Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

HIV Denial

Aside from blogs like this what reason is there to believe that Wells is an HIV denier?

Sounds like a contributor here is trying to undermine Wells's credibility. It would be nice if they could provide a quotation from something Wells has written or said. --Uncle Ed 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No answer having been given to the question, I've deleted the unsourced claim.

He is a prominent supporter of Intelligent design and also questions the role of HIV in causing AIDS.

Perhaps bloggers were confusing him with Phillip Johnson. --Uncle Ed 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. A quick Google brought up this list, "The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis" , which may be one reason that Wells is considered an "HIV denier". That's about the limit of my knowledge, so after adding that source I'll depart. -Will Beback 05:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Hi, Will. I followed your link and found Wells's name misspelled on it. I wonder if he really signed it.
2. Is there a difference between denying the existence of the HIV/AIDS and asking for a reappraisal of the evidence? --Uncle Ed 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Its close to the same difference between teaching intelligent design and "teaching the controversy." JoshuaZ 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Teckor, When you removed the HIV part you left in the link. I have removed it in addition to my other edits. JoshuaZ 02:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reappraisal of the evidence" is a common phrase used by Holocaust Deniers (as well as HIV deniers). These people always always attempt to make themselves seem as reasonable and believable as possible and use phrasing that masks what their true stance. Everyone else can see through that ploy though, and, we call HIV, and Holocaust deniers as such, deniers, not as "revisionists" or whatever else they want to be called.

Second, the list quoted has "Johathan C. Wells, Ph.D. (Fairfield, CA)" which seems to be the guy's actual name. --Havermayer 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken." This is a very broad category and the response I got from an evolutionist is that this is exactly what scientists do, be critical. If anyone still believes that Wells is a HIV/AIDS denier they can add it after finding a statement that says this instead of one that simply asks for a critical examination of the evidence. Until then this is just propaganda/drivel. --196.30.118.75 14:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, teaching the controversy. See my above comment. Attempts to couch one's views in more acceptable forms doesn't change them. There are many examples of this sort of thing, the most obvious of which I cannot mention without invoking Godwin's law. JoshuaZ 14:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for removal was stated. Reappraisal by a suitable independant group does not constitute denial. Please provide unambiguous proof of denial statements. 196.30.118.75 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine then. We'll do this with the Godwin's law related problem: Various groups call for reexamination and reevaluation of the history of civilian internment and executions by Germany during World War II. That doesn't make those groups not holocaust deniers. Using euphemisms doesn't alter one's position. We have no need to not call a spade a spade. JoshuaZ 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon's Unification Church opposition to evolution

Steve, are you trying to deny that Moon and his church do not oppose evolution?[1] That they do is well-supported by both primary and secondary sources, including Moon's own words and an article in Nature: "Could evolution itself create a new awareness and make a new design? Absolutely not." The Words of Reverend Sun Myung Moon: Our Standard "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church. Church founder Sun Myung Moon has..." Nature TFeloniousMonk 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not object if you said the Rev. Moon was himself and maybe gave a quote from him saying so. However the church itself does not take a position on evolution. Many church members believe in "Darwinian" evolution by natural selection. I was a subscriber of the old World and I magazine which was sponsored by the church. They had science articles every month and they always seemed to assume that everyone who read them accepted evolution. Steve Dufour 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? And how do you account for Nature printing "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church."[2]? We've got a notable source, Nature, which is far from being known for sloppy journalism, saying that the UC objects to evolution. That's sufficient for inclusion in the article as it stands, unless you can provide some evidence that we cannot take the article Nature on it's face. FeloniousMonk 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As if the magazine Nature is a specialist in the theology or beliefs of practices of the Unification Church. I do not think it is a reputable source for this claim. Andries 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But Nature is clearly indeed a specialist publication for evolution and the teaching of it, which is more to the point here. When someone objects to a subject you are an expert on, one not need be an expert on the separate teachings of the challenger to recognize the challenge. FeloniousMonk 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Wells is the only American church member who is spending any amount of time on the evolution issue. Don't get my wrong, many church members do have some kind of "creationist" or "intelligent design" point of view; but it is not official church policy. As fo myself, I happen to believe that God created the Universe and life though normal, natural processes. Steve Dufour 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence is a hoot. Interesting mix of the supernatural and the natural, the paranormal and the normal, mythology and reality. •Jim62sch• 23:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, I admit that you have a point, though I continue to have my doubts about the reputability of Nature to support a statement regarding the beliefs of the Unification Church on creationism, evolution, or intelligent design. Andries 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nature is about as reputable a publication as one can come up with, and they take their reputation very seriously, regardless of the topic. Anyway, if Coyne was wrong, people would have spoken up about it because it was in Nature (among them, the church leadership), and these rebuttals should be easy to find. Certainly, it has a lot more weight than conjecture here. Guettarda 21:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The cited Nature quote only says that there is some opposition to evolution in the Unification Church. It does not say, as the WP article says, that Moon's Unification Church opposes evolution.

I agree with Andries. FeloniousMonk says that he is taking the Nature article on its face, but he is not. Roger 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, the Nature article is very clear "Opposition to evolution is found in many corners of the American religious landscape, including the Unification Church." and is completely consistant with the statements of the church leader, Rev. Moon, on the matter: The Words of Reverend Sun Myung Moon: Our Standard FeloniousMonk 02:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said I've been a church member for a long time. I also respect Nature magazine, I read it at the dentist sometimes. I was rather surprised to read that they said our church was a hot-bed of anti-evolutionism. I would guess that this was said only because of Well's activities. I have never heard of any other church member doing anything publicly against evolution. Steve Dufour 00:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After nearly 30 years in the church, I think I can safely say that there is no opposition to evolution in the way that Young-earth creationists deny it. To the extent that Unificationists bother to discuss the age of the earth or the literal lengths of the Days of Creation, they generally go along with what geologists and biologists say about the fossil record. Man is abot 2 million years old, for example.

Yet it really depends on how "evolution" is defined. Which in turn relates to why so many contributors have a hard time agreeing on the wording of the various evolution-related articles.

If by "evolution", one means the narrow definition of "unguided evolution", a positive assertion that God either (1) had no part at all in evolution; or (2) did nothing more than, say create the first few cells 400 million years ago; then I would say most Unificationists would disagree. They would insist that evolution was "guided by God", particularly when it came to creating human beings. (On the other hand, I have not seen any denial of the workings of natural selection in weeding out unsuccessful designs.)

An unpublished manuscript by a top Unificationist evolution educator makes these points better. I'll try and see if I can get him to chime in here, if needed.

