Talk:Colin Patterson (biologist)

Those working on this article with access to Academic journals may wish to use this as a resource.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8pm7327603hh7u3/fulltext.pdf
I may stop back and add to the article myself but I'm in something of a rush right now. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6694/full/394626a0.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/770282

Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Major rewriting

I've just rewritten most of the article, as it said very little on the person itself and was mostly an excuse to post links to creationist sites (there was some weird over-emphasis of one of his books, just to have a link for a creationist review of the book in Amazon). Sadly, it's still far from encyclopedic standards, I'm not even sure Patterson is notable enough for an article! Anyway, I intend to eventually incorporate more from the refs provided by Ka Faraq Gatri.--Earrnz (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the article from the "Living persons" category.--Earrnz (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

He's definitely notable. According to the links above he was awarded the Linnean Medal (allbeit basically posthumously). If you're interested, I've done a bit of work from the above linked sources. Current draft is in User:Ka_Faraq_Gatri/sandbox4 but it needs work. I suspect an understanding of the politics surrounding cladistics is important to writing this bio well (especially where it pertains to the creationist incident. Btw some people are still quoting him as sceptical of Darwin). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and he's FRS as well. WP:ACADEMIC on at least two counts.  :) Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! I only knew Patterson from the cladistics literature, and wasn't aware of his academic distinctions. Didn't know you had so much work already done. When I get some time I'll help you with the draft. Should I make changes directly and explain them in the Discussion page or do you prefer to discuss point by point everything first?

I don't understand what you mean by "politics surrounding cladistics". Seems like I've missed some history there. Though I do think it is of great importance to make clear the ideas of transformed cladistics for adressing Patterson views in general and his quote mined comments in particular. Too bad there's no article on transformed cladistics yet (I added the link to create one). I have a very basic understanding of the topic, but I think it's enough to help on Patterson's article.--Earrnz (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Patterson has been quote mined several times by creationists," this is highly debatable. The source is also talkorigins, which is not an unbiased source, if even credible, and which cries "quote mining" whenever anyone uses the words of their supported scientists against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.5.177 (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to question the source, please be more specific. If you follow the link you'll find article in full context with a scan of a full letter signed by Patterson pretty straightforwardly saying that he's been misquoted. Should we believe him?--Earrnz (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you people have no shame? You can not go 10 seconds without taking a jab at Creationists? Are you this insecure? And let it be known that Patterson was no friend to the sterilized version of Darwinian evolution that is sold to the public. While an evolutionist himself, Patterson was quite open and unapologetic about the Darwinists being thwarted by the fossil record at every turn. 72.73.109.8 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Earrnz, it's important to note that the fax sent to Patterson himself didn't include the "creationist interpretation", but it's clear that the interpretation that comes from Colin Patterson regarding his quote is consistent with the creationists' interpretation of his quote: that such stories about transitional fossils are not part of science because they are not subject to tests; as said in his reply to the fax sent by Mr. Lionel Theunissen. It would be much better to read the whole article in most cases however, and please try to be more unbiased when dealing with articles on Wikipedia. Giovanni Mounir (talk)

Creationist controversy

There has been a history of competitive editing of this article in relation to creationism. This article should be about Colin Patterson. It is not a venue for a discussion of creationism or the interpretation of the fossil record. Patterson's encounters with creationists were limited, and were incidental to his academic career. Any more than a brief mention of this issue (with citations) is out of proportion in this article, and would give the impression that this was a major part of Patterson's professional life.

For these reasons I replaced the discussion of creationism-related issues with a brief descriptive paragraph, leaving this version.

User:Giovannimounir has reverted my edit, restoring the discussion of creationism. Please justify why this material has a place in this article. The current text is also deficient because it does not mention Patterson's opinion on the creationists' use of his work. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Verbcatcher, it's true that the article has been edited a lot of times, and it wasn't supposed to be about creationists; but if that was true, then why include creationists in the first place? If you are going to claim that creationists have been quote mining Colin Patterson and that Colin Patterson has rejected their interpretations, then you would have to cite your sources, however most of the sources put were misleading. The reply received from Colin Patterson is totally consistent with the creationist interpretation. If you don't want to put creationists into the article at all, then remove the whole "Professional Life" section since it's all about creationism. but if you want to say that creationists are using Patterson's quotes, then don't claim they are quote mining him because this is unfair, biased and inconclusive based on the reply received from Patterson himself. Giovanni Mounir (talk)

It would also be important to notice that the main fax sent to Colin Patterson wasn't shown, and hence we have no clue what the fax sender attached as the creationist's interpretation, therefore we can only say whether Patterson accepted or rejected the creationist's interpretation by comparing what Patterson actually said with how creationists interpret the quote. This is irrelevant to the article, but as I said, if you are willing to include creationism into the article then you would have to do so in an unbiased way, this is my opinion or how I view it according to Wikipedia rules. Giovanni Mounir (talk)

Giovanni Mounir, you appear to be criticising earlier versions of this article, not my version before your latest edits. I summarised the issue with the following paragraph:

Patterson's work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Patterson rejected the creationists' interpretation of his work.

I attempted to make this unbiassed and neutral in tone. I did not use the term quote mined, which seemed contentious and was poorly-sourced. The cited references were:

The Theunissen reference is not an ideal source: it should probably be tagged {{Self-published source}}. We should keep the sentence on Patterson's attitude as refutation of the implication that he supported creationism. Some would argue that the Sunderland reference should be tagged {{Unreliable fringe source}}, but this source should be acceptable in relation to the creationists' use of Patterson's work. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We should also cite this source, and possibly also cite the references cited therein. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, I happen to agree with some points you have raised, but we cannot say that Patterson rejected the creationist's interpretation; this is the only part I have disagreed with upon your latest edit. What I find is better to indicate however is that he didn't support creationism, although some of his works are cited as evidence for the lack of transitional fossils as I find it clear from Theunissen's fax that Patterson rejected the stories about transitional fossils and marked it as not part of science. You say that such reference shouldn't really be a citation, but why was it included in the first place? If you don't want to include the citation, which I also recommend as TalkOrigins is a poor website to be used in references, then we cannot say whether Patterson accepted or rejected the creationist's interpretation. We can only say that he didn't support creationism; so here's my suggestion:

Although Patterson was an evolutionist who didn't happen to support creationism, his work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

What are your thoughts? Giovanni Mounir (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni Mounir, we are getting close to a consensus. I question the use of the term "evolutionist" in your text. I suspect this is a loaded term used to imply equal standing between creationism and mainstream science. "Didn't happen to" is too informal, and lessens the importance of Patterson's views. I propose:

Although Patterson did not support creationism, his work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

The new reference confirms Patterson's views. The Access Research Network appears to be professionally curated and acceptable for citation.

I would place the Theunissen source in a new Further reading section, together with A Colin Patterson Sampler. The rules for "Further reading" are less rigorous than for citations. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's time that we agree on something! Your new suggestion is pretty accurate and is totally unbiased, you may feel free to replace my latest edits with your suggestion in this case. Thank you. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made these changes. Thank you for your help. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Minor revision- "explains how" is modified to "claims" to reflect neutrality. Just because this scientist was later embarrassed by his remarks being made public does *not* mean that they were actually taken out of context. They were, in fact, perfectly in-context; he had been written a personal letter asking why his book didn't include transitional specimens, and he responded that he wasn't aware of any good examples of transitions. To say Patterson "explains how" his comments were taken out of context is to imply that they indeed were misused, which is enforce a subjective opinion on the reader.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Patterson's letter said that "he wasn't aware of any good examples of transitions". The previous sentence in our article says "his work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms". If the creationist proponents used this letter to support the absence of transitional forms then they misinterpreted Patterson's letter. "Explains how" is better. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to resort to platitudes, how about this one? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." At any rate, it's clear you're using this article as a way to smear creationists (that's predictable for Wikipedia, of course). The fact that such a highly educated scientist in the field was not aware of any good examples of transitional fossils is very revealing- that's why Darwinists (including the embarrassed author of the quote himself) are so quick to try to dismiss this or whitewash over it by claiming it was cited "out of context" when it clearly was not.

The fact that you personally want to believe it was out of context does not mean that language is "better". Go study the meaning of "Neutral Point of View" and come back...

In reality, since Patterson's later retraction of/apology for his previous quote was included in this page, then the original quote should also have been included as well. Kanbei85 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

User:Kanbei85, I am offended by the tone of your response. Do not presume to know my motives. In what way am I using this article to smear creationists? Please assume good faith. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)