Talk:C. Leroy Ellenberger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
The conference Ellenberger was "disinvited to" was in 1994 in Portland, Oregon--Henry Bauer's book misreports the year. Ellenberger went to the conference to write an account for Skeptic magazine; at the time I was the website administrator for Skeptic, and was actively posting items to the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup for Ellenberger.
See the 1994 thread on talk.origins (available in Google Groups) with the subject "_Skeptic_ and Ellenberger in Portland". There should be other threads from 1994 in talk.origins that also reference Ellenberger and the 1994 conference. Lippard 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Category Immanuel Velikovsky
This new category doesn't feel right. I'm sure that a person's name is unusual as a category name. I wonder whether "Velikovsky Affair" might be better? --First Base 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The point of this page is what, exactly?
Is this page a promotional page for Ellenberger? I've read it, but am not sure what the gist of the article is? Is it to promote the notion that one "Velikovskian" (I hate to use labels, as I think they're fictitious ways of lumping people into overly broad categories and often used in a denigrating manner) "changed his mind"? In the hopes that others might too? I know thre have been edit wars on related controversial topics (Velikovsky tends to polarize). I'm having a hard time determining if this is NPOV or not, (as-written) and "what's the point?" I think it could use a bit of an overhaul. Divide it into sections (professional life, Velikovskian period, non-Velikovskian period, reason for switching sides, controversy involved, etc.)... As is, the article seems like a bit of a mess. Not saying it needs to be deleted, as he many be notable on some level (some might debate that). Just needs cleaning up and a bit of "pithiness" or "pointed-ness". As it is, it borders on a meandering "essay" rather than a "report." Mgmirkin 21:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Phrases such as "finally came to realize" are not consistent with the neutral point of view. There lots more such instances. I'm going to put up a tag on the article, and encourage contributors to try and clean it up a bit. -- Duae Quartunciae (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
First Base, as originator, might say what the point of this page is. The original version was true/correct as far as it went, but the "disinvited" passage was not NPOV considering the history of Ellenberger's participation, which was subsequently illustrated with additional descriptive text. As the entry stands now, it is a true rendition of the topics it covers. Considering that the Velikovsky and related pages (Kronos, Pensee, David Talbott, Worlds in Collision, and Immanuel Velikovsky) were uploaded initially by Velikovsky partisans, there is a place for acknowledging the existence of a countervailing presence in the Velikovsky controversy. Ellenberger is not the first turncoat, just the only former insider to make his disaffection known so extensively. While not a full biography, this entry is certainly more "biographical" than that for David Talbott and unless a subject writes his own entry, as Alfred de Grazia almost certainly did, there are limitations on how much biographical information can be assembled from publicly available information.--Phaedrus7, 29 Jul 2007
- FWIW, this article seems a damn sight more tightly referenced and verifiable than most wikipedia ones!--feline1 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- The references and verifiability seems fine at a quick glance. My concern is with neutral wording.
-
- For example, the phrase I identified in the main text:
| Ellenberger finally came to understand why Clube and Napier's Taurid complex model ... was the most scientifically valid and intellectually satisfying replacement for Velikovsky-inspired models ... |
-
- That is a strong value judgement on the model itself. Replace "understand why" with "believe that" and you have a neutral comment about Ellengberger.
- In fact, I'll be bold and go ahead to make the changes. As before, I invite others who are better up on the topics to clean up in my wake. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Finished making changes. I've rearranged material a bit as well. I think that all the main content remains as before. I've used slightly different wording in a few places. Comments very welcome. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
Leroy might have some comments to make on the Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) --81.201.56.15 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Although the Times did not print Ellenberger's letter correcting Whelton's many errors and misconceptions,[12] it was distributed privately by mail with the September 1, 1987 "Dear Friends" letter.[13] is not neutral Akatie (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This objection has been remedied and the tag shall therefore be removed. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clube and Napier's model
I believe that the last paragraph of the previous section could become the first paragraph of the "Clube and Napier's model" section. Aldo L (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