The problem is that phrases like "supports evolution" and "opposes evolution" mean wildly different things to people, depending on what side they take in the politics of evolution. (On advice from User:Andries, I'm letting that stay a red link!) But I've created a few tables which attempt to illustrate the conflict over the definitions (see [User:Ed Poor/creationism table]] for a start). --Uncle Ed 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I might be at one extreme among UC members since I don't see any problem with God working through random chance to create living things. After all didn't he create random chance itself? Steve Dufour 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your personal original research carries no weight here. We have two definitive sources, one primary The Words of the UC leader the other secondary, an article published in Nature, stating that the UC is doctrinarily opposed to evolution. Not to mention Wells' own statement "Father's words ... that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." This is more than sufficient for inclusion of the statement in the article per WP policy. I have another half dozen similar sources that say the exact same thing, and since the passage stands well supported and without any equally weighty contradicting sources, it's going back in. It's pretty clear the objections here by UC members and those ideologically sympathetic are baseless and are an attempt to whitewash the article. FeloniousMonk 02:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that the article should say that the UC is not against evolution, only that it is not accurate to say that it is. Why does anything need to be said on the point anyway? Steve Dufour 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a source for that? We have four sources in the article that say exactly the opposite, one of which is the UC's leader. FeloniousMonk 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the article say anything about the official UC position on evolution, since there is not one. Steve Dufour 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely if the church rejected what Coyne said in the Nature article, there would be a rebuttal. It shouldn't be hard to find. Guettarda 05:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I never heard about the article until yesterday. I was rather surprised to hear that opinion expressed. More often we UC members are accused of not being literal enough in our interpretation of the Bible. Steve Dufour 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is, we have multiple sources supporting an idea which is central to the reason Wells gave for getting into this field in the first place...so why the opposition to including well-sourced information in the article? Saying "I am unaware of this" really doesn't amount to a whole lot (and is also original research). If it's true that Coyne was totally off base, a few minutes of googling the right sites should turn up a rebuttal or comment...and you are far better equipped to know where to look for the rebuttal. I just don't understand why we are having a conversation based on "I don't think..." Guettarda 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with Moon: The Words of Reverend Sun Myung Moon: Our Standard FeloniousMonk 06:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with the article saying that Rev. Moon disagrees with, opposes, or rejects evolution. However it is not true to say that the church itself has a policy about it. As far as I know no one else in the church except Wells spends his or her time being against evolution. Steve Dufour 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so you say, but despite repeated calls you've failed to provide a source for that claim and we have 4 sources in the article that say just the opposite and a dozen more in the wings. So again, have a source for that? FeloniousMonk 05:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't have sources. Your first source has Moon saying, "I don't deny the process of evolution in development". The next has Nature magazine saying, "Church founder Sun Myung Moon has frequently condemned darwinism for giving God no role in the history of life." Neither of these justify your statement that "evolution ... which is opposed by Moon's Unification Church". Apparent Moon accepts evolution, but wants to emphasize God's role. Roger 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RE the edit summary by "Roger Schlafly" which stated "FM's sources don't say what he claims" : Please pardon me for butting in here, on a topic that would ordinarily be a minor curiosity except for the obvious political pandering, as evidenced by the sense of betrayal of Phyllis Schlafly's advocacy-position by the Bush appointeee John E. Jones III as set forth in Kitzmiller v. Dover (y'know, I kin' hear 'em sayin' "talk about a rat; we get the guy appointed and he betrays us??" ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ). More directly to the point here, I've not once thus far seen FeloniousMonk misrepresent a source he put forward in support of a particular point. Now look here, Roger Schlafly, I don't give a good darn about little arguments concerning what aspect of this Jonathan Corrigan Wells might serve to support or diminish one's preferred POV about how the world came to the present stage. But if FeloniousMonk is misrepresenting a source here, I sure would want to see a far more explicit explanation than was just given of precisely what is alleged to be misrepresented. ... Kenosis 07:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Doyenne's rant is here, which fits nicely with the Prince of the Dark Buzz' hubristic motto that he is "Debunking the Judicial Supremacists and the Leftist Evolutionists", and we find that Der Apfel fällt nicht weit vom Stamm. In both there is a willful lack of comprehension of basic facts, a desire toward "reappraisal" of facts and some really weird Grassy Knoll-type stuff.

If you'll note, Kenosis, when Roger is asked direct questions he rarely responds, but when he does his response is reminiscent of Tony Snow or Ari Fleischer. •Jim62sch• 12:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My reading on Rev. Moon's stance on evolution is standard anti-materialism stuff. That is, Moon objects to "evolution" on two general grounds: (1) Evolution, as he uses the term, implies that Man is not qualitatively or spiritually superior to non-human biological life, and (2) that Nature is not ultimately under the control of God. Here, from the link FeloniousMonk provided, are Moon's own words (emphasis added):

I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but I am saying that there is a creative process going on behind it. In the theory of evolution there are sudden occurrences called mutations, in which something new comes from its parent body. But we have to say that there must have been some energy or willpower that authorized that occurrence. Could evolution itself create a new awareness and make a new design? Absolutely not.

There must be something outside evolution that can supply creative energy. It is true that development occurred between the lowest and the highest stages, but it did not happen automatically. 'Each stage was the result of a design and input of additional energy. Evolutionists don't want to recognize that. When they recognize that creative energy was put in, then they have to acknowledge a universal consciousness that provided the know-how. When you talk about man's conscience then you have to recognize a universal truth that ties into it. Thus, you have to recognize God.

Thus, he recognizes the role of evolution, but is generally refuting evolutionism-qua-materialism (or materialism-qua-evolutionism). He is saying that God is responsible for allowing evolution to create consciousness.

Combining these words with the very vague and imprecise nature of the Nature excerpt, it is clear that it cannot be truthfully stated that the Unification Church broadly opposes evolution. Otherwise, one would have to take the position that evolution does equal materialism and that evolution necessarily disproves one has a soul or that there is an after-life. I don't think anyone seriously wants to open that can of worms. --Otheus 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Biologist" revisited

After reading the discussion page, I found the reasons given for removing the descriptor of "biologist" from the article to be very poorly thought out. While some editors may not agree with Wells arguments, or philosophies, or presumed motivations, a difference of opinion isn't a good reason for not recognizing someone's qualifications. I also must point out that JoshuaZ's argument that an MD isn't necessarily a doctor is also absolutely incorrect. An MD is always, by definition, a doctor of medicine. An MD is knowledgable in the field of medicine, and its clinical applications. While an MD may not necessarily be a practicing doctor, he has earned the title none the less. That is the also the case here. Wells may not be a biologist who is active in research, or teaching, he may not be as well practiced as other biologists, or as knowledgable, or as often-published, but he is still a biologist. The authority on this subject is UC Berkley, and I dare say that their opinion on the matter outweighs that of any editor here. Mael-Num 01:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I also must point out that JoshuaZ's argument that an MD isn't necessarily a doctor is also absolutely incorrect." This is incorrect. Most professions require some form of registration and efforts to keep up with the state of the art in order to remain within the profession. The medical profession would most certainly not consider somebody who attained an MD fifty years ago, but has never practised medicine since to be a 'medical doctor' in any meaningful way. Likewise the biological community would not consider somebody who attained a PhD in Biology but who has neither worked as a researcher nor taught biology since as a 'biologist' in any meaningful sense. Hrafn42 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Wells is known as an author. There is no reason for the article to call him a biologist. (I would like some of the details about his papers trimmed too but that's another story.) Steve Dufour 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to "physician" (quoting AMA web site):

H-405.969     Definition of a Physician     Retain-in-part. A correction is being made to terminology.
“The AMA affirms that a physician is an individual who has received a “Doctor of Medicine” or a “Doctor of Osteopathy Osteopathic Medicine” degree of an equivalent degree following successful completion of a prescribed course of study from a school of medicine or osteopathy osteopathic medicine. AMA doc URL (View as HTML).

Comparison to "psychologist" (quoting APA web site):

Definition of "psychologist"
APA policy on the use of the title "psychologist" is contained in the General Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services, which define the term "Professional Psychologist" as follows: "Psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school." APA URL.

Anyone care to try to find an analogous definition of "biologist"?

Any of these: "biologist," "author," "writer," "science writer," "biology writer," "biology author" would be a simpler, more straightforward label to identify him. The purpose is to distinguish him from others with the same name "Jonathon Wells." The purpose is not to critique him before the article begins. Well, that may be some people's purpose, but it shouldn't be the reason for a selection of an identifier, which is normally the person's field, not what he believes. -Exucmember 04:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this before, Well doesn't do biology, he doesn't publish in peer reviewed journals and he doesn't do biology research of any sort. Calling him a biologist is inaccurate. JoshuaZ 14:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please change the title to author, or else maybe delete the article as non-notable. I also advocate lots of things but there is not a WP article about me. Steve Dufour 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? He is notable as an advocate of intelligent design. He is an author in that context. I don't in any event see how the title of being an ID advocate has anything to do with his notability. JoshuaZ 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea - we'll keep the article exactly as it is now. Raul654 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He is known to the public because of the books he has written. That's how it seems to me anyway. Steve Dufour 13:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with my changes?

