Talk:H. Allen Orr/Archive 1

message: You (the contributors) have devoted more text to his views on Dawkins than his own contributions to science. You do Professor Orr a disservice by using him as a pawn to promote your perceptions on the book the “God Delusions”. Nothing subtle here. Did you even know he existed until you read his book review on Dawkins, I am guessing not. A scientist with numerous accommodations on his own accord and you truly think a book review is worthy of note. This is sad. If you have a beef with Richard Dawkins … take it to the Dawkins page. I strongly suggest you delete or de-emphasize the section on the “God Delusion” and instead note his contributions to science in the field of genetics. If you are unaware of any then stay off this page and work within you field of expertise.--Random Replicator 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using people as pawns. I never thought about it that way but it is a highly cynical thing to do. I agree with the deletion and will have a look around to see if there is anything I can add about Orr that is about him and not just to score points.  Sophia 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disservice 

message: This edit is clearly against the consensus above that we are not going to use Mr. Orr as a pawn in our games. If we want to express his standpoints on biology and religion issues, then the focus should be on H. ALLEN ORR, giving equal weight to all his statements and reviews! His career highlight was not writing a critical review of Dawkins, and his full range of views on biology and religion is not reflected by this either. NBeale, this is very serious, if you don't respect this, then there is no choice but asking the community to comment on your behaviour. It seems I'm not able to get through to you. --Merzul 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against consensus 

message: Hi Merzul. I'm v pleased that you have linked into some of his other reviews (I wanted to but when I tried his website was down for some reason).  His comments on Behe are very pertinent and well worth recording, including his reference.  No-one is a "pawn" and no-one is playing a "game". The way to balance is to add relevant material and record it all in NPOV.  I think it's fair to say that his Dawkins review has been the most controversial and covered. Orr Dawkins Review gets 93k GHits. I also wonder whether the somewhat hectoring tone you adopt is really appropriate or productive, but that's your problem not mine ;-) NBeale 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave it to your conscience to decide whether a prominent biologist should be known to the world for some of the finely picked ad hominem arguments against Richard Dawkins. I don't like this at all. --Merzul 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NBeale - do not readd the reviews to push some agenda of your own. If you choose to use this guy in your anti-Dawkins campaign then due to WP:BLP concerns I will raise an RfC about your present conduct.  Sophia 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: NBeale - again please read WP:BLP. If you wish bring the RfC against me - I have no objections which way round this is as long as this current situation gets outside attention and advice. This littering of cherry-picked anti-Dawkins quotes must stop.  Sophia 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: Can you imagine an article on a notable scientist such as Einstein, Watson, Crick, Darwin, ect... whose most notable contribution to the scientific community is a "Book Review"? Such a scientist would be unworthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. Orr would be upset to note that his primary contribution to science appears to be a book review of someone else’s work. The reality, NBeal is you stumbled across this guy when you were researching Dawkin's critics and decided to create this entry. You do not have a clue what he has done professionally. This insidious form of vandalism is not acceptable. If you have knowledge of Orr’s professional contributions worthy of noting in an encyclopedia, then by all means continue. If you wish to portray him as the Gene Siskel of Science text … then stay away. 
If you truly wish to represent him accurately and fairly on this page I suggest you familiarize yourself with his work and stop obsessing over his book reviews: You can start with these.     --Random Replicator 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - WP is not solely a "scientific encyclopedia" - but an accurate representation of science is an important part of it, and it is also about balance and representing a person's work fairly, and not distorting it to the point where it seems his main claim to fame is as a member of the Anti-Dawkins brigade recruited by NBeale. I have just yet again deleted all that stuff about the book reviews. No doubt there is an important connection between Orr's work and the wider cultutal and philosophical debates - but it is not up to you to decide how important it is, in breach of WP:OR and WP:BLP. Please discuss here before dumping it back in. Snalwibma 07:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: NBeale, this is nothing whatever to do with defending Dawkins or "suppressing" "well-referenced" facts (though I would eagerly defend John Polkinghorne or the Man in the Moon if they were subject to the same sort of sustained assault that Dawkins has been prey to). It is even more amusing how desperate some people are to attack Dawkins, even to the extent of apparently creating articles about people they have never previously heard of, and whose work they do not understand, just in order to use them as pawns in a personal vendetta. I refer you, and others, to the admissions in your blog that you are attempting to use WP as a means of attacking Dawkins .  But the point here is in any case quite different - it is about achieving balance in the article about Orr. Let's do it - but let's work together to achieve it. Snalwibma 10:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Review 

message: While the addition of other sections is a good step forward, they were added in a bit of haste, and much of it is copy-pasted, sometimes without indicating that we are quoting the material, e.g. "studying speciation is largely synonymous with studying reproductive isolation", this makes the reading very difficult. Sometimes, less is more.  --Merzul 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive quotations 

message: The review in Science belongs in the Scientific section. Science is not a "publication such as the New York Review of books"! NBeale 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, Science, Evolution, Mind, etc all publish book reviews, they don't become scientific articles because of that. --Merzul 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review in Science belongs in Scientific section