Jump to content

Talk:James Tour

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversial article

[edit]

Why is his article on chemical terrorism considered controversial? Is it because some people said it gives away too much information to potential terrorists? The point of controversy should be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably the title: "Better Killing Through Chemistry" either led some to believe he was advocating chemical warfare, ot that he was being insensitive. Unfortunately this statement is unsourced, so we can't find out. Hrafn42 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptive verb, "sparked" (as in Tour sparked the article...) is not inaccurate but it's imprecise. A more accurate and informative phrasing would be something along these lines, "Tour carried out a simple experiment revealing how easy it is for anyone to procure all the materials necessary to make Sarin nerve gas without triggering any alarm bells in the security establishment. His experiment sparked the editors of Scientific American to run an article ...." Also, kudos to ZayZayEm for yeoman work to reference the illuminating SciAm article and clarify who wrote it and why. Moulton 10:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo. I like "credited" because it's both accurate and it avoids casting Tour in a negative light for his part in the story. The controversy arose not because of Tour's discovery, per se, but because the editors of SciAm made the decision to publicize his alarming discovery. I still think the prose can be improved a bit, so that the sentence conveys the essential story in concise, fluid prose that reliably concords with the essential facts. Moulton 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution

[edit]

The article states:

Tour's field of organic chemistry is unrelated to evolutionary biology.

The field of organic chemistry is related to micro-evolution. Darwin's mechanism applies to macro-evolution (descent with modification of living species). The parallel field of micro-evolution applies to processes operating at the molecular level by which organic molecules change. Darwin's mechanism assumes and depends on micro-evolution, but doesn't encompass or subsume it, model it, or explain it. Moulton 22:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton, I think you are making the whole thing too complex. Tour doesn't study evolution does he? On the other hand, everything is related somehow. Steve Dufour 02:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His quote, in the NY Times article, suggests he has enough interest in the subject of micro-evolution to render his professional view on it. In any event, I don't think it's accurate to say, ex nihilo, that organic chemistry is unrelated to evolution, regardless of whether Tour is currently applying his specialty to that application. Moulton 03:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Tour has an interest in the subject, his main focus is abiogenesis - which is the step before evolution. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...--Filll 03:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Filll. After all the article is about Dr. Tour and is intended to provide basic information on him to the general public. Steve Dufour 03:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "unrelated" to "not closely related." Does anyone object to that? Steve Dufour 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to get away with saying that his work on nano-technology is weakly related to micro-evolution (and largely unrelated to macro-evolution), but I don't see how any of that is helpful to a reader who wants to learn something about Dr. Tour rather than something about which scientists are qualified to critique the state of scientific models relating to at least some aspect of evolution. Moulton 03:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least the stuff about him and the petition is now less than half of the article. That's progress. I'm in favor of leaving it in and letting the anti-ID crowd keep the title "Anti-evolution petition". I think most people would see that as a shorthand, headline type way of refering to the nature of the petition, and not put too much importance to it. Steve Dufour 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original "unrelated" would seem to be correct. Organic chemistry is unrelated to evolutionary biology (as would every other field in chemistry proper), biochemistry would be not closely related, and fields such as developmental biology and population genetics would be closely related. Also, Mouton's claims about micro-evolution versus macro-evolution are quite simply wrong. Hrafn42 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn is correct. While, obviously, everything is related, there is nothing about the field of organic chemistry that gives an expert in the field any special insight on the field of evolution. While some fields of evolutionary biology are more chemical in their focus, it's a bit like saying that an expert on surgical grade steel is in a field that is "related" to medicine.
I can't make sense of Moulton's distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Studies at the "microevolutionary" scale may use chemical tools, or they may be measuring beak lengths. Studies at a "macroevolutionary" scale may use chemical tools, or they may be looking at habitat use. There's nothing about the scale at which a study is connected that makes it closer or farther from organic chemistry. Guettarda 04:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small point of style: When you use an absolute like "unrelated" there will be people who will take it as a challenge and try to find an exception. That's one reason I suggested "not closely related" instead. Steve Dufour 04:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Unrelated" is more plain English. "Not closely related" is no less troublesome, since it presupposes that there is a degree of relatedness between fields that can be quantified. "Unrelated" on the other hand, makes the point that they depend on non-transferable skill sets. Having experience in organic chemistry does not make it easier for you to transition to evolutionary biology than does experience in any other field that uses the scientific method, or give you in any way greater insight. Guettarda 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without Organic Chemistry, an applied mathematician like Stanislaw Ulam would have no way of knowing anything about the structure of Cytochrome-C, and therefore no way of constructing a mathematical metric that compared the difference between any two samples of Cytochrome-C (say from a horse and a whale) to the corresponding metric for how far apart the two species were on Darwin's evolutionary tree. But with the help of organic chemistry he was able to show that the two metrics were tightly correlated. If a horse and a whale are far apart on the evolutionary tree, then the structural details of their Cytochrome-C will also differ to a corresponding degree. Moulton 15:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong field: "Biochemistry mainly deals with the chemistry of proteins (and other large biomolecules)." (from Organic chemistry). Hrafn42 16:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Without Organic Chemistry..."; without surgical steel a great surgeon couldn't do much. Still doesn't make materials science "related" to medicine. Guettarda 04:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Every field is related to every other. Because there is calculus used in Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Mechanics is used in some parts of Chemistry, is a Chemist qualified to offer an expert opinion on Category Theory? Topology? Number Theory? Of course, we might find one scientist who has done work in both fields. So what? This proves absolutely nothing.--Filll 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more info on chemistry?