I made two small changes yesterday. One to tell the readers that Icons of Evolution is Wells best known book, rather than just have the title there by itself in the intro section. The other was to say that his crusade against evolution was a part of what he feels is God's plan for his life, rather than the whole plan as was implied. I don't see what the problem was with these. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The long standing phrasing was accurate and neutral, whereas your changes promote Wells' view and added ambiguity. FeloniousMonk 15:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How does saying his book is a book promote his view? (The sentence about his plan seems fair enough either way so I will not object to that any more.) Steve Dufour 15:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two alternatives: "In Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Wells argues...." and "In his most well-known book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Wells argues..." I think the second is more reader-friendly and I don't see how it is less neutral than the first. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your version makes a claim that would need a source. It also, in my opinion, adds little of value.--Stephan Schulz 16:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "In his book, Icons..."? (I do think it was his best-known book although I have no way to prove it was. ) Steve Dufour 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about that version. We explain IoE later, so it's not really necessary, but I also don't think it hurts.--Stephan Schulz 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and put in those extra two words. I really think it makes it easier for the reader. Steve Dufour 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with FeloniousMonk's reversion.[3] It is not "puffery" to say that Icons is "his most well-known book". It may or may not be a good book, but it is Wells's most well-known book. He also removed words regarding the "plan" that were more precise, and left some sloppy wording. Roger 19:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course you disagree. Is con-pedia a little slow these days? •Jim62sch• 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "plan." I made the change based on what seemed logical to me. However, when I checked the source it really seemed to support the original wording, even if illogical. The purpose of the words "his book" was to let the reader know that that is what Icons of Evolution is before you start quoting from it. Steve Dufour 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. If the words "his most well-known" were also allowed this would tend to support the importance of the point made by the sentence. But as was pointed out, we don't have a source to prove that it is his most well-known book. Steve Dufour 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Critics and supporters agree:

"Wells is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He is best known for his book Icons of Evolution, which argues that some of the standard arguments for Darwinian science are flawed." Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: A Reply to Jonathan Wells

"One prominent member of the movement is Jonathan Wells, best known as the author of the rather ridiculous book Icons of Evolution. In the book, no case is made for Intelligent Design." Saint Gasoline: The Funhouse Mirror of Intelligent Design

"Wells is probably best known for his unveiling of some of the most common and most unsupported so-called proofs of Darwinian evolution in his groundbreaking 2000 book, Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong." Discovery Institute: Scientist Exposes Evolution’s Weaknesses in Politically Incorrect Book About Darwinism and Intelligent Design

These were pretty easy to find. -Exucmember 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and put the information back in. I hope that people will understand that saying it is well-known does not express an opinion on its quality. Steve Dufour 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the words "well-known" have been taken out again. If none of his books are well-known maybe he is not important enough for such a long article. :-) Steve Dufour 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the book cover fair-use for this article?

I just noticed the box at the top of the page. It mentions book covers as not being fair use to show what the author looks like. I think the cover would be ok in the article on the book itself, but I'm not sure about this article. Steve Dufour 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remove this from the article, along with the book cover picture:

The book's title is a reference to the famous picture "March of Progress." This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right. A version of the drawing is on the cover of the book, and Wells describes it as the "ultimate icon" of evolution.

These sentences are not about Wells. They are about the title and cover of his book. All the information can be given in the article on the book itself, if it is not already. Steve Dufour 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and transfered the paragraph to the other article. Steve Dufour 01:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been put back. Please explain why the title and cover picture of the book should be discussed in this article rather than in the article on the book itself. Do we even know that Wells picked out the picture for the cover? Steve Dufour 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wells and the Unification Church

Recent changes to the article seem to put too much importance to the relationship between Jonathan and the Unification Church (of which I am a member, BTW). Let me explain my view, as an "insider." Wells, as a college graduate and a church member, was offered a chance to attend the newly founded Unification Theological Seminary, which at that time was not yet accredited, to study "Religious Education" in preparation to becoming a church leader. Out of the first graduating class 12 students were funded by the church to go to other Universities to get their PhDs. Wells did this at Yale, as the article says. While at Yale he decided, on his own, to make "anti-Darwinism" the focus of his work. He attended UCB to get a degree in biology. This he did on his own with no direction or funding from the church. Wells's essay, which the article cites, was written to fellow church members to justify his decision. In it he compares his anti-Darwinism with the church's long standing anti-Marxism. Well, the UC's anti-Marxism involved thousands of people and millions of dollars spent over 30 or 40 years. Wells anti-Darwinism was just him alone, with no help from the church. I don't expect to be cited as a source by the article but I think editors should be aware of this information. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Steven, I appreciate your comments, but it is about as originally researched as you can get! Assuming you are stating nothing but the facts (as you know them), how can we source this with verifiable and reliable sources? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Together with Darwinism, communist theory, based on materialism, also lacks the element of purpose. God's creation embodies the purpose of true love, whereas Communism posits only struggle and destruction. Thus, it is destined eventually to disappear.

- Sun Myung Moon[4]
This would appear to give considerable theological authority to Wells' equation of 'Darwinism' with communism. Additionally, as he has taught on a number of occasions at Unification Theological Seminary, it would seem that this interpretation has not been disavowed by the Unification Church. Hrafn42 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To answer both, you can easily find tons of material on the UC's opposition to communism and Marxism. Although it is true that Rev. Moon has criticised "Darwinism" (whatever that is), he, and the church, have done almost nothing to oppose it. A search for that will only tell you about Wells. Again, I am not proposing what I am telling you be included in the article. It's just something to be aware of as you edit it. Steve Dufour 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I could be totally wrong and Wells a much better follower of Rev. Moon than the rest of us. :-) Steve Dufour 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

p.p.s. I 100% agree that the information of Wells's church membership and his statements about Rev. Moon's comments being a source of inspiration for him should be included in the article. That's part of what makes him interesting. Steve Dufour 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning 'Darwinism' (and "whatever that is" is exactly what Wells has "dedicated his life to destroying") in the same breath as communism is a clear indication that it is considered to be an evil of a similar magnitude. One does not generally mention Nazism and chewing-gum-on-the-sidewalk in the same breath for instance. This would appear to give Wells fairly clear theological sanction for his crusade. Hrafn42 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is Wells's point of view. It should be mentioned in the article. Anyway part of the reason for the church's opposition to Marxism is that the Marxists were doing a lot of really bad things, not just that Marxism is an incorrect theory. Also I didn't mean to imply that Wells is not a good church member or that his views are rejected by the church. It's just that the article, and also some of the sources, seem to imply that he is getting much more support from us than he really is. Steve Dufour 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So you claim, but you've yet to provide any substantiation of this - WP:SOAP. Hrafn42 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was not saying that my views should be included in the article; I just wanted to let people know. We UC members rarely criticise each other in public, so I don't expect that any criticism of Jonathan from church members could be found on the Internet. Steve Dufour 13:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve: if it is not about what should, or should not, be in the article, then it should not be on this talk page. If you want to have a private disagreement with Wells on matters of theology and/or church priorities, then kindly do so on your own user page. Hrafn42 14:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing Wells. I have no idea if he checks out his WP article. My concern is that the article is giving an inaccurate impression of Wells's relationship with the church. I would like to see the article give honest, neutral information about Wells. I think he does have an interesting story. I don't plan on doing any more editing on the article myself for a while. Steve Dufour 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve: please either cite reliable sources for this supposed inaccuracy, or take this elsewhere. You have given us nothing that even remotely resembles actionable, in that it has been very vague and completely OR. Hrafn42 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the only argument that I could come up with for the non-existence of a conspiracy between the church and Wells to destroy evolution would be considered an Argument from silence. :-) Steve Dufour 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Except we don't have silence, we have Sun Myung Moon's own words condemning "Darwinism". Nor do we have any accusation of "a conspiracy" - merely WP:RS reports of UC backing of Wells. Again, bring us something actionable, or take it to your user page. Hrafn42 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The action I was suggesting was to add the two words "at Yale" to the sentence about the church's funding his graduate studies. Sorry I didn't mention this before. Steve Dufour 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the well-cited facts that Wells is a UC member and a graduate of the church's seminary, and that he decided to dedicate his life to attacking evolution based on some of Rev. Moon's comments about it should be mentioned in the article. As I said, that is part of what makes him an interesting subject for an article. Steve Dufour 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is as far from original research as a person can get. In fact it is not research at all but simple facts. There is no reason not to include it in the article if it can be referenced in some way. Steve: remember that the internet is not the only reference there is. In fact in is mostly junk and if you can find any reference at all it may be used. That means any book, report, statement on paper from the church, anything at all which states the views as you think they should be clearly. There merely has to be reference to it and if someone asks how they would verify it that is not your problem as long as there is a possibility for someone to verify it. But then the information in the article already should also be adequitely referenced and there the burden falls on the person using that reference to have it clearly state what the article claims. Another concern is the template of Sun Myung Moon which keeps popping up. This IS Jonathan Wells and NOT Sun Myung Moon. We don't need to have the guys whole life on his own dedicated template on this page. A simple link to him if he needs to be mentioned at all would be enough and leave his life in his article. 196.207.32.37 23:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The change which I suggested was to say that the church funded his studies at Yale, rather then let people think that it also funded his studies at UCB, which were more directly related to his anti-evolution crusade. I didn't mean to imply that there is a rift between Wells and the church. As for the Sun Myung Moon template, that is the work of an unusually enthusiastic editor with a special interest in "cults" and "conspiracies" and that kind of thing. (So not the work of the WP ID team.) Steve Dufour 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are sources that say otherwise, and they are at least as credible as you are. Since we have contradictory information from unrealiable sources, the article should stick to factual statements. "Graduate studies" is an uncontested fact. "Yale not UCB" is not uncontested. Steve Dufour is free to claim "secret knowledge", but unless he presents some documents to back up his claim he is far less credible than a frontpager at DailyKos. If Dufour is the "insider" he claims to be, then he should be able to back up his claims. Wikipedia articles should not be changed to reflect "secret knowledge" held by "insiders", especially when these claims are made in the absence of any supporting evidence. 66.188.11.15 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the DailyKos got its information from Wells's essay, which says that the church gave him funding to attend Yale to get a PhD in religious history but says nothing about his biology degree at UCB. Steve Dufour 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that Dkos constitutes a reliable source for this purpose, so only including Yale may make sense. Alternatively, we can say at Yale and then note that there are contradictory claims about the UCB degree. JoshuaZ 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not say anywhere that there was a rift. In any church the position of its members and the church is rarely the same. I still get met regularly with the statement that the Catholic Church supports evolution when the CC's only official position ever has been that it does not oppose it so I know about the importance to get these things right. I don't know what UCB you are referring to but the DailyKos does say they funded his education at Berkeley. If this is incorrect and they got their information from his essay then his essay should be referenced instead which would solve the problem. 196.207.32.37 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already put the two words "at Yale" into the sentence a number of times, only to have them quickly removed. Steve Dufour 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed above that we also have the Salon source which definitely is reliable. Do you have a source that says it was only Yale? JoshuaZ 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the Salon article says about it:

