Talk:Heidelberg Appeal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biased entry. Final paragraph tries to dismiss the Appeal by singling out one of four thousand signatories. Also irreveant to the subject is the mention of the 1997 Call To Action. There is no apparent link between the two appeals, and simply appears to be an attempt to show who has the most nobel prize winners signed to it in an attempt to dismiss the Appeal. --Orzetto 16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Removed Text 4.248.37.127 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

One notable signer of the Heidelberg Appeal was the late Linus Pauling, then the world's only living recipient of two Nobel Prizes (for chemistry and for peace). At the time the Appeal was circulated, Pauling had become associated with a controversial nutritional theory that advocated massive daily consumption of vitamin C. Although his earlier work is widely praised, his theories regarding vitamin C have been almost universally dismissed as pseudoscience. It appears, therefore, that (1) even Nobel laureates sometimes practice pseudoscience, and (2) even the practitioners of pseudoscience believe they are against it.

I don't see why this attempts to dismiss the appeal (read the last sentence). I will re-insert this back into the article, first giving others a chance to object... William M. Connolley 08:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, William -- 'Twas I who brought the text into Talk:. It adds nothing to the knowledge of the Appeal. It's polemical. As for the talk of Warning to Humanity -- that was an earlier objection (not mine), unrelated to the Pauling removal. Because of the historical pairing of the two, some contrast does add to understanding each. But in both articles, I think the contrast can be made more NPOV. I see no reason to put the Pauling paragraph back in the article, and only moved it here, rather than deleting, for fear that my edits would be reverted by someone so committed to the polemic in that paragraph, that he'd revert out of spite... 4.248.41.167 06:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The article is clearly biased in favor of HA, with sentences like "It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science." Needs some NPOVising and especially sourcing when it comes to HAN. --Orzetto 16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV. I can't see it as being justified. If there are biases, they seem to me to be slight, and it would be appropriate to begin by trying to work them out by editing, not slapping an NPOV header on. Ditto the wiki-fying.

Also, I don't see why this is biased pro-HA. The article discusses the way that the appeal is often abused, and points out that many claims made for it by the septics are wrong. I've added a link to the text. As far as I can see, the actual text of the appeal is fine.

William M. Connolley 16:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

The article is in clear need of wikification. It lacks an introduction, sectioning, and is written is a single block. That's what I meant by wikifying. The sentence about being "simply a statement supporting rationality and science" is pro-POV a long way, and since I am not an expert in the field I leave a NPOV notice until someone qualified can review. --Orzetto 09:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If all you're going to do is add a NPOV notice and leave it, I think thats very unhelpful. Edit it if you think it needs editing. William M. Connolley 10:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

I've removed the wikify tag. A short article like this dose not need sections and it's not clear were they would go. The first sentence is the introduction. Seano1 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Article clearly biaised : one cannot access to the content of the Appeal itself !!! (At least, I don't find how)

There's no verifiable source when saying: "Sponsors of the Heidelberg Appeal included the asbestos and tobacco industries." so that sentence is biased against the appeal.

[edit] Debate

This article is about the Heidelberg Appeal. It would be nice if it actually contained information about it then arguments as to what it says. Please work to include information about the subject and not debate the topic.Mantion 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)