[edit]

I feel that the article does not convey to the general public enough about why he is wikipedia-worthy (for lack of a better term, sorry) for those in the chemical and material sciences. For instance, the wording "involved in other work, such as the creation of a nanocar" seems to give the impression that his nanocar work is not as noteworthy as the work referred to in the opening statement. His list of publications (on his linked website) actually reflect recent development along the line of nanocars, and his article on its discovery was "the most accessed paper of all papers published by the American Chemical Society in 2005" according to the research page of his website. This is general knowledge within the chemistry community, and is verifiable by searching for what are ranked "Hot Papers" by Thomson ISI®'s Essential Science Indicators. In short, he is famous for his nanocars. I would hence like to suggest addition of a section in the article, perhaps entitled "Synthesis of nanovehicles", which could discuss the, well, research on nanovehicles. I think his involvement in "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" should only be secondary to his primary work as a chemist.

That being said, I must confess that I am usually only a viewer of Wikipedia pages and have never attempted to actually contribute to any articles (I don't really know how, to be honest), which is why I have stated this as only a proposal rather than provided any actual text to add. Tell me what you think (please don't bite!)... Bahaw (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Regarding this edit, I fail to see how this is not creationism-related. The fact that he's a signatory of the DI's "dissent from Darwinism" is clearly sourced. So it's clearly creationism-related (as is Glenn Branch's bio). In addition, it's tagged by the creationism WikiProject. The rationale given for the removal ("It has not been established what he exactly believes") is entirely beside the point - it's not like he has been placed in the category "creationist". Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying something about the man that he has actively denied by adding that stub category. In addition, there is nothing to demonstrate that this man has anything more to say or do regarding creationism, completely defeating any actual purpose to categorizing this as a creationism-related stub. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to finally use the talk page. And no, I'm not implying anything about it. As I clearly said, the tag was also (appropriately) added to Glenn Branch's bio. I'm not implying that Glenn is a creationist. I'm not implying that Tour is either. This article has been tagged - uncontroversially since June 2007. Yeah, I added the tag, but no one has had a problem with it in 3.5 years. Renaming the WikiProject broadens its scope, it doesn't narrow it. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, I knew I recognised your name from somewhere. So you're back to your old tricks of making false allegations against me? Wow... Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't play games, Guettarda. I replied within 15 minutes of you using the talk page. You want to add something, then it's up to YOU to make the argument, especially on a BLP. You know this.
Glenn Branch may not be a creationist, but he is a prominent critic, making his notability heavily tied to the topic. Tour is a guy who signed a petition once, then clarified that he is not an ID proponent on his own site. That's it. End of story. I don't care about tags on the talk page, but tags on the article are a problem if they imply something unverified.
As far as your claim regarding myself, I would recommend against trying character assassination against me again. Arbcom made a specific comment recently about casting aspersions as a way to try to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. You already know that if you push it too far, I will take it through relevant dispute resolution processes. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let see: (1) I made an edit (a revert) and used to talk page to explain that your revert was based on an incorrect rationale. Rather than discuss the matter, you reverted again, without explanation. It's normal to discuss reverts. It's expected that you discuss reverts when the other editor has started a discussion. I'm not the one playing games. (2) You accused me of implying something about the man that he has actively denied and in your edit summary you said that I was implying he's a creationist. But when I point out that the same tag is on Glenn Branch's bio, then suddenly your rationale changes. If the tag implies Tour is a creationist, the tag implied Branch is a creationist. (3) Well... Let's see. Three or four years ago, I made what I thought was an accurate quote. You said that I was misrepresenting you. So I removed that part of my comment, and then asked you to set the record straight, to provide the correct quote. Which you never did. Instead, you forum-shopped your complaint all over Wikipedia, reposting the text that you considered a "character assassination". It's just not a credible set of actions. If my quote was inaccurate, why not set the record straight? And