" Jonathan Wells, author of the influential intelligent-design book, "Icons of Evolution," has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from Berkeley and another in religious studies from Yale. A member of the Unification Church whose education was bankrolled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, he's written that he sought his degrees specifically to fight the teaching of evolution. As he put it in an article on the Moonie Web site True Parents, "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father [Sun Myung Moon] chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.""

As you can see, Wells says that he was chosen to enter "a PhD program" in 1978. It seems to be assumed that the church paid for this. In my opinion this is probably true. Wells says nothing about the funding of his second PhD at Berkeley. Is there any other possible source for this information? Steve Dufour 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Salon article says that his "education was bankrolled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon", without any limitation placed on that claim (in spite of explicitly mentioning both his PhDs in the previous sentence), the implication seems to be that both PhDs were paid for. This is further supported by the fact that Wells' bio up to that point does not give any indication of him having independent financial resources sufficient to pay for a Berkeley PhD on his own. Hrafn42 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How would the writer of the Salon article have found that out, except by what Wells says in his essay? Anyway, I didn't think this would be such a point of contention in the article. If you want to just say the church funded some of his education I wouldn't have a problem with that. However, I would prefer that the article just lets Wells's words speak for themselves on his motivation for what he is doing.Steve Dufour 16:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they asked Wells, perhaps they asked Berkeley (that's what journalists get paid to do after all, ask questions). Does it matter? We have a verifiable and reliable source saying that Moon paid for his education, with a clear implication that this included both PhDs. This is sufficient for inclusion, particularly given the lack of visible alternative sources of funding. Either put up a contradictory verifiable and reliable source, or let the matter rest. Hrafn42 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Would the University have answered this kind of question if asked? Steve Dufour 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, given that I have a WP:RS], I don't need to know.

I went ahead and changed it to say that the church funded some of his education. That is certainly true and the difference of opinion about UCB is not mentioned. Steve Dufour 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So I noticed. And no, it is most certainly nottrue -- the article does not say "some"! It says that Moon "bankrolled" (i.e. paid for) Wells' education. I have corrected the article to accurately reflect this. Unless you can find a WP:RS to back up your position, please stop arguing for and editing on this point. Hrafn42 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your latest version is an improvement over what it was before. We don't know all the details but I don't think most readers would understand that to mean the church paid every last dollar of all his educational expenses. Steve Dufour 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jonathan Wells, Unification Church marriage expert

In Unificationist Photos from 1997 and 1998, Wells is described as a "Unification Church marriage expert." This is after he left the UTS in 1996, and implies an on-going, and fairly influential, role in Unification Theology. The site also has an article by him on Marriage and the Family: the Unification Blessing. Hrafn42 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please include the information in the article. Again, I am not questioning Wells's status as a respected member of the church. It is just the small point about the amount of support the church has given (very little) for his work. Steve Dufour 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As was discussed above, Wells is known to the public as the author of a book. If he was just an advocate of something he would probably not be notable enough for a WP article in the first place. Steve Dufour 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted what the guidelines would be if the shoe was on the other foot. If Richard Dawkins was to be appended would it say Biologist, Author, Scientist, or what. If it is one of those instead of "evolution advocate" the same standard should be applied here. Anything else would be POV pushing and an attempt to discredit. If id is not to be ackwoledged as a science then the formal terms of scientist or because he is more known as an author that should be applied here. 196.207.32.37 21:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the current article name Raul654 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's notable as an author of books that advocate intelligent design. ornis (t) 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• What notable books has Wells written that don't advocate ID? He is notable for his advocacy of intelligent design. If someone is looking for this Jonathan Wells among all the others, what words are they most likely to use to describe him? Something related to creationism/intelligent design. Only Scott Hatfield distinguishes him by calling him Reverend Wells. So: Keep the article where it is. 66.188.11.15 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not what most people think of when they think "author". Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well he does write a lot of fiction. ornis (t) 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Change I favor just labeling him a "biologist". He has some controversial views, and he is probably even wrong on a few things, but it is just petty and vindictive to deny that he is a biologist. I also don't think that "intelligent design advocate" is very descriptive, and his best-known book, Icons of Evolution, is not even on the subject of intelligent design. Roger 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And I favour just calling him a fraud, but there you have it. ornis (t) 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Change It does not matter what his views are. He can be referenced as an author and that is what it should say. 196.207.32.37 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It has been suggested by others that our anon friend is likely Wells' fellow DI Fellow, David Berlinski. Appropriate weight should be given considering the DI's campaigns here and elsewhere to spin and inflate the credentials of their Fellows. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep: Wells is not known as a biologist. Wells is not known as an author, except in the concept of intelligent design tracts. Wells is best known and renowned as a supporter of intelligent design. If one wanted to be more specific, one could distnguish him further as Jonathon Wells (moonie intelligent design supporter). Would you prefer that?--Filll 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep: the argument for moving is specious. Jonathan Wells only has notability as an ID advocate, with his writing as part of that advocacy. This writing is insufficiently voluminous or respected for him to have notability as an author independent of that. His output as a biologist is so small, and in journals so fringe, as to be virtually non-existent. He is an ID-advocate who writes, nothing more. Hrafn42 05:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the name There is nothing unneutral about calling somebody an advocate. Redddogg 12:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Shall we boldly change the names of the articles on Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill and Stephen Hawking to Benjamin Franklin (author), Winston Churchill (author) and Stephen Hawking (authors) simply because they wrote books? Please, the argument raised by Steve and supported by Schlafley is nonsensical and irrational in the extreme. •Jim62sch• 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• At Jim62sch: why not then just refer to him as Jonathan Wells when that is your argument? 196.207.32.37 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We have multiple people by the name Jonathan Wells, so we need to give them a descriptor. Simply labeling this article "Jonathan Wells" would not work. JoshuaZ 20:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's OK, anon missed the bloody point anyway. The point was that author is hardly very descriptive. •Jim62sch• 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the name. ID is NOT science. Poppypetty 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I suppose he is an author, but he's not known for that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All of his writing has been to promote ID. He's hung his hat on promoting ID, not on writing. BTW, just how long do you intend to continue trying to subtly white wash this, your fellow church member's, article? How long do you think the community should reasonably put up with the disruption? FeloniousMonk 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a waste of time. Wells is pro-ID, and that's what he is famous four. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If his books were not well-known and he was only an employee of the Discovery Institute he probably wouldn't be notable enough for a WP article. Steve Dufour 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Steve: I am getting very sick of this same tired, fallacious argument. Wells' writing is insufficient (in both volume and substance) for him to be notable as an author independently of his advocacy. However, combining his advocacy writing, his membership in the DI, and his general advocacy work on behalf of ID-Creationism (most recently pumping the DI's Creationist textbook, Explore Evolution at Biola University), he is notable as an ID-advocate. Please do not regurgitate this argument again. Hrafn42 02:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 12:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Jim62sch's comments made at 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC) You're both dodging the question. Exactly, there are multiple people so Benjamin Franklin, Winston Churchill, and Stephen Hawking does not apply here and simply divert the issue. There is no requirement for names to be descriptive, only that they are unambiguous. So why not change the name of George W. Bush to George Bush (president) then if this is your standard? A proper unbiased name for the article would be John Corrigan Wells as Jonathan doesn't even seem to be his real name.

