Talk:A. E. Wilder-Smith

message: Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Since the article appears non-controversial and the discussion here seems to reflect that, and since there has been no discussion in a long time suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with  and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 17:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV cleanup 

message: I'm on the pro-evolution side, but I agree with Steve Hart's action.  Having said that, I'd like to point out some things in this article that raise my hackles a little bit.  This hackle-raising is not of a sufficient level to make my NPOV-finger itch; it's just slightly annoying, and I wonder if I could get the cooperation of an evolution-skeptic or even a creationist to come up with wordings that would increase our total comfort with this article.
The article itself avoids stating an opinion about Wilder-Smith, because all the opinions that it contains are safely placed in the mouths of others, either explicitly (as in the extensive quote from Professor von Stockhausen), or implicitly ("widely recognized by creationists as ...").  If any of these opinions were espoused by the article itself, that would be clear NPOV; as it stands, neutrality is preserved at least in principle.
Notice that the article gives no disapproving opinions of Wilder-Smith, nor any links to sites critical of his opinions.  The closest it comes is to note that Wilder-Smith's team lost a debate on votes.  I should go find some countervailing quotes; I think about a hundred words on the other side would do a great deal to relieve the vague (vague, I said!) sense of bias that I still get from this article.
(Also ... that Stockhausen is really windy.  Do we need all of it?)
ACW 21:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I'm sure you know, WP cite sources, she has no opinion on her own. But I agree this article needs work. If you have some ideas, why don't you give it a try? -- Steve Hart 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little more POV discussion 

message: This may be of utility if anyone wants to add some "criticism" section or something like it. A quite disgusting citation from one of his books:
:"We know of no intermediate stages between invertebrate octopus and squid types and genuine vertebrates."
Which cannot be said to be a lie, since there are no such intermediates, but is surely dishonest, or at least, being overly optimistic, a signal of hardly believable incompentence from someone with his resumé (just in case someone does not understands why, read the text in the link I gave; shortly, this specific intermediate is not predicted by evolutionary theories, but could be for creationisms, ironically). I think that we may found even creationist criticism against this sort of blatant dishonesty, more or less like AiG's site with "arguments we think creationists should not use". --Extremophile 04:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone wants to add a criticism section... 

message: I moved the following paragraph to here. It claims that the tracks had been forged by creationists, but the reference for the forgery is only talking about the origin of a tooth, which was found near the footprints. I haven't read the other reference yet, but until this is sorted out and correctly formulated, it shouldn't be in the article. A possible misinterpretation is not a forgery. And just trusting and citing the researchers that might have misinterpreted the evidences is not worthy to be mentioned as a criticism about A. E. Wilder-Smith. If there is something about Wilder-Smith's own research then this is a good base for criticism in this article (e.g. about the pre-evolutionary origin from simple atoms/molecules to molecule systems, which can reproduce itself with variations).
He was criticized by scientists over his claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists who tried to claim humans and dinosaurs lived together.
Also the next sentence is not correct. The NCSE did not examine the work of Wilder-Smith in general, but only a review of one book. This book was primarily focused on the pre-evolution phase (biogenesis, origin of life) as also stated on the referenced site. But the scientific criticism only targets on the evolution criticism and how evolution is represented in this book, which was 17 years old at the time of the NCSE examination.
According to the National Center for Science Education, Wilder-Smith's work contains a variety of falsehoods and errors.
--77.132.185.204 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove citations. Yes, it is a book review so what? Yes, he was criticized for claims he put forth (dinosaur tracks) after visiting the site in 1965. Paper45tee (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Wilder-Smith did visit Paluxy river and apparently photographed the alleged tracks in 1965 or thereabouts. He did so in conjunction with Dr. Burdick and from all available evidence was not involved in the research at the river bed except peripherally as a visitor or witness. His CV puts him in Illinois as a professor of pharmacology during this time period, not as a geologist or paleontologist in Texas. His German writings put him in contact with Dr. Burdick and perhaps Taylor both of whom held that the foot prints were human. Further, the criticism in the NCSE's publication is dated some 33 years after Dr. Wilder-Smith visited Paluxy and began promoting these claims. The work to show that these were indeed dinosaur footprints wasn't published till the early '80s. Since this is the only criticism of his promotion of this claim to the exclusion of everything else he claimed in regards to creationism the wording of the article needs to be changed to put into perspective that he was promoting another's claim and that it was done a considerable length of time prior to the NCSE writeup or the research that showed the footprints to be saurian. Otherwise these citations would be taking a non-neutral point of view.Kellnerp (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV based sentences 

message: people listen!!! you are ripping apart a great guy, why do you care so much about this so much all you doing is hurting people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlover32795 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because you're dealing with a sensitive religious worldview held on WP, and Wilder-Smith has blasphemed against it. 76.179.130.102 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.E. Wilder-Smith 

message: I've blocked  for a week for repeatedly copy-pasting material from http://www.wildersmith.org/ to this article. Gabbe (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocked user 

