Talk:Jack Cuozzo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Cuozzo article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Please add new comments to the BOTTOM of the page and sign your posts with four tildas. Thank you

[edit] article changes

Hi, making a few changes to improve the quality of the article. I will explain my reasons below: "Because the head and face continue to grow throughout our lifes, the unusual appearance of the Neanderthal skulls is due to growth changes not seen in modern populations because we no longer live long enough to produce the extreme changes in the head and face." Changed this, to point out that this is still about the theory, not factual, that the appearance of the Nanderthal is not unusual but simply different from modern man, and removed references to "us", as per style guide.

"This is a view not accepted by many palaeontologists, though many like Ian Tattersall reviewed his research prior to publication and found no errors in his research." "Not by many", or "many", is not a suitable style for wikipedia. Either state how many, or do not state at all. For Ian Tattersall, either provide a source citing Mr. Tattersall, or leave this out. If the brief correspondence between Cuozzo and Tattersall is meant in which Cuzzo asks for publication, and Tattersall refuses, then the answer of Mr. Tattersall can just as well be a polite way of talking, and Tattersalls personal letter to Cuozzo certainly does not account as scientific publication.

Conspiracy does not need a link explaining what a conspiracy is.

"Even after many years, Cuozzo's research has not been shown to be in error." "Many years" again is not a suitable expression for wikipdeia. "Cuozzo's reserch" is ambiguous, as Cuozzo probably created several theories, not just one. Also, Cuozzo contradicts all mainstream science, so implicitly all mainstream science also contradicts Cuozzo, so his work is not generally agreed upon. The sentence above could be misunderstood.

"in addition to a few inadequate comments from Chris Stringer, Professor of Palaeontology, at the Natural History Museum, London, " "inadequate" violates the NPOV principle

", who states that Cuozzo's conclusions about the Broken Hill skull are incorrect and his evidence inadequate for his "charges about "evolutionists" falsifying the skull, and there appear to be no scientific bases for them either"." This appears as too much detail and an unsuitable selection of the reference. At this point of the wikipedia article, the reader would not even know about the Broken hill skull.

Added wikilinks to Colin Groves, additional references to the reviews, added small summaries of the reviews.

"But even if Stringer's response to the Broken Hill cranium were correct, there are dozens of other Neanderthal skulls in Cuozzo's book that can be shown to have been tampered with due to evolutionary presuppositions." This sounds like a defense of Cuozzo's work, as such it has no place in wikipedia. Replaced also "dozens of" and "can be shown" for style issues.

"This is a book written primarily by evolutionists, but Dr. Cuozzo's research was respected enough to be included." Again, this is a personal comment which has no place in wikipedia.

Dr. Cuozzo has also contributed a chapter in the new book: "The Neandertal Adolescent Le Moustier 1 (Band 12) New Aspects, New Results". Could not find a reference, please add to this.

"plus many other Neanderthal experts in the world." changed to "and many others" as who or who is not an expert on what is subjective.

"Dr. Cuozzo's research on the Le Moustier neanderthal remains show that the original skull was improperly reconstructed based on evolutionary presuppositions." This is not an NPOV, unless there is consent in science.

Edited the book list to show which books are by Cuozzo, and to which he only contributed parts.

Moved contents to top

Also corrected the link to Cuozzo responds to Stringer, as this was the respond to Groves again. Removed the bit about further skulls mentioned in the book than mentioned by Stringer and Groves, as the wikipedia entry about Cuozzo should not go into too much detail on the discussion about neanderthal bones, the remaining text should be sufficient to convey what claims Cuozzo made, and how he is received by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverine79 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)