FeloniousMonk: Your attempts to discredit me is not very flattering and doesn't do your case any good. Rather stick to what you know, which is inserting evolutionist code in articles. ;) 196.207.32.37 15:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

What does this mean? "Wells worked for the Unification Seminary until 1996. On his leaving there the seminary president, David S.C. Kim, said he had made a great contribution to its the development. " •Jim62sch• 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It was some info I found on Wells' connection to the Unification Church. Sorry if it was hard to understand. Too many pronouns maybe. Redddogg 07:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it then! •Jim62sch• 15:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence could be improved

This drawing, by Rudolph Zallinger, was published in the Time-Life book Early Man in 1970 and shows a sequence of primates walking from left to right, starting with an ape on the left, progressing through a series of hominids, and finishing with a modern Cro-Magnon male on the right.

If you check out the articles you will see that apes include humans and extinct human ancestors; hominids include gorillas, chimpanzees, and modern humans as well as human ancestors; and the term Cro-Magnon is used to refer to modern-type humans living in Europe from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. Steve Dufour 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think most people will understand what is being said. Redddogg 15:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wells' or Wells's?

I learned in school that a name ending in s should take 's for a possesive, with the exception of Jesus' and Moses' which are traditional. The rules might have changed since then however. Steve Dufour 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you learnt wrong:[5]

Singular possessive

...
Words ending with s, z or x generally omit the "s."

Dr. Seuss' sense of humor

Hrafn42 03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, he didn't. From The Elements of Style:

Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's: Charles's friend, Burns's poems

From Perdue.edu: [6]

add 's to the singular form of the word (even if it ends in -s)

I've generally heard the Strunk book used as the definitive grammar guide, but that may not be universal. eaolson 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Strunk is hardly definitive, Fowler is at least as widely regarded (but I have yet to come across its opinion, if it has one, on this issue). There seems to be a wide range of opinion on this issue: [7][8][9][10] Hrafn42 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Either are generally considered acceptable. I prefer Wells', as Wells's looks a bit odd to me - but that might just be me being used to British styles of spelling.

As long as it's consistent, I wouldn't change it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That said, WP:MOS says:

Possessives of singular nouns ending in s should generally maintain the additional s after the apostrophe. However, if a form without an s after the apostrophe is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with “Achilles’ heel” and “Jesus’ tears”.

So... Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits explained

I just want to explain my recent edits.[11] I started out with some basic copy-editing and fixing some poorly worded statements regarding Wells and the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Here is what I've tried to do in the last 24 hours:

• "Linearize" his Biography. Presumably after much over-editing, the section was choppy and unclear. Also, regarding his work as a post-doc, no RS that I could find counters Wells' claims that he was a post-doc at Berkeley. I left in the claim that this position was unpaid for and promoted by Johnson, but I marked it as alleged.
• Change references of "Father" to [Reverend Sun Myung Moon]. This is because "Father" is highly ambiguous to anyone outside UC; or rather, it refers to other entities outside the UC. Also, Moon should always be prefixed with his title, Reverend, as is standard journalistic practice.
• Convert past perfect into simple perfect. Past perfect is generally unneeded, except in one particular paragraph, which really ought to be assimilated into previous paragraphs.
• Rework the HIV-AIDS section and related lead item. The phrase scientific community is in this case, flatly wrong. By the late 90's, a good number of reputable scientists in the field expressed their doubts about the strict causal relationship. Even if it were 100% clear now that no co-factors are involved or even if a cure came out last month, the fact that someone signed up as doubters to a 13+ year-old (at the time) hypothesis, does not make that person a denialist or pseudoscientist (by itself). However, one is free to, and should in my opinion, draw the conclusion that these individuals have little credibility as scientists. Therefore, I have simply removed the unnecessary sentiment that Wells and Johnson are engaging in some sort of "denialism" of the "scientific community" and left in the clearly factual statements.

--Otheus 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I say there's any improvement with that: Your opinion as to the scientific community's past views on the causal relationship of HIV-AIDS is just that, unsupported opinion, and the removal of that view being a form of denialism is a white wash. HIV-AIDS denialism is one of the text cases of denialism. I've reverted. If you want to "linearize" his biography still, we can discuss it. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions on denialism are also just that. There are no textbooks describing HIV-AIDS as "denialism". Oh, that's right! Now I remember! That's what got me in your shitbook in the first place. I objected to "your" denialism article being OR in the first place and nominated for the article AfD. In retrospect, my nom for AfD was in error; it should have been merged with denial.

Look, labeling a view as Denialism is a form of prejudice, prerogative, and even mild slander -- it points to the motivation of the person holding the view. Unless you quote a 3rd party as saying Wells is engaging in denialism, you have to leave it out per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. However that his views are in contradiction to "scientific community" is clear, and so I reinserted a factual statement to help the reader understand this point.

Now, about my other edits, you described them as "no improvement". If you want to revert the "white washed" version again, please revert only that section, and try not to blankly undo many of my other, quality edits, which in fact, corrected English usage, grammar, and improved upon the quality of the article. Thank you. --Otheus 07:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Jounralistic style usually does not allow for adding to direct quotes -- replacing a pronoun for clarity is permitted in certain contexts. Thus, it's not good style to change "Father" into "Father" [Reverend Sun Myung Moon]; it's preferable to simply replace "Father" with the better-known designation. --Otheus 08:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC) The WP:MoS specifies that quoted ambiguities may be resolved by inserting a clarification within brackets.[12] But because the WP:MoS is not very exacting on this point, I checked the Chicago Manual of Style, and it affirms this case clearly.[13]free 30-day subscription required: "Insertions may be made in quoted material to clarify an ambiguity...." --Otheus 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

One small point, we UC members refer to Rev. Moon as "Father" among ourselves. I think most of us would prefer to leave Wells's words the way he wrote them. Steve Dufour 15:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I correct myself above, on whether or not "Father" should be retained. On leaving the words "the way he wrote them", I hope you do agree that the bracketed insertion is necessary to avoid the ambiguity that the rest of the Christian world might see as a reference to God-the-Father. --Otheus 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've yet once again fixed the more obvious problems with otheus' recent edits, mainly in the form of subtle white washing, but have left in those that are actual improvements. As for otheus' objection to denials of the HIV/AIDS connection being linked to denialism, there's no shortage of notable sources saying that AIDS reappraisal is a form of denialism, so I've added one; I have a dozen more for anyone who doubts.

