Talk:Nicholas Humphrey

message: from VfD:
Vanity.  Has several books published, but what professor doesn't?  As far as I can tell, he doesn't stand out from tens of thousands of other professors around the world.  SWAdair | Talk  09:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor guy. Born in '43, and still got nothing to say about himself. Delete. - Vague | Rant 09:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete: There probably is quite a lot to say about him.  Those are not everyday posts he's holding.  However, nothing has been said, so delete if the article is not expanded into a contextualizing and discussion of the figure before the end of VfD. Geogre 15:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How many of them have multiple articles published in Nature? Wyss 12:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A very small proportion of professors have that many articles in the most elite journals such as Nature.  I can't fathom what purpose it would serve to remove such information about this guy's career.  Wouldn't someone interested enough to look up an article on this guy also be interested in his most notable publications? Wolfman 18:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add to his bio that he's been published in Nature. Or maybe include one or two of his most important writings for journals (if you actually have any idea which they are), but by no means include them all. Since when is it incumbent on us to mention everything anyone has ever had published? Do we do that for all other professors and/or authors?-R. fiend 19:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already clearly listed as a partial bibliography, apparently of his more important works.  In what way will the article be improved by removing information about his research, the very essence of his notability?  Wikipedia is not paper. Wolfman 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apparently" his more substantial works. Has anyone verified that? Yeah, being published in Nature is a substantial achievement in the field of the life sciences. Outside of that it's worth a brief mention, but we don't need the guy's resumé here. Are any of those articles notable in and of themselves? I'm sure someone in the field who wants to know about this guy may want to know everything he ever published, but that person is not going to look in wikipedia for it. They're obviously going to look in the publications and websites associted with his field of science. I don't know where Wyss got this list, but I'm pretty sure he just cut and pasted it without knowing the details of what these articles are. My point is, no other professor has this sort of listing, why should he? Keep the books, mention he's been published in Nature and New Scientist and some others, but unless you can verify that some of these articles he wrote in these journals are particularly important (we don't have articles on every person who's ever been published in Nature) they shouldn't be listed.-R. fiend 23:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Would it be notable to mention in the article Humphrey's arguments against the paranormal? The book Soul Searching develops a principle that Humphrey calls the "Argument from Unwarranted Design" and applies it to reach a skeptical stance on psychokinesis, extra-sensory perception and other claims of the supernatural.MartinPoulter (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism of the paranormal 

message: Why are there two different sections called "External Links"?--Stefan Hartmann (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2x External Links