Talk:Kimball Atwood
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Chelation controversy
editWhat should be mentioned? I was quite keen to mention the Clay follow-up article (and the response to that) to illustrate that this was indeed a controversy and not just an academic voicing an opinion into an indifferent world. Of course different ways of presenting it might be chosen but I think it's a notable aspect of Atwood that he's been attacked for a "bias" which he cheerfully (indeed proudly) admits to. Ronz thinks this may be too much to mention ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- It comes down to sources. Who comments on his part in the controversy and is it worth noting in an encyclopedia article on him? As currently presented and sourced, it looks more like a way to bring up criticism of Clay than anything else. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- The pertinent thing about it is that the criticism from Clay seemed to centre on who Atwood was as much as the arguments made, but it's tricky to represent the totality of what went on in this exchange in a short space. Could it perhaps just be boiled down to a descriptive sentences ("the piece attracted both criticism and support in published exchanges which followed" or something) with a link off to the sources? Hall also criticised Clay for having an undisclosed COI and David Gorski said her piece was published in a "crank journal" so there is/was certainly a lot going on there. That TACT trial seems from our coverage elsewhere to be quite a big deal in the CAM/skeptic timeline, and Atwood's involvement might well be the most notable thing about him to date. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Major rewrite
editI plan to clean up this page. I am in the research phase. If anyone has any information or would like to add to this page, let me know on this talk page. If anyone else is working on this page, let me know. I do not want to duplicate work. --CarlosXing (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looking forward to seeing your rewrite. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Major rewrite completed
editI completed the major rewrite. I wish I could find some more information on the band Atwood was in. The only thing I could find was a facebood entry: https://www.facebook.com/DebReich/videos/10154170227504314/
Atwood's fascinating family history
editIs the possibility that Kimball C. Atwood III (presumably the father of Atwood IV) coined the phrase "publish or perish" [1][2] worth mentioning in the personal life section? Cheers, gnu57 00:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Here's another fascinating Kimball C. Atwood: this one purchased the largest grapefruit grove in the world in the 1890s.[3]
- Roger Angell describing Atwood III's youthful hijinks in 1933:[4]. gnu57 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- more on Atwood I (the grapefruit one): [5][6]gnu57 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Atwood III was a professor of microbiology; here he is in 1965 describing the possibilities of human genetic modification: [7]. gnu57 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- more on Atwood I (the grapefruit one): [5][6]gnu57 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Roger Angell describing Atwood III's youthful hijinks in 1933:[4]. gnu57 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)