Also, otheus needs to stop peppering articles with his personal comments. What if everyone did this? FeloniousMonk 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The personal comments are ridiculous as are the attempts to turn the article into a hagiography. •Jim62sch• 18:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I wish everyone did put such comments in the text; it would save a lot of confusion and back-peddling later. It's a lot more useful than, say, reverting 30 changes with an edit summary of "reverted minor white washing[sic]". I will continue to employ them, unless someone can point out some good reasons for me not too. Leave a comment here. --Otheus 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

First, a wholehearted thank-you for not again en masse reverting my edits. Second, some of my edits did have problems, there is no doubt. Third, I am not "white washing" anything, and that is where I will continue to have a beef with you. Let's just say that I'm just as passionately against the slandering of an individual as a "denier" for having a view that runs contrary to consensus, as I'm sure anyone here would be against the use of the N-word to denote tendentious editors who happen to have prominently displayed on their User page an icon of a black man. I will continue to neutralize attempts to slander individuals holding contrarian views as having psychological or mental problems.--Otheus 22:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth is an affirmative defense against slander/libel. If a group is verifiably engaged in denialism, noting such is not slander to note it, attributed or unattributed, as long as WP:RS and WP:V sources exist. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you don't have a referencing saying that these individuals are engaging in "denialism", nor do you have a reliable source which says that everyone who signed the AIDS reappraisal petition is engaging in denialism, nor would a reliable source claim that these men are engaging in denialism because they would be most likely engaging of slander/libel. You can quote someone as saying it is their opinion that these men are engaging in some form of denial; however you cannot say that of the entire "scientific community". Further, while you should cite a secondary source saying the HIV-AIDS link has been proven conclusively, but if you do so, please include it only if its publication date is before these men signed the reappraisal form. Otherwise, readers will be misled. --Otheus 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk has no reference of his claim of denialism which is just that, a claim to discredit and can be considered slanderous. His only reliable reference is something which was signed +14 years ago which only states "It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken." There is no factual reference for HIV/AIDS denialism and signing a highly ambiguous declaration asking for a reevaluation does not constitute denialism which again I stress was 14 years ago when much less was known and AIDS was only an untested hypothesis. 196.207.32.37 16:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: there are people who suffer from the symptoms of AIDS who do not havea known HIV antibodies or viral particles, so the HIV/AIDS connection may not be as strong as the scientific community believes. However, it is still correct to say that the HIV/AIDS connection is the scientific consensus, so his views to the contrary are notable and should be stated appropriately. That being said, I believe FM's version is closer to meeting our WP:NPOV policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any refs for that? •Jim62sch• 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not recently, I'm afraid. But the rhertoric hasn't changed since the discovery of HIV-2 and other "recently" discovered HIV cognates. It's true that people have died from the AIDS (as then defined) who did not test positive for HIV, but tests have been continually improving.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that he has done something for the cause of AIDS denialism besides signing the one petition? Steve Dufour 20:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Uncited opinion on evolution

Please stop removing cited material that Jonathan Wells rejects darwinian evolution. Wells' own words describes darwinian evolution and not evolution and even names it as such. 196.207.32.37 17:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He also calls it "biological evolution" -- just plain "evolution" is therefore not an unreasonable paraphrase. Hrafn42 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Many people mean many things by evolution including the theory of evolution. There is no support that Wells rejects evolution per sé, but Wells' own words which is referenced state very clearly darwinian evolution and Wells also gives a description of the theory of evolution which is what he rejects. Darwinian evolution is therefor the correct term from Wells' own book. 196.207.32.37 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wells explicitly rejects "biological evolution". What meaningful form of "evolution" does that leave him potentially accepting? "Evolution", plain and unqualified stays. Hrafn42 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you are dancing around his words I will state them here: "Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It claims that you and I are descendants of ape-like ancestors, and that they in turn came from still more primitive animals...much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?"

Wells describes what biological evolution is and qualifies it as a theory and describes the theory of evolution thereafter. Then goes on to Darwinian evolution and to Darwin. Sorry but you don't dictate what stays. Your claim is unreferenced and according to policy must go. 196.207.32.37 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wells misrepresents "biological evolution" in that it is a fact as well as a theory. In Icons Wells rejects these facts as well as the theory: specifically: phylogenetics, homology, transitional fossils (such as Archaeopteryx) and adaptive radiation (such as Darwin's finches). Thus he rejects the facts of evolution as well as the (Darwinian) theory of evolution. Hrafn42 03:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one fact of evolution and that is that things adapt. How they adapt and to what extend they can adapt are theories and hypotheses. Will you please provide us with a reliable reference and not merely an opinion that he rejects the fact of evolution when his books deal with theories and hypotheses and he even describes (his own words as a reference) what he considers these to be. There is no mention in there that he rejects the notion that things evolve. If you could please provide us with a reference that he rejects it as you claim it would be very helpful. 196.207.32.37 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he rejects "facts", either. However, he rejects what he called biological evolution, which is not the same as what (most) ID'ers call Darwinism, according the quote above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that the article in its current form states that he rejects evolution per sé. That is simply not based on referenced facts. We have his direct words what he considers biological evolution to be and it is the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution that he describes. He then also states that it raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. There is absolutely no reference in there that he rejects the notion that things evolve which is known as evolution. 196.207.32.37 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not require us to parrot his euphemisms or attempts at framing. In any event, if "biological evolution" isn't the same as Evolution I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 01:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wells rejection of these facts is detailed at Icons of Evolution. Hrafn42 02:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you then provide references as asked that he rejects the fact of evolution? Note the singular and not plural as there is only one notable fact in evolution (that things change) and many notions which are only theories. 196.207.32.37 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No 196.207.32.37, I will not play your nit-picking word games. Wells is on record rejecting important facts of evolution. There is not "only one notable fact in evolution" - if phylogenetics, homology, transitional fossils and adaptive radiation are not "notable facts" then why did Wells devote large tracts of Icons of Evolution to rejecting them? Hrafn42 03:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks for admitting that you have no reliable sources for this notion. And just for your informational purposes you are mentioning theories, not facts. 196.207.32.38 23:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up since that is exactly what Hrafn42 is doing. Wikipedia policy requires content to be referenced. We have Wells' own words where he rejects the theory of evolution and terms it Darwinian evolution. Anything else is pure conjecture and should be removed immediately from Wikipedia in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:3RR#libel. 196.207.32.37 02:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a great big no. Wikipedia policy does not require us to use euphemisms. In any event, even if we did alter (and even if there were a BLP issue) it would go to biological evolution, not darwinian evolution, since that's a term he's used which is less of a euphemism. And if we did that, we need to wikilink, and that would link to, gasp, evolution. Now if you want to change it to [[evolution|biological evolution]] I for one won't stop you but that seems unecessarily wordy. JoshuaZ 02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion does not dictate article content. Wells uses the term Darwinian evolution, it is referenced and that is all that matters. Anything else that refers to evolution as fact is unreferenced and a poorly disguised attempt to discredit and is a BLP issue. 196.207.32.37 02:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeating something more times doesn't make it more true. JoshuaZ 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, repeating the false notion that he rejects evolution does not make it true. 196.207.32.37 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And your isolated opinion cannot overturn the consensus on this article, that Wells has rejected evolution per se, not merely the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Hrafn42 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the comments again as it IS NOT an isolated opinion and "consensus" is devided. 196.207.32.37 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Three sources are already provided here that ID proponents are playing a shell game and mean evolution when they refer to "darwinism", "darwinian evolution" and "biological evolution." We're not going to be drawn in to playing their game too. Next. Odd nature 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't mind sharing these alleged sources verifying that Wells means evolution as you claim and not the theory of evolution. We have a very reliable source stating not only terms but an actual description of what he rejects -> the theory of evolution. 196.207.32.37 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I happened to see J. Wells on CSPAN2 last weekend, promoting his latest book. He most emphatically said that he accepts evolution, and was criticizing Darwinism. It is certainly false to say that "Wells has rejected evolution per se". Roger 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• The evolution/Darwinism canard is a favorite of creationists to make it sound like evolution is unproven and something that it isn't. This distinction doesn't exist anywhere except in creationist literature and rhetoric. eaolson 03:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What we have is that creationists like Wells often accept a heavily watered down and equivocal version of evolution, generally approximating to "microevolution" (but often containing some form of implicit but unacknowledged macroevolution in order to get the immense variety of current species from the 'created kinds' of Genesis) but reject the facts underlying our knowledge of macroevolution. This is clearly what Wells is doing by rejecting phylogenetics, homology, transitional fossils and adaptive radiation. Hrafn42 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC}

I am not interested about your opinion on creationists. 196.207.32.38 23:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well has stated (as per one of the sources) that he rejects "biological evolution". That's evolution plain and simple. No fancy little "Darwinian" in front of that. Enough already. JoshuaZ 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And when all else fails use contextomy It goes on to say: "Biological evolution is the theory that all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived in the distant past. It doesn't take interpretation to know that this is the theory of evolution spelled out and not the fact of evolution. 196.207.32.38 23:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, not the old creationist canard, "Evolution is just a theory." Please review Theory#Science before spouting off about things you don't understand. eaolson 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, coming from a group that doesn't know what is theory and therefore open to criticism and what is fact I take that as a compliment. If you think it is a fact then I would like to see you prove it and win a noble prize for the effort. The TOE is only a theory and the facts are not disputed, fact! Now deal with it. 196.207.32.37 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eaolson, this happens all the time. I barely even read his creationist rantings. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more to say? I am still waiting for the references by the way. 196.207.32.37 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relative importance of article's subject

I happened to come across this article yesterday: Frans de Waal. Dr. de Waal is a primatologist who was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world this year. He seems to be at least 100 times more important than Jonathan. Yet his article is about one tenth as long. Steve Dufour 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, if you want to take some time off to add to the Frans de Waal article, I'm sure nobody here would object. :) Hrafn42 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I might do that. I added another quote and made some minor corrections in grammer already. He is quite an interesting guy. Steve Dufour 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

title is wrong?