message: This edit appears to be a direct copy of this page marked © 2002 Dr. Wilder-Smith. All Rights Reserved. TheresaWilson (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: I am very disappointed in this article. Like many others articles in Wikipedia there seems to be a bias toward those who challenge the modern evolutionary synthesis whether they be creationist or ID theorist.
The article seems to be preoccupied with the fact that he believed there were human tracks in the Paluxy river area, as well as referencing others in the scientific community who disagree but are given the benefit of doubt in having the final word. Wikipedia says that "Wilder-Smith's 1981 work The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution contains a variety of falsehoods and errors" but this only based on the opinion of Kenneth Christiansen, and Wikipedia makes no attempt to point out any of these so called  factual errors.
Even if Wilder was wrong about this the Paluxy river tracks, scientist being wrong sometimes is not uncommon for scientist in general. Even great ones like Einstein, Hawkings and lesser ones like biologist Kenneth Miller have been wrong from time to time, but Wikipedia does not dwell on these examples as they do when they write what are akin to hit pieces by those who are considered creationist whacko's by many in the neo Darwinist vein. Wilder Smith was not a whacko. He was a man who was loved and admired by many, and greatly respected even by many of his own adversaries.  I think its not only a diservice to those who seek information using Wikipedia, but it's just unprofessional in terms of this publications bias towards certain individuals. Wikipedia could have at least included his famous 1986 Oxford debate with Richard Dawkins where Dawkins pleaded with the audience not to vote for Wilder on the the debate.  To whom it may concern, I would like to offer you the accomplishments of this man since Wikipedia has been derelict in its duties to do so.
A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.
In 1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959-1961 Visting Full Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years - three ``Golden Apple Awards" for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures.
Dr. Wilder-Smith's last Golden Apple award was inscribed, ``He made us not only better scientists, but also better men."  End.  From his own biography at http://www.wildersmith.org/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENNY BALLEJO (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a biography, not a article on creationism/evolution. As such auto-biographical publications should be no problem especially if there are no biographies available. I will be adding some of theses things from his memoirs. Also, wildersmith.org is not traceable to A.E. Wilder-Smith as he died prior to this domain name being created (2002). I have not been able to trace it back to it's authors and the web site is maintained by a service bureau. So it doesn't exactly fit the bill for self-published. At best it can be said to be published by anonymous.
Kellnerp (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A complaint

message: I read some of A.E. Wilder Smith's books years ago (70s). The argument I remember him for was not Paluxy River. I don't believe he did anything original there and I didn't take him for an anthropologist, geologist or archaeologist. If he did mention it I suspect he was quoting others and not a primary source. I took him for an organic chemist working for a pharmaceutical company because that is what he said his qualifications were in the book. His major argument regarding evolution was in his field and regarded the probability of reversible reactions leading to the molecules that evolution implies where needed to arrive at things like DNA. His conclusion was that there was not enough time or matter in the universe to allow for even simple organic precursors for life to form based on probability. I saw no mention of that in the article on him. To not mention his major claim, but rather to mention a claim that he most likely was quoting as true because the investigation on the topic was not completed at the time is certainly biased. He certainly raised some valid questions in the debate that people have been trying to answer for years. 
Kellnerp (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Paluxy is the main claim of his that's mentioned in The Creationists. Can you cite any reliable WP:SECONDARY source demonstrating noteworthiness for his Abiogenesis argument? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: (i) Given that the tracks date back to the 1930s, it seems likely that they were already discredited by the time Wilder came to write about them. (ii) There is probably no mention of them because there is no significant (any?) WP:SECONDARY coverage of them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprised 

message: Completing the bibliography to include all of his writings (or as many as I can find). Publications and writings from his early years were missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellnerp (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Bibliography */ 

message: Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith's name should conform to WP:NAMES.
In one place it is written Professor Dr. Dr. Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith
. However, it would be more informative and complete to write it as follows as he holds three doctorates and was a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemists.
Professor Arthur Edward "A.E." Wilder-Smith Ph.D. (Physical Organic Chemistry), Dr. es Science (Chemotherapy), D. Sc.(Natural Sciences), P.D., F.R.S.C.
following the CV published in his memoirs. This title alone would satisfy the notability requirements found in WP:ACADEMIC because of the P.D. and F.R.S.C. titles., however, the long list of published papers would do the same.
Kellnerp (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name guidelines 

message: It says he 'was' an ......,......,..... I'm changing it to 'is'. If he's dead, then change it lol.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzyclarks (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he dead? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on A. E. Wilder-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100907215249/http://richarddawkins.net:80/audio/721-1986-oxford-union-debate to http://richarddawkins.net/audio/721-1986-oxford-union-debate
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A. E. Wilder-Smith. 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/20100706155848/http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF to http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2003/cm08_04_rp.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The responses of the scientific community to Wilder-Smith's controversial views have not been given their due weight in this article. I've tagged it with "not all points of view" for now. Karlpoppery (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, much as I hate tags. Have made some improvements, see if you think the tag's still justified. . . dave souza, talk 06:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific perspective 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A. E. Wilder-Smith. 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://archive.is/20120729035206/http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm to http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm
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) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In 1965, as a child, my parents sublet an apartment at 18 Chemin de Lilas Blanc in Chêne-Bourg, a suburb of Geneva.  I was always curious about the man that we rented from.  The Sign on the apartment door said "Prof. Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, MS, PhD, PhD, PhD" (there was a masters' degree, I may be wrong to remember it as MS).  The long list of PhDs and the fact that he listed all that on his apartment door always intrigued me.  Now, thanks to Wikipedia, I know who we rented from, and now, you know his former Geneva address.  Douglas W. Jones (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postal address in Geneva 

message: how far was the effect of Wilder-Smiths works on estrogen on the completion of the oral contraception? thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  effects on completing oral contraception?