Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request 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.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Argument from authority

"Removed "pseudoscience" sentence. This man is a scientist with a PH.D. The citations listed articles from two other scientists." - JBFrenchhorn (talk · contribs)

Some perspective here. Kary Mullis has a nobel prize on top of his PhD, should we believe everything he says without question? David D. (Talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A PhD, particularly one explicitly gained for the sole purpose of "destroying Darwinism", does not make one a "scientist", nor preclude one from being a pseudoscientist, a category defined as "people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience." Wells has never worked as a scientist, nor taught science, so would not generally be considered one. But even if he were one, it would not preclude him from being a pseudoscientist as well. HrafnTalkStalk 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wells' dishonesty once again

Looks like Wells is busted lying once again, well if distorting and mischaracterizing legit research is considered lying (that's not considered lying by the Discovery Institute, it's how they operate). Wells is very good at this sort of propaganda. He's busted quickly this time, including by one of the investigators of the paper that he perverts. Read more http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/wells_says_something_stupid_ag.php or more http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/how-stupid-do-t.html Read Wells' Discovery Institute sponsored lies here http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/the_irrelevance_of_darwinian_e.html What a goofball! How best to include this latest controversy in a NPOV...Hmmm.... Angry Christian (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just summarise what Ian Musgrave said, and attribute it to him. It's easier to do that and then figure out where it fits in best. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS reappraisal again

Wells was apparently one of many signatories to a letter to the editor (dated June 6, 1991) that states:

"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."

Why does this article, apparently with no other references, go beyond simply reporting this? -Exucmember (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because some people are grasping at straws to find anything to make Wells sound like a kook. Roger (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Two fairly short sentences is hardly "go[ing] beyond simply reporting this". And Schlafly, we have no need to do anything to make Wells "sound like a kook", he does a bang-up job of it all on his own. HrafnTalkStalk 05:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'd suggest that Exucmember reads more carefully, there is another reference -- to a Vancouver Sun article. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If Wells' own quotes make him sound like a kook, then just use them. The Vancouver Sun opinion article just says, "Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." This does not add any facts; it is just an opinion from someone who does not like Moonies. Roger (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange, I don't remember reading in WP:V that we need a quote from a person to establish facts about them, or that the source has to be sympathetic. We have WP:RSs, and that's all we need. So quit your tendentious whining. HrafnTalkStalk 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote my entry below before seeing the last two comments above, and I'm not going to rewrite or change it.

My interest in this article is low. My views on evolution and on God are roughly opposite to those of Wells, so I have no desire to "defend" him. Also, the editors of this article seem to have a hard time cooperating, and certain editors (critics of Wells) seem not even to be able to restrain themselves from being rude and uncivil. Nevertheless, it would be good for all of Wikipedia's articles to be encyclopedic, so I'll offer my opinion.

I haven't even looked at this article for about 6 months, and I have to say that it's incomparably better than it was. It's no longer the case that any intelligent reader would immediately see the strong bias.[I see now that some of the most egregious problems were simply shuffled around] The question remains, however: If Wells is an obvious kook why not just let the facts speak for themselves instead of going overboard and making it sound like a biased attack?

The Vancouver Sun article mentions Wells only in passing and establishes only two things. First, it shows that it is not objective toward Wells by being derogatory. Second, it claims that Wells had "joined the AIDS denialist camp." That's it, nothing more. In the absence of any claim anywhere that Wells has done something more than sign the petition, it seems likely his signing was the basis for Peter McKnight's claim in the newspaper article. This newspaper article adds no factual information.

The only thing we have is that Wells signed a petition 17 years ago. Why not just state the facts instead of excessive characterization which may come across as biased?

In any case, the facts regarding Wells and AIDS deserve a mention according to the citable factual information, but we don't have much, and it certainly doesn't belong in the introduction! -Exucmember (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unification Church position on evolution

Are we all sure that the Unification Church is opposed to the theory of Evolution?

  • Rev. Moon: "I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but I am saying that there is a creative process going on behind it."

I checked the first of a few footnotes and found this - which seems to say just the opposite of the article text:

  • evolution[2][3][4] which is opposed by the Unification Church,[35][36][37][38]

I think that the church accepts some aspects of evolution, such as the gradual appearance of new species over hundreds of millions of years. It does not make the sweeping condemnation that Young Earth Creationists make. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context Ed:[1]

I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but I am saying that there is a creative process going on behind it. In the theory of evolution there are sudden occurrences called mutations, in which something new comes from its parent body. But we have to say that there must have been some energy or willpower that authorized that occurrence. Could evolution itself create a new awareness and make a new design? Absolutely not.

This appears to be a form of progressive creationism. Further up in the same essay Moon repeats the tired old 'acceptance of evolution leads to immorality' objection:

People who advocate the theory of evolution say that there is not much difference between the basic makeup of men and animals. What they are saying is that the desires of the mind are illusory, and therefore, that there is no such thing as an absolute standard of conscience. In other words, they feel we are only made of material, and that there is no such thing as a permanent ideal. If we are only animals then we are no better than any animal, and there is no room for a permanent standard. Therefore, no permanent quality of value can exist.

