Talk:Niles Eldredge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] On the Cornets
I added a bit about the cornets. I swear that is no lie, it was in an issue of New Scientist. (Yes, of the 3 entries on talk pages I have made, 2 of htem have mentioned New Scientist.) Sir Elderberry 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- This passage makes no sense to me:
- "Eldredge possesses a chart of the development of cornets compared with that for trilobites. The differences between them are meant to highlight the failures of Intelligent Design by comparing a system that is definitely designed, with a system that, according to scientific consensus, is not."
- Which of these "systems" (neither comets nor trilobites qualify) was supposedly designed? And who was the designer? Have I missed something here?
[edit] Needs a POV check
The article as it stands is directly lifted from the biography on his own web site [1] and elsewhere [2], [3]. Though I don't doubt the factual content, the article could perhaps stand a bit of NPOV adjustment.
I'm also concerned about the question of copyright, since the material is duplicated directly from other sources. --TenOfAllTrades 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 'Directly'? 'Lifted'? My good man, what are you saying? However, thank you for the URL to Eldredge's own web site. I could find no reference anywhere to his DoB, but you supplied a suitable source of information! :)
- I've shined it up a bit, explained some stuff in simpler terms, and removed the reference to Eldredge's eternal battle with the Creationists, as it's not very interesting. Toodle-ooh. sugarfish 23:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Further shining. :) Parts still bear a strong resenblance to the "official" biography, but it's getting better. I broke things up into sections that (hopefully) make sense and will encourage further fleshing out. I'm a bit torn about including his entire biblography; I wonder if it might have more punch if only the seminal works were included (or at least highlighted). Oh well—if nobody complains, then it can stay. --TenOfAllTrades 00:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