It seems from the article here that Welles is more of an Aids denier that an ID advocate. Is he really more well know for his stance on HIV or for his stance on Darwinism? Tickclock 13:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No. He has written a number of books denying evolution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the first couple of paragraphs tell about his anti-HIV stance. Someone not knowing about him would think that that is his main claim to fame and therefore the title should be AIDS-denier. Tickclock 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it tells (in approximately equal proportions) about both his anti-evolution work and his AIDS-denial. Read it again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We could just move the article to John Corrigan Wells. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Or rename it Jonathan Wells (anti-science advocate) Redddogg 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Welles really as well know for his stance on AIDs as his position on evolution? There are 3 sentences on each. Is this according to wiki rules? Tickclock 13:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably depends what community one is in. However, we see from the title of the article itself and the first paragraph, what Wells has written more about. To satisfy you, we could add more descriptive material about the anti-science pro-creationist activities of this moonie.--Filll 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just seems to me he is more known for his books criticizing Darwinian evolution rather than his stance on HIV. You feel he is anti-science and a moonie. Maybe that should be emphasized. Does he really say that evolution should not be taught or just taught differently? Tickclock 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you just trolling? He advocates teaching that evolution is wrong.--Filll 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How can evolution be wrong when it happens everyday. He must be referring to something else. Do you have a source or cite? Tickclock 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I'm a "moonie" and I'm pro-evolution and anti-AIDS. Steve Dufour 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Name change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I've nominated the article to be renamed "Jonathan Wells (anti-science advocate)". I think this better expresses his notability for both anti-evolution and AIDS denial. Redddogg 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. He is not notable for AIDS denial. Also his criticism of the teaching of evolution seems to be based more on religion than science. This has all been discussed on this page before. Steve Dufour 03:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: he's primarily known for his anti-evolution advocacy, his anti-AIDS advocacy is far less prominent (and such secondary crankery is quite common, both in the IDM & cranks generally), and "anti-science" makes him sound like a Luddite. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As above.--Filll 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I took off the nomination since it seems like the consensus is against it. Thank you for the consideration however. Redddogg 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

minor changes

I just finished a few minor changes in wording to the article. I wasn't trying to add or remove any info, just make it easier to read. I hope there are no problems. Redddogg 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Leavenworth

Wells spent 18 months in military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas. That would be about 2% of his life, depending on how long he lives. Why can not a couple of words be added to let the readers know where and what Leavenworth is? Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how anybody's understanding of Wells would be enhanced by the knowledge that Leavenworth is in Kansas. That it was Levenworth where Wells was incarcerated is only marginally relevant (unless you can demonstrate some unique effect Wells being in Levenworth, as compared to some other prison, had on his life), the location of Levenworth is completely irrelevant (in that it would not have made the slightest bit of difference if it had been located in some other state) -- as would be the who/what Fort Levenworth is named after, the name of the warden while Wells was there, etc, etc, et bloody cetera. Anybody with an interest in such trivia can find out quite easily simply by following wikilinks. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it adds interest to the article for readers. Then they don't have to go to other stories to find out the info. Besides, the article already says he drove a taxi in New York and went to college in Berkeley. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How much of Kansas would he have seen in his 18 months? As I said, it would not have made the slightest bit of difference if it had been located in some other state. It's therefore about as interesting as watching paint dry. And you didn't answer my question: "Please explain how anybody's understanding of Wells would be enhanced by the knowledge that Leavenworth is in Kansas." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose is to tell the story of Wells's life this would be one part of it. I would think that being in military prison for 18 months would have some effect on a person. BTW Napoleon's imprisonment on St. Helena is covered in his article, although it had no importance to his notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the article and I see that the words "military prison" have been added. This takes care of the truncated feeling that, to me anyway, the sentence had before. "Kansas" is not so important. No more objections from me on this. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you being purposefully dense Steve? I am not objecting to mention of him "being in military prison for 18 months" -- just to the pointless, irrelevant bit of trivia that the prison was in Kansas. St Helena is a very isolated island in the south Atlantic -- even more isolated back in the days of sail. It is thus a significant part of the story. Kansas is a flat state in the middle of the US. It thus adds nothing to the story -- as it would not have made any significant difference to Wells if his imprisonment had been in Missouri, Nebraska or Oklahoma (or probably any other state in the continental US). I likewise have no objection to the inclusion of "military prison" -- though it seems obvious that the army would not be incarcerating him in a holiday resort. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is only slightly longer than Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)#The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design -- it thus seems to serve no purpose to have both. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support That would be fine with me. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • RE: IoE cover -- this is off-topic -- please start a new section if you wish to argue this point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • doneSteve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Additional support The book seems to be part of a series. This would tend, it seems to me, to decrease its notability. I am sure that every book in the "...for Dummies" series does not have its own article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I notice that the section says that this was his second major book. I don't think it is anywhere near as important as Icons. Could the word "major" be taken out? Or did he write some "minor" books? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that it rates far higher on Amazon rank than IoE (13,396 compared with 24,762), I think you'd have to come up with some substantiation as to why it isn't "anywhere near as important as Icons". As far as I can tell, these two books + The Design of Life‎ are the only ones that Wells has authored -- so "second book" isn't too unreasonable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never read any of them. I was kind of thinking that these type of book series are mainly repeating information that is already out there, while Icons expressed Wells's original ideas and had quite a bit of impact in the Intelligent Design debate (or so I understand). BTW shouldn't the third book be mentioned in the article as well? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the list of books he wrote. He is only a co-author. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Book cover picture

Please think about taking the information on the cover picture of Icons of Evolution out of this article, as I suggested before. That is duplicated on Icons's article, and has very little to do with Wells directly. He probably didn't draw the picture that is on his book and we don't know for sure if he even picked it out. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the only illustration for this article currently, and the cover of what is arguably Wells' most notable work. That it is the cover illustration for his book is prima facie evidence of his willing association with it. I know of no WP:RS showing him disavowing this cover illustration, rebutting this point. Your point that "we don't know for sure if he even picked it out" is thus a very weak one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not acceptable fair use in this article, in my opinion. It's only acceptable in the article about the book (or here, if the book were to be merged here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the info on the picture doesn't tell us much about Wells. Nothing is even asserted. On the other hand, it is mildly interesting in the article on the book itself. If you want to merge the two articles together I will not object. He is best known as its author; and he, the book, and the whole Intelligent Design movement are greatly over-covered here on WP, relative to their real importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is very little chance of the articles being merged, as both articles are extensive & well-cited. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is acceptable Free Use of the image -- particularly as the section explicitly discusses how this image is the basis of the title of the book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But this article is about Wells, not the cover of his book. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that many articles contain pictures of things that are not themselves the subject of the article, but are related to that subject, your comment would appear to be a non sequitor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the picture and the information on it are already found in the article on the book itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that, in my personal experience, authors rarely have any say in what appears on the cover. The publisher selects both the illustrator (often with input from the author) and theme (rarely with input from the author). I can't prove this, so it may constitute WP:OR, but I'm sure the publisher's "standard contract" notes that the author has absolutely no say as to the illustration. Unless there is a WP:RS that that illustration inspired the author, it shouldn't appear in this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the picture and the discussion of it from this article. They are still found on Icons of Evolution. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I undid that move. Use of the pic is fine per the Fair Use guidelines as I read them. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it fair? The picture is copyrighted. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious to some, obscure to others

Felonious Monk wrote in an edit summary:

rv obvious npov, undue weight issues. was this a wp:point attempt?

If it's obvious, then with a sentence or two you can explain it. In what way have I violated NPOV or introduced an undue weight issue?

And I have not the slightest idea what you mean by wp:point. I came here only because of your remarks about Dufour at COI.

I am trying to present a balanced picture of Wells:

1. His POV and aims
2. His opponents' POV (and if I can figure them out) their aims as well

Isn't this the very definition of WP:NPOV - unless it's changed since the last time I read that policy page?

• to describe all points of view fairly

One POV is that of Wells: evolution education misuses examples. The other (majority?) POV is that of scientists and others who support evolution against ID: that Wells is full of beans, fertilizer and other smelly bucolic items. ;-)

I don't see how pointing out the dispute between Wells and his opponents violates NPOV or even constitutes undue weight. Is giving his side of the story by definition undue weight, because he disagrees with (1) you or (2) 98% of scientists?

I thought explaining a minority view held by a significant proponent was permitted by WP:WEIGHT. I'll go reread it and see if I've made an error. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, considering others have recently raised WP:COI concerns over you and Steve Dufour editing articles of your fellow church members (this one specifcially) and your history of disrupting this and other ID articles resulting in you being on arbcom probation for biased editing and disruption, I suggest you not edit this article moving forward. The community has had more than enough replying to your tendentious talk page antics and fixing inaccurate and biased changes to these articles. The character of your edits to the article today and the nature and purpose of your query here are detailed in depth at your arbitration ruling page, and are clearly violation of WP:POINT since we've been over this with you here many times already in the recent and distant past. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of answering any of my questions, you impugn my character. I wish you would assume good faith instead. I await a substantive reply to my questions about your deletion of my changes. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist, forgive me for being more blunt with you than usual, but we've been over all this with you several times in the past at this article. As for specific issues with your edits, they were so far over the top making Wells seem silly that they appear WP:POINTy. You've used this method, overemphasizing the opposite of your viewpoint to extreme levels to make a point, many times before at this article and at other ID-related articles and the result was an arbitration ruling placing you on probation for disruption by violating WP:POINT and/or biased, tendentious editing. Evidence presented there included this specific method you've used to stir the pot using POINTy edits and talk page maneuvers, you appear to be repeating them here again now. So aside from the WP:COI issue, you are apparently ignoring your arbcom probation. If this continues others here will seek to have the terms of the probation enforced, and I very well may join them. So, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 and WP:COI, I think it's better for you to find an article you are not personally tied to and have not had personal issues with in the past and contribute there; that's my opinion and advice. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining all that. I guess I'll take the rest of the year off, then! ;-)

Merry Xmas! --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ordained cleric"

I also don't plan to spend much more time with this article. Jonathan is a fairly minor figure in the Unification Church field (my interest here), even if important in the world of ID (not so interesting to me), and it seems like a waste of time to argue with his "anti-fans", Also he is not so sensitive that his feelings will be hurt by what WP has to say about him. However Ed did mention this point. I removed:

and is an ordained cleric in the Unification Church.

For one thing is it sourced by a website run by literal biblical creationists who find ID too liberal for them. That doesn't seem like a very reliable source to me. For another we UC members never use the expression "ordained clergy" or "cleric". Anyone who has the role of a church leader can be given the title of "Reverend", but there is not ordination process involved. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement seems to be only tracable to AiG, which is hardly a WP:RS on either Wells' biography or UC internal structure, so this should probably be deleted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was reasonable. Have a great New Year. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wells not ordained?

I am puzzled by removal of material that is in Wells favor, such as his being an ordained minister, in an article on Answers in Genesis [14] and Creation Ministries International. Now I do not think these are always great sources on scientific matters, but Dr. Wieland is a creationist and I think he is a good source on creationist matters. Also, there is a source on the "Darwinist" side that makes the same statement: [15]. Now why would sourced material be removed? Particularly when it makes Wells seem more impressive and have more credentials? I am puzzled.--Filll (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't find saying that he is an ordained minister offensive. It is just meaningless since all of us UC members have the same qualifications to be ministers, there is no process of ordination for ministers in our church. The article also gives enough information on Wells's commitment and activities in the church without it. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe there is something I do not understand. So ALL members of the Unification Church are ordained ministers? All the same? It is not a special honor?--Filll (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Nobody is an ordained minister, since we have no process of ordination. Anyone in the church could act as a church leader or give a sermon in church however. What probably happened is that in one of Well's talks or articles posted on the Internet he was introduced as Rev. Wells. In the UC this is just something to show respect to the person, it doesn't require a degree in divinity or ordination or anything like that. One of the sources probably saw this and jumped to the conclusion (understandable) that he was an "ordained minister" and the other source picked it up from the first. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Silly motives

Wells: "... biology itself does not contradict DP. Only Darwinism does, and that's philosophy rather than empirical science." [16]

By "DP" he means Unification theology (or "Divine Principle"). If church sources can be trusted, Wells is saying that he wanted to show (1) that there is no contradiction between biology and his church teachings (even though UC is creationist); and (2) that "Darwinism" (as he calls it) contains a philosophy which is the source of the conflict.

There's a lot else I want to point out about his motives, outlook, aims; as well as specific claims and arguments he makes. Ordinarily I would go ahead and insert them in the article, but two different people have reverted me in recent days, without explaining what is specifically wrong with the edits.

All I got from FeloniousMonk was that (in some way he neglected to point out) I was making Wells "look silly". If he had said which edit he thought did that, or at least quoted the "silly" wording, we could work together to fix it.

You see, I don't want to make Wells "look good" or "look silly". I just want the article to explain what his views are and why he holds them. I don't care if others then feel it necessary to balance his views with the views of his critics, as long as both sides of each controversy are described fairly. But to emphasize his critics' views, without giving enough attention to the views being criticized, strikes me as being one-sided.

What do others think about this? Is it okay to explain the motivations and views of Wells in this article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that quote might explain what he is trying to do, and what his motivations are. I do cringe however when I read it and contemplate using it. It makes him look like a complete moron or worse.--Filll (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he won't mind if we discuss his motivations, in terms of his own words. Others have called him much worse names than "moron". His critics generally accuse him of deliberate fraud (hmm, pretty much what he blasts "Darwinists" for doing).

Anyway, if there is no God then he's silly - but if there is, then Wells's motives could make sense. Maybe it all hinges on that. I know someone who has his email address. Shall I ask him for a statement? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean God's email address! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"if there is no God then he's silly - but if there is, then Wells's motives could make sense" wrong again, Ed. Whether or not god exists, Well's looks dumb ("silly") because he is dumb. When it comes to science he's a crank and a dishonest fraud. He might be the best Moonie north of the equator, but he's a moron when it comes to matters of science and that has nothing to do with whether god exists or not. He says biology teachers should be put in prison for teaching darwinism/evolution. The man is insane and makes the Unification Church look dumb. The statement you want to put in the article is yet another example of how dangerous these kinds of frauds and fundamentalists are. And yes please include it in the article, readers should know hat a fundy and dangerous guy Wells is. If a medicine could cure AIDs but it conflicted with "DP" do you think Wells is going to want to see it gain medical currency? Of course not, anything that conflicts with "DP" is bad bad bad. THAT is what makes fundies like Wells so dangerous. They will lie through their teeth, just like Wells does, to protect "DP". Fundy, lunatic Christians like William Dembski do the same thing. It is just as sickening guys like YOU, Ed Poor, will be their willing stooges here at Wiki. Everyone here sees through your game, Ed Poor. You got you ass banished from the ID article...Again.

Again, Wells makes the Unification Church look insane AND dangerous. Guys like Wells are sickening and pathetic. Anyone who dedicates his life to casting doubt on science because it conflicts with their god view is a sicko. Please include that quote you suggested in the article, Ed Poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Those are my comments prior to setting up and account...How the hell do you sign I already forgot...-AC Angry Christian (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)