if it was so terribly offensive, why did you repost it all over Wikipedia? What you did was casting aspersions - you turned a single statement into a Wikipedia-wide smear campaign. After a while I found it hard to believe your account. Not, three or four years later, I run into you again. And guess what - you're accusing me of doing something I didn't actually do. Funny, that. Guettarda (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to take out the petition stuff or shorten it up - seems to be undue weight. It's one act, almost ten years old, and does not define the man's career. The tag just makes that situation worse and should not be added. →StaniStani  19:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you take out and the creationist stuff, the article failed WP:BIO. Come to think of it, it probably would be best to delete the article - it's impossible to write an article that doesn't suffer from serious WP:WEIGHT problems. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a little googling shows that this article has serious WP:WEIGHT problems. He's clearly notable. It would take 5 minutes of work to make the tag entirely moot by making it not a stub. No time now, but if no one else will I will come back in a few days when I have the time. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He can't be labeled as "Creationist" just for signing a petition. Mention of his signature on the petition shouldn't be any more than one sentence. This is a BLP. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not that anyone did so, of course. Why is it, Cla, that every time I encounter you, you're making bold statements that make it clear that you haven't bothered to try to figure out what's going on? Three time, on three ID articles in what - 3 days? Time to stop treating everything as if it were a battleground. Take a step back, look at the facts, figure out what's actually going on. OK? Guettarda (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, BLPs require special handling. We (I believe the nosism is appropriate here) can't label this one with "creationism", even with a stub tag because it casts aspersions on the person who is the subject of this article. Please keep this in mind if you edit BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise that ~50% of the content in the article is creationism-related? The article has a massive WP:UNDUE problem. The stub type accurately reflects the content of the article. It shouldn't be primarily about creationism. The stub tag doesn't cast any aspersions that the content of the article doesn't already do. What's so fascinating about all this is that inclusion of this material is so clearly against my 'side'. Yet here and over and WR you guys are characterising it as "anti-ID" editing. When you want to accuse someone of acting to promote a POV, take a moment to figure out whose POV it actually supports. Guettarda (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, twelve years later in 2023 he's gotten very Creationist. I think the "not a Creationist" claim died a natural death long ago. Wyvern (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tour denies being a creationist, and I'm not aware of him saying anything pro Creationist Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easy fix - rerate as "start", per Wikipedia:Assessment#Quality_scale has "Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more." Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK with me, though I don't think there was any dispute over the chemist stub tag. For the most part, talk page tags don't bother me. On the other hand, his bio already was a bit too heavy on the ID stuff he denies supporting, so the "creationism-related" tag was just inappropriate. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 07:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

synthetic organic chemist?

[edit]

How does this fit with nanotech?--Organicshmoreganic (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. We need a LOT MORE about nano-cars. It's all done by synthetic chemistry, very very slow and carefully ... and then they get a car made out of a handful of molecules that can drive on a gold surface. He made one that has a ratchet so that it can only go one direction. I think he even got one working with a gear (low/high). It's very impressive. Lehasa (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found some cool 3D renders of them. Any idea if we could use them? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no biography of his early life & education? missing

[edit]

Contrary to most biographies, this biography omits information about his early life and education. I'm particularly interested to know if he had any Jewish education at all. As far as his own life-account he didn't receive any substantial Jewish upbringing. His friends studied to fulfill their bar mitzvah -he implies he did not. Living in a Jewish neighborhood does not imply having a Jewish life. His main experience with Judaism is one interaction with a Rabbie, which he simplistically interprets as rejection. This particular episode he chose to share his life as a Jew, involves a complete lack of a Jewish community life -which he patently still hasn't experienced.

