comments on the source. This is something we simply don't do normally and certainly if we have an article about the source. Many if not most sources have a pov (something you call bias), and if it has serious scholarly shortcomings it probably shouldn't be used, but that's been discussed for this source before and there was agreement that it can be used if attributed, which it is. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will remove unsupported factual material at 6 mos, to maintain fairness/appearance of fairness of article. 

message: Firstly, after reading the article I still have little knowledge about what John Morris advocates. The section labeled "Criticism" starts with, "Critics have disputed some of Morris's claims." But nowhere has the page done anything to help me understand what his claims are, exactly. The criticism section briefly introduces two rather disjointed points, but they have no context so they still don't give an understanding for his claims.
Secondly, It seems that the criticism section is not giving a fair representation to John Morris. Since the same source that is supposed to speak against his first claim is also the source introducing his point of view. It would be far better to have a direct contextual quotation from him regarding the point rather than leave both pro and con side to the same source since that source is arguing against him. And the point about the Leviathan seems thrown into the criticism section haphazardly since no criticism is being given against that claim. I would personally also criticize a claim such as that, but it seems poorly done to introduce it as a point he's received criticism for without giving at least one example of someone disputing the point and giving reasons for disputing it.
I would recommend either filling out the context and neutrality on this page or referencing better pages that already have enough context and neutrality, in which case all that needs to be done is mentioning the specific areas where John Morris' opinions differ from the referenced pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.116.209 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Context and Neutrality 

message: Why is the "Criticism" section in this article so much longer than any other section. This article, just like any other article about a person, living or dead, should be about that person, not the criticisms about them. The criticism section should be reduced, and the "Biography" section should be expanded. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight with "Criticism" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John D. Morris. 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/20070713220301/http://www.icr.org/pdf/af/af0707.pdf to http://www.icr.org/pdf/af/af0707.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) 12:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified