Talk:Henry F. Schaefer III

three-revert rule

For those currently editing this page, please do no violate the three-revert rule. Please familiarize yourself with this rule as it is official policy for Wikipedia. Thanks. --Roswell native 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that the large extra material about his career that is part of that revert war is actually a copyright violation from his web site. It is not clear that even he can give permission for its use. It might be owned by the University of Georgia. --Bduke 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at http://www.ccc.uga.edu/member_page.php?id=8 and I cannot find any copyright information. --User:Mathchem271828

Scientific Bio material

Mathchem271828, please see Bduke comments above regarding copyright of the material. That is why it was reverted previously. Even if copyright is not an issue, the material needs to be much more concise and wikified for the article.--Roswell native 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well go ahead and wikify it. Removal of all of that material isn't an option. --User:Mathchem271828

IMHO, inclusion of the material as is doesn't seem to be an option based on Wikipedia:Copyrights. Just because the site does not explicitly state the copyright doesn't mean it's fair game, the lack of copyright needs to be verified before inclusion. Also, the material should be edited down, and the person adding it should wikify it if possible (again IMHO). The info wasn't removed to change the tone of the article, it was removed for the copyright concerns. A well written summary of that info definitely belongs in the article. Thanks.--Roswell native 06:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)--Roswell native 06:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I still believe your arguments about the copyright issue are disingenuous, by that I mean *you* don't really believe that the argument that you are giving is valid. If the issue is with wikifying the material then it will happen eventually. Thanks. --Mathchem271828

Mathchem, I just left a message on your talk page citing the wikipedia guidelines which address my copyright concerns as well as other concerns. If I am incorrect in interpreting those guidelines please discuss here (as I know this topic is of interest to other editors for this article) and cite your reasonsing if possible rather than citing unfounded assumptions about the intentions of others.

I would also like to politely request that you refrain from assuming that my intentions are disingenuous and referring to them as such - I'm assuming your goal is to make this a better article based on Wikipedia's guidelines, please assume the same of me until I demonstrate otherwise.

Also, with respect to the "wikifying happening eventually", someone has to start, and the folks that want/place the material in the article should take responsibility for that IMHO. There are already plenty of articles in Wikipedia that need cleaning up - my $.02.

Cheers, --Roswell native 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Monk's revisions

Monk you appear serving some sort of agenda against the subject's religious beliefs. This isn't the place for that. I really encourage you to let the scientists write about the accomplishments of the other scientists. The link to the philosopher is also spurious and serving an agenda that has nothing to do with Prof. Schaefer's contributions to science. As someone who works in the area, you can take it from me that his impact has been really pretty big. And whether you like it or not, this article is going to be about his contributions to science. --Mathchem271828

Mathchem can you explain what you mean by letting "the scientists write about the accomplishments of the other scientists"? Everyone is welcome to write about everyone however, statements that a given paper was pioneering or such are the sorts that flirt with a non-neutral point of view and thus at minimum need citations. Now, from what I know about the subject Schaefer's role has been big. But claims of that need to meet verifiability and need to be sourced to reliable sources just like everything else on Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 07:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, I'll say to you that I think that you know the answer to your own question. Please just wikify the biographical information that has been provided and make it a more local and readable copy and that will be a great contribution to his biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

No I actually really don't. Do you mean the scientists on Wikipedia? Do you mean the scientists as a whole on this planet (this seems unlikely). An explanation would be good. JoshuaZ 07:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A simple Google search shows that Schaefer is known as much for his advocacy of ID as he his for his accomplishments in science. The article needs to reflect that fact, and attempts to gloss over his role in ID is no more acceptable than what you've (wrongly) accused me of, and something that we've seen at this article and dealt with before. FeloniousMonk 07:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:LEAD, which clearly states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." FeloniousMonk 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bowdlerizing relevant details out the intro, like this: [1], simply will not fly. Again, Mathchem, please read WP:LEAD. It clearly tells us that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Deleting coverage of the notable and verifiable controversial views of Schaefer runs counter to our policies. Please become more familiar with WP:NPOV as well. FeloniousMonk 08:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stating up front what and where

Other than his DI/ISCID role, exactly what is Schaefer doing right now and where is he doing it? You can read the entire article, much less the intro, and still not get that information. Is he at a university? If so, which one and what is he doing there? This is the sort of detail that belongs in the intro. FeloniousMonk 07:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is in the lead already "Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia" JoshuaZ 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Because I just added it. FeloniousMonk 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. JoshuaZ 08:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This needs a source: "He is the author of more than 1100 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society." FeloniousMonk 07:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You win

You can go ahead and make it about stuff you know about and is accessible to you monk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Citation for a variety of claims

this may help. Among other things it has a citation for the 6th most cited claim. JoshuaZ 08:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Monk is google where you do searches of scientific literature?

If you want to look at the publications of someone in theoretical chemistry you can visit, for instance, http://jcp.aip.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think that's the only issue. No one is claiming that he isn't a very accomplished chemist. So the above search seems less than relevant. JoshuaZ 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally use PubMed, Biosys or Elsevere. For non-scientific topics, like ID, Google works wells. Google Scholar works nicely for actual science, too. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

okay then why didnt you use those before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The details that need sources, that he is the author of more than 1100 scientific publications and awarded the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry in 1979 are not going to be found in peer reviewed journals. FeloniousMonk 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

go to a university library that has access to something like web of science and they keep track of that sort of stuff. Google probably doesn't keep track of that stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathchem271828 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Distinguishing Protestant and Catholic Christians

In Europe, the word Christian still encompasses Catholics and Protestants. Lately in the US, one hears increasingly the expression "Christians and Catholics". I propose that the term Protestant Christian be applied to those who clearly identify themselves as being members of Protestant denominations, as Prof. Schaefer has done in his articles on the Liberty University web site. Laburke 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)laburke

Controversy?

The Controversy section appears irrelevant. Especially the 1st paragraph. What controversy is there if the guy actually believes what he believes? That pretty much seems to be the issue for the author of this page. Doesn't really seem to be so much a controversy, but more an issue that the author has with H.F.S. believing what he believes. -Jkluney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Example: A well-respected evolution biologist that is actively seeking attention, in the form of books and talks, for this evolution biologist's opinion concerning the invalidity of quantum chemistry theory would be controversial, because he is using his using his position and influence to make unfounded claims outside of his field. Now turn this reasoning around and you understand the controversy. Of course everyone is entitled the right to voice their opinion on any subject, but these opinions will be weighed by the public according to the position and moral stance of the one voicing it. -- Mipmip (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe he's not the one inflating it? Aren't we sopposed to add controversies to the articles themselves instead of making sections for them? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How "prominent" a proponent of ID is he? I listened to him speak yesterday at a Christian event, and he didn't mention ID once. Is his Fellow position at the Discovery Institute more important than his being a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences or the Royal Society of Chemistry? The list of his Veritas Forum talks seems to deal more with personal stories and the philosophy of science. --Mhick (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Schaefer and have worked with him. I respect his science enormously, but I have never really understood his religious position. In particular, I do not understand his role in the Discovery Institute. His book does not place him as a firm ID proponent. Nevertheless, he is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is controversial. The number of its Fellows is not large and Schaefer is one of them. He is putting himself into a controversial position. It has to be seen as important in the article. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rumours of Nobel prize nominations

Re: "The original source of the estimate that Schaefer has been nominated 5 times for a Nobel Prize is a December 23, 1991 cover article in U.S. News and World Report."

I just want to add a personal anecdote to put this into perspective: I was a student at ther University of Georgia and lived in Athens from august 1989 to december 1991; left the country before that article mentioned above came out. I went to two of Schaefer's lectures on theological topics during that time, met him in the church where he was some kind of deacon, and was once invited to his house for lunch, being a friend of a friend. At that time, Schaefer was generally described as a scientist who gets nominated for the Nobel prize pretty much year after year. He certainly was one of the most prominent professors on campus. The UGA Chemistry department was very proud to have snatched such a brilliant scientist from Berkeley, and the creationist crowd loved to insinuate that the only reason he didn't get the prize was his outspoken faith. I don't know how that rumour had started, but it seemed to come from the Chemistry department faculty, or maybe Schaefer himself. I'd specualate that while the Nobel Prize committee keeps nominations secret, the establishment among a science does talk about who nominates whom.

--Emaraite (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Those who are invited to nominate Nobel prize winners are the full professors of the subject in the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and probably Iceland), previous winners and certain other prominent scientists especially invited by the respective Nobel committee. It is made explicitly clear to prospective nominators that they are not allowed to discuss the subject with colleagues and that they are bound to keep their nominations confidential. If such rumors were of any subtance, they must originate from someone not able to follow established procedures. Alternatively, those who spread such rumors don't know what they are talking about. Perhaps someone has explained the Nobel committee rules to Schaefer which has made him stop the spreading of these rumours. They only make people around him look silly. Roufu (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's some original research just for the TALK page: when Schaefer was at Berkeley he had a reputation for trying to bully other chemists into nominating him for the Nobel. I have no source other than my experience there, and I have no info on whether or not this reputation was deserved. Feel free to remove this remark if it offends you! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry F. Schaefer III. 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/20051111153119/http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/ to http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry F. Schaefer III. 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/20110826055207/http://right-mind.us/blogs/moscoweducation/archive/2010/04/15/73165.aspx to http://right-mind.us/blogs/moscoweducation/archive/2010/04/15/73165.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Different controversy

Should the controversy section mention the allegations of nepotism over his daughter's employment in his center, and her arrest and guilty plea on computer trespass charges? [2] [3] [4] [5]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The allegations of nepotism could be mentioned briefly but her arrest etc is about her not Schaefer. However, I might be biased as I spent 5 months in his group in 1990. --Bduke (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)