It should be stated that he's actively endorsing "Jews for Jesus" portraying himself as a smart Jew with no education in Judaism who focused on making money & honors. While highly educated in science, he promotes himself as a completely spiritually illiterate man that blindly fell into idol worship, neglecting his Jewish roots, and hiding away all inner contradictions in Christian texts. In his own writings, he uses the TANACH to reconfirm his religious bias and completely ignores and disregards the hundreds of blatantly purposefully misleading and forged translations, additions and suppressions of the original Hebrew scriptures.

He is another case that conveys the spiritual vacuum among people, Jewish or not, that is being filled with emotional glue, but with little to no stature for real spiritual growth.

Sources: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/impact-of-the-scripturesfaith-of-a-scientist/ and his word Wikipedia profile 

Davidrojaselbirt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design

[edit]

Why does it say he believes in intelligent design when the very article that this page sites he clearly says he is NOT a proponent of intelligent design and that he doesn’t see a way that one could derive intelligent design from science. This needs to be fixed. 2601:603:C80:9580:F592:EA5D:5F28:4795 (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

let me help you. He actually GETS PAID BY THE DISCOVERY INSTUTUTE to write articles promoting intelligent design for them. why are you clowns all so ignorant? 121.98.228.243 (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Refer me to an article in which HE himself advocates for intelligent design. 2601:603:C80:9580:91C2:EFA7:89E6:939C (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His current hobby seems to be getting angry at anyone investigating the origin of life. For example, this: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/on-the-origin-of-life-james-tour-exposes-the-irrelevance-of-lee-cronins-research/ (He devotes three Youtube videos to attacking a pop science presenter called "Professor Dave," who was apparently too polite about Doctor Cronin's abiogenesis experiments.) For him addressing evolution, you might try this: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/james-tour-and-the-challenge-to-theistic-evolution-from-synthetic-chemistry/ Wyvern (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to with intelligent design. And he is not getting angry at people investigating the origin of life, he’s angry at people overstating their knowledge about the origin of life through data that he says, doesn’t support what they’re advocating. What does this have to do with intelligent design? Nothing. Does he say evolution is false? No. Does he say that the data indicates that there is intelligent design? No. Does he advocate for intelligent design? No. 97.113.105.135 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that Dave is the one who attacks Tour. Tour has been incredibly polite to Dave. Dave calls Tour all kinds of names. In fact, Dave sounds an awful lot like the logged-out poster with IP 121.98.228.243. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He may be editing this page a lot.

[edit]

"He is a top researcher in his field" seems over the top. 2A02:14F:177:9FE7:DA33:D282:3640:2FBF (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is, undoubtedly, a top researcher in his field. The controversy arises from his unscientific statements outside of his field. RobotGoggles (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead give stats like H index or i10. "He is a top researcher" says who? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia entry reads like a very pumped up resume and not an encyclopaedia and smacks at being edited by someone bigging them-self up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.29.43 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tour has been voted one of the top ten Synthetic Organic Chemists. I've noticed a lot of vandalism by anon IP addresses on here. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...an outspoken advocate for pseudoscience, denying research into abiogenesis and promoting creationism."

[edit]

I suggest that this line of text should rather read, "...who is also critical of contemporary abiogenesis research".

This text is much more modest than what others here seem to want, which is unfounded and ambiguous.

Issues with the current text:

1. "advocate for pseudoscience" 

    a) How is he an advocate for pseudoscience? You need to justify this charge.
    b) If true, why should it be in the opening paragraph? It doesn't seem relevant enough to have here.

The rest of the sentence seems to attempt to justify this charge by saying that he denies research into abiogenesis and promotes creationism. So let's look at that. 

    c) How does "denying" research in a particular field of study imply that he is an advocate of pseudoscience? Recall, that for someone to be considered pseudoscientific he would have to make/have "statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." Does being critical of abiogenesis mean that he is promoting pseudoscience? Absolutely not, his critiques can all be analyzed in the same way that the work he is criticizing can be analyzed. Critical investigation of scientific research is part of the scientific process, it doesn't matter if you agree with his conclusions or not.
    d) Assuming that what we mean by creationism is that he believes that God created the universe, you need to justify how that implies that he is promoting pseudoscience. Additionally, you can look at his page where he clearly says, "I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design". So, even though he holds the belief in creationism, he does not promote it as something that can be validated through the scientific method. This is found in his Evolution/Creation article on his website, or citation 62.

2. "denying research into abiogenesis" 

    a) This claim doesn't make much sense. What is he denying---that the research exists? The statement doesn't mean anything, it is ambiguous. Is it true that he is critical of it? Absolutely! I gave a source for this in an initial edit a while back. So why use this ambiguous language rather than something more pointed?
    b) If by denying abiogenesis, you mean that he says that it is not possible, then you'd be wrong. Here is a quote from his Evolution/Creation page, "And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God." It is clear that he is open to it.

3. "promoting creationism" 

    a) Why is this relevant? Are we going to place this on every single Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scientist's page? This just comes off as a poor attempt to attack someone for ideological reasons.

Overall, the current text, "...an outspoken advocate for pseudoscience, denying research into abiogenesis and promoting creationism" is unfounded and reads as a poor attempt to slander someone over ideological reasons. I suggest the edit to the far more modest statement of "...who is also critical of contemporary abiogenesis research", which is both factually true (source given), and free of unfounded remarks that aim to elevate or degrade him. AManWithNoHands (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything here seems to be sourced to primary sources and should be deleted. Yes, he supports anti-science bullshit, but as long as nobody outside the anti-evolution fundie filter bubble cares about it enough to comment on him supporting it, we shouldn't either. See WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He does not support anything that is "anti-science"(whatever that means)---there is no source to suggest that. The primary sources given support everything that I have said. I give direct quotes. Anyways, it seems that you are agreeing with my suggested change. So let's move forward with it. AManWithNoHands (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you do not know what the real position of evolution in biology is - it is consensus that Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, and it is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" - you are not competent to decide whether people like Tour are anti-science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Tour doesn't reject evolution. He is simply skeptical of the explanatory scope of the theory, especially when investigating the edges of it (he outlines his reasoning in his Evolution/Creation article). This should not be as controversial as you, and many others, make it out to be. In every other field of study, people recognize or seek out the explanatory limitations of a theory (e.g., the general theory of relativity). This is a good thing as it promotes further investigation to expand our collective knowledge. Many are excited when such limitations are found! This type of skepticism is critical for the success of the science project. Even if his criticisms are to be shown to be false that would not mean he is practicing pseudoscience or is anti-science, it would ONLY mean that he was wrong. Further, consensus does not decide the truth value of a proposition, that isn't how science works, and it is wholly ignorant of the basics of epistemology, especially as related to the scientific process.
With Dr. Tour being a well respected academic, the editors at Wikipedia should engage in academic charity (i.e., avoid claims of dishonesty or stupidity, but simply engage with the subject matter itself, that is give the benefit of the doubt) rather than slapping derogatory labels on prominent academics. This is the standard found in academia and it should also be respected here.
Finally, do not make unfounded claims about me being incompetent, I have made no claims about evolution myself for you to base such judgments on, so I suggest leaving the insults in your head, as you clearly have a biased view and an ideological drive behind your entire, anger-fueled, Wikipedia presence (your profile's home page is a testament to this).
To bring things back to the original topic, this text needs to be changed so that this article adheres to the BLP policy. As of now, these claims of being a promoter of pseudoscience and "denying" abiogenesis (I still don't what that means), are not sourced and therefore should be removed immediately, as the policy so clearly states, especially since these types of claims are potentially libelous.
Note: The current source that is there was placed there by me, for the edit I made, it does not support the current text (this can be confirm in the edit history). AManWithNoHands (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blah. You are not convincing, but his exact position does not matter here - whether he believes in striped unicorns or checkered ones is not relevant, and the exact reason why he signed that petition favoring a hostile takeover of biology by religion does not matter.
Everything which is evolution-related in the article should be deleted since it is not based on secondary sources. You can talk as much as you want, that does not change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so let's try to reach an agreement on the what this text should read. The options I see so far are as follows:
1. Keep the original: "...an outspoken advocate for pseudoscience, denying research into abiogenesis and promoting creationism." [We both agree that this shouldn't be used, albeit, for different reasons];
2. My suggestion: "...who is also critical of contemporary abiogenesis research";
3. Or your suggestion of just deleting the text so that the full sentence reads as, "James Mitchell Tour (born 1959) is an American chemist and nanotechnologist." [I am fine with this as well.]
For Wikipedia "consensus" do we need more input or is this sufficient for moving ahead with an edit? If agreement between just us two is sufficient, we just need to decide between option 2 or 3, and I am fine with either one. AManWithNoHands (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete the text. I'm all for describing the mainstream view whenever fringe ideas must be mentioned, but I don't think we need mention them if there aren't secondary sources doing so. I haven't dug for such sources, but unless someone finds any, removal is the best move. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did search Proquest but did not find anything more than what is already mentioned the NYT article (footnote 60). S0091 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so we are in agreement on just deleting the text. Let's move ahead with it then. AManWithNoHands (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of his numerous controversies and bad scholarship when it comes to origin of life?

[edit]

Tour's debate on the subject recently did not go well for him. As a member of debunked pseudoscience groups like "Discovery Institute", Tour seems to be in a habit of misrepresentations, denial, and moving far outside his area of expertise to make false claims about science and scientific research often. It looks like there is a concerted effort to whitewash this article and that's not appropriate for wikipedia. https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2023/05/rices-james-tour-and-youtuber-professor-dave-debate-the-origins-of-life 73.206.167.225 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See he section directly above this one. If you have WP:SECONDARY WP:RS pointing out Tour's anti-science shenanigans, bring them. Otherwise, this needs to stay out. It's not whitewashing, it's quality control. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you and Amanwithnohands are members of the James Tour Group at Rice but have not disclosed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Rather, it looks like you are not familiar with Wikipedia rules.
Discovery Institute is not a reliable source. They want to embrace this Tour guy as one of their own, but not one outlet that can be relied upon has commented on that. Therefore, Wikipedia ignores this. Wikipedia will also ignore any stupid stuff he himself published unless secondary sources comment on it. See WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY.
If you want him denounced here, go write an article in some reliable source, then we can quote that. Wikipedia will not pioneer any denouncing. Wikipedia does not pioneer anything. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quit the rules lawyering.
If you were impartial, you would have used a template to mark that the source may be dubious and that discussion is ongoing, and you would have let readers decide its validity. Instead, you scrub any links between Tour and religious apologist organizations, of which there are many. Dishonest behavior. 2601:14D:4801:5130:54D2:4143:1435:B21E (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is material related to a living person, the idea of "tag content as dubious or source as weak, pending discussion" is not the standard. Instead, un-/poorly-sourced material must be removed until a suitable source is found. See WP:BLP, and the specific instructions for the {{Better source needed}} tag. DMacks (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit again.
Wikipedia articles should not be "impartial". They should take the position of the scientific mainstream. Creationism is unscientific crap, and if someone embraces it and we have reliable secondary sources hitting them for it, let's add it to his article by any means. I think Tour's religious ideas and his connection to the DI are a big minus; I would take anything he writes with a grain of salt; I would not like it if I had to work with him (which is very unlikely), but what I think does not matter here. Only what reliable sources say matters. DI is definitely not one of those.
There is nothing wrong with deleting bad sources. It is not "rules lawyering". WP:WIKILAWYERING happens when people use the letter of the law with the goal of violating its spirit. Maybe you should gather more experience here before you spout off aggressive nonsense about more experience editors.
But your last edit [1] was very good. It improved the WP:NPOV and removed WP:PEACOCK terms. Please focus on that sort of thing and drop the disregard of WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please disclose any Wikipedia:Conflict of interest you have in regard to creationism and James Tour, as required by wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a conflict with creationists, and interest for creationists, for many decades because their reasoning is the height of stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty. The only things I have known about Tour is what I read in his Wikipedia article. I have forgotten all of it, except the deleted creationism bit, and I don't care enough to read it again.
I stopped reading your first contribution after It looks like there is a concerted effort to whitewash this article and that's not appropriate for wikipedia - because that was conspiracy-mongering ignorant bullshit attacking the users who correctly deleted the unreliably-sourced material - so I not only missed the fact that you actually gave a reliable source, but also demanded a reliable source. That was my mistake, but still, you should lead with the source next time and skip the nonsense.
Also, you should have pointed out that mistake instead of jumping to silly conclusions immediately.
Now that we do have a reliable source, there is no problem with mentioning Tour's anti-science activities. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now contains a section "Discovery Institute and Debates" which has only crappy sources. It should not be there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Defamatory Content From 'Missing Information' Header

[edit]

It seems fans of 'Professor Dave' (or the man himself) have been trying to vandalise this page. Including by posting uncited and libellous claims about James Tour using the Wiki 'Missing Information' Header. I don't care what you think about the guy, Wiki headers are not the place to vent your dislike or bias to the general public. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird flex from Tour's cultists. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggyTheTerrible we get it you're a WP:FRINGE creationist uninterested in an actual encyclopedia. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Repeated reversions of accurate information

[edit]

Hi all. It would seem that accurate and relevant information in regards to James Tour's background is being repeatedly reverted by several users. I have already spoken to one of these users on the matter, and I will reiterate here - The edits made on the page are in fact accurate and reliably sourced. Tour was in fact born in NYC and raised in White Plains in a Jewish household (see ref 37). According to his own account (remember, this is a biographical page), a personal encounter with Jesus is what led to his conversion to Christianity (see ref 54). The term "pseudoscience" is derisive and does not align with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts); theory is a more appropriate and neutral alternative. Lastly, the citation added (ref 61) supports the claim made on the page (He has separately debated American YouTuber Dave Farina and British chemist Leroy Cronin) - I understand the concerns in regards to edit warring or bias, and if there is anything in particular I have added that anyone feels could be worded better/should be removed, feel free to make specific edits. Wikipedia is meant to be a constructive place, after all. However, do understand that reverting valid and relevant information is a violation of the disruptive editing policy. Of course we all know that the contents of this page (and James Tour's beliefs as a whole) are quite controversial, however please refrain from removing valid info based on personal reservations for him or his ideas. Thank you. Roobad (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will not write in Wikipedia voice that some 21st century person had a "personal encounter with Jesus". We can write that he claims to have had such an encounter, or something along those lines. See WP:NPOV.
We will also not delete the fact that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. There is consensus is science that that is the case. If you do not know that, that is your problem, not Wikipedia's. Do not try to force your ignorance on the readers. WP:NPOV does not mean what you think it means. WP:FRINGE is another page you should peruse.
It is not relevant who he has debated, and YouTube is not a reliable source.
I do not care about the NYC or White Plains stuff, maybe is has a reliable source, maybe not. But you still need to read WP:BRD: It was perfectly valid to revert your bold edit, and your reinstating it was edit-warring. Your insistence that you were right to edit-war your edits back in does not bode well. But at least you followed the Discuss part of BRD this time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that you continued your edit war. Seriously: read WP:BRD. Do it. And follow it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Special:Diff/1171701819: The term "pseudoscience" is derisive and does not align with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts); theory is a more appropriate and neutral alternative. Precisely, ID is not a scientific theory and while a few scientists may hold personal opinions, evolution is not controversial for biologists, but the scientific consensus. Thus ID is best described as a religious doctrine or argument, using misleading pseudoscientific claims to justify it. The related WP policy is WP:PSCI and the relevant part of WP:NPOV to quote becomes "avoid stating facts as opinions [...] avoid stating opinions as facts [...] Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included." —PaleoNeonate – 19:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this is all a bit off, and that Wiki is coming close to being defamatory. Tour has stated multiple times that he cannot say how life began and that he believes it will one day be explained from within science. Intelligent design seems to vary, but in Your's case it just seems to be an opinion on the avaliable data. Much the same way materialism is. For it to be psudo he would need to be making bad claims within science. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of what you say has any connection to the article. For example, the article does not say that Tour believes he can say how life began. It only says he has connections to the anti-science organization, the Disco Tute, including him signing one of their anti-science statements.
And using the word "materialism" is a dog whistle for religious anti-science propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Approach

[edit]

I included theory for abiogenesis. This is appropriate and widely cited. A simple google search shows that the only time “mainstream approach” appears with “abiogenesis” is…. James Tour’s wiki page.

clearly, this is your personal viewpoint and inappropriate for a biography of a living person. I would ask others to weigh in.

Abiogenesis definition from dictionary.com

the original evolution of life or living organismsfrom inorganic or inanimate substances. "to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago" PerseusMeredith (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abiogenesis is a concept. It involves several rivalling theories, but it itself is not a theory. The wording you quote confirms that.
clearly, this is your personal viewpoint Bullshit. Within biology, abiogenesis is very obviously the only approach. Introducing gods or aliens would be pseudoscientific, and panspermia is a pseudoscience only promoted by extreme outsiders from other fields, like Chandra Wickramasinghe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please cite to show that it is a "mainstream approach." Otherwise, it is your personal opinion. I'm fine if you say "the abiogenesis concept." I think that's correct. PerseusMeredith (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "mainstream" is too weak. It is the only scientific approach to the subject, not just the mainstream one. You can read the sources in the article Origin of life (which tellingly redirects to abiogenesis) to find out that I am far from alone in this. It is a WP:SKYISBLUE matter, and you are the one with a peculiar opinion. The problem is that for the article James Tour, we can only use sources that mention Tour, so, finding those will be difficult. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Just borrow from the abiogenesis article and say, ...abiogenesis, the prevailing scientific hypothesis for the origin of life, though he denied his faith was the motivation for his rejection of the mainstream approach. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the more that the phrase "in line with his Christian fundamentalist faith," should not be there. Nowhere in any of his talks does he cite the Bible or religious beliefs. He sticks purely to chemistry. The only reason this line is in there is to discredit him, it's not from a neutral point of view and is not appropriate for biography of a living person. PerseusMeredith (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what happens when creationists pretend that their religion-based rejection of science is actually scientific. See Intelligent design, "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo". If a reliable source made that connection, it is perfectly fine. If not, it should go since it is original research. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you don't cite any problems with his chemistry nor do you cite anything to back up these statements. It seems to me, that Dr. Tour argument is purely science while your argument is full of political and your own personal views, name-calling and labeling. PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you don't True, I do not do any original research. That is because on Wikipedia, that is forbidden. It seems to me that you have no clue about what you are doing here.
Please familiarize yourself with the rules before accusing other people of what comes down to actually following those rules. WP:FRINGE is especially relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You included "in line with his Christian fundamentalist faith," where is your citation for this? If not, it is original research (actually, you don't even provide any research at all). The only reason it is included is to discredit Dr. Tour's chemistry. He is using science, not you. PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You included Not true. I did not write that, I just reverted your deletion of it because you were being generally irrational. I wrote above: If a reliable source made that connection, it is perfectly fine. If not, it should go since it is original research because I do not know what is the case. Stop making this about me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Life

[edit]

Hob Gadling, why are you removing his perspective on Origin of Life? This is his bio, not the abiogenesis page. This is his perspective and has received quite a bit of media coverage on it. It might be your opinion that it is "anti-scientific" but that's your opinion and not consistent with wikipedia policy for neutral point of view. If you read his position page, Tour's arguments are purely scientific. If you have anything from abiogenesis scientists that dispute his chemistry, we can discuss including them here. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we can't include, briefly, his own perspective, fringe or otherwise, on the origin of life in his bio article. Seems perfectly relevant to the article's subject, especially since it's included in the section header. If there are better sources than his website, just use those. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY. That's why. We do not scan the writings of people for what we find interesting. That is what secondary sources are for. We cite those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The gist: it is a mystery because we don't know which of the 6 or 7 hypotheses about the origin of life is the right one. This does not mean that the hypotheses are bunk or unworkable. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't saying that they are unworkable or bunk. I think he agrees with you. All he is saying is that we aren't close to understanding the chemistry behind origin of life and that there is a misconception in the general population about that fact. PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:FRINGE. Your opinion that they are "purely scientific" is your opinion. And read my edit summary. As a service, I am copying it here: Do not add anti-science propaganda from self-published sources, and do not delete necessary context. The essential point is "self-published" - WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY are also good to know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you basing that this is "anti-scientific propaganda?" Just because you said so? Where is he wrong? Why don't you have any citations of other credible origin of life scientists disputing his chemistry? PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in discussing this part. As I said, it is a self-published primary source and therefore not useable, that is enough for the purpose of this page. If you want to talk about your opinion that it is not anti-scientific propaganda, you will have to do that in another part of the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's his biography. It has nothing to do with whether he is correct about the chemistry of abiogenesis or not. He has devoted a tremendous amount of public time espousing his view, videos of him have received over 1,000,000 views. His position has been very public and has received a substantial amount of coverage and notice in the scientific community. It shouldn't be kept out because it's your opinion that it is "pseudoscience." PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally to all the policy pages mentioned above, you should read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Tour&oldid=1208721055"