That Moon and the UC are creationist & anti-evolution is prima facie in the cited references. Exactly what form these creationist views are would involve WP:OR to adduce & are in any case not overly relevant. HrafnTalkStalk 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn's statement is simply false. Footnote 35 includes the statement by Moon "I don't deny the process of evolution in development." And Moon has said a lot about this and every other topic; the totality of his views and their relevance in his overall worldview is what's important, not some cherry-picked statements. Footnotes 36 and 38 are authored by critics unfamiliar with the whole body of Unification Theology. Footnote 37 is a member trying to claim guidance by a senior Unificationist philosopher. Ed is right. The teachings of the Unification Church take no position on evolution. There is no mention of it in Divine Principle, except as implied by Divine Principle's clear respect for science. The misleading footnotes and the assertion which is unjustified need to be removed. Btw, let me say again that I don't share Wells' views on God or evolution (I believe in the scientific consensus), but I think biographies of living persons that are hatchet jobs like this article are a disgrace to Wikipedia.
Why do you seem to think just presenting the facts is unacceptable? In my view this tends to undermine the credibility of the article. Any intelligent reader can easily see a hatchet job. Why not just present the facts and let the fringe theories and theorists look bad of their own accord? When editors here subject intelligent design and its advocates to exaggerated, derisive diatribe, it alienates intelligent readers. Hrafn, I would have discussed this with you privately in a completely non-confrontational way, but your email is not enabled, so I have no choice but to say it here (with the implicit criticism plainly visible). -Exucmember (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think misrepresentation is "unacceptable" -- Moon did not baldly state "I don't deny the process of evolution in development." He said "I don't deny the process of evolution in development, but..." and made a whole host of caveats that completely undercuts his original statement -- as I have already documented above. This is not a forum for a lengthy debate on Unification theology. We have WP:RSs for UC's opposition to evolution, unless you can find ones that say otherwise, without massive equivocation that renders them toothless, I would suggest that this issue is closed. HrafnTalkStalk 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Your interpretive OR that Moon's "caveats ... completely undercut his original statement" leaves us with an inadequate source for the text's assertion that the Unification Church opposes evolution.
2. Footnote 36 (Coyne) does not state that the Unification Church opposes evolution. It says opposition is found in many corners, including the Unification Church, which means either the church as a whole or opposition among some of its members or opposition by one member who made it his cause. To imply that Coyne is a RS that the Unification Church opposes evolution is dishonest. I am removing the source.
3. Footnote 38 (Shermer) cites Wells' statement "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me..." as justification for his claim that Moon assigned Wells the task, a baseless conclusion, which makes him unrelable. Shermer cites Wells' statement as meaning something other than what it means! I am removing the source.-Exucmember (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. While the "original statement" is undercut, Moon's array of anti-evolution "caveats" are not. The 'evolution but ... [statements that completely gut evolution]' claim is a frequently used creationist canard.
  2. "Church founder Sun Myung Moon has frequently condemned darwinism for giving God no role in the history of life." I think that's fairly clear.
  3. Shelmer clearly indicates that Wells was "chosen" by Moon to enter a Ph.D. programme in Biology which Wells saw as "prepar[ing] for battle" on the issue. Is it conceivable that Wells did so without Moon being aware of, and supporting this goal. Shermer clearly doesn't think so, hence his stating that Moon "assigned Wells the task of destroying evolution."

I find your arguments to be baseless and tendentious. HrafnTalkStalk 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Still interpretive OR on your part; he has made many other statements. There is nothing in Divine Principle about evolution or Darwin. Nevertheless, I left the citation, as it is pertinent.
2. Like the first sentence of this poor quality article, you seem not to be familiar with the history of the term "Darwinism."
3. He is dead wrong. He is not reliable.

What value is there in criticizing my arguments as tendentious, when yours are equally tendentious? --Exucmember (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement cited is clearly opposed to the scientific understanding of evolution – REVEREND SUN MYUNG MOON SPEAKS ON OUR STANDARD March 1, 1981

There must be something outside evolution that can supply creative energy. It is true that development occurred between the lowest and the highest stages, but it did not happen automatically. Each stage was the result of a design and input of additional energy. Evolutionists don't want to recognize that. When they recognize that creative energy was put in, then they have to acknowledge a universal consciousness that provided the know-how. When you talk about man's conscience then you have to recognize a universal truth that ties into it. Thus, you have to recognize God.

Whether or not this still sets out the official position, Wells' statement shows that he was convinced by Moon's words and other studies to battle against "Darwinism", which he identifies with natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, genetics and common descent, opposing all aspects of evolution except what he calls "microevolution". Of course the history of the term "Darwinism" is interesting, and what aspect of that do you think Hrafn is unfamiliar with? . . dave souza, talk 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the Unification Church position on evolution, then, might be described as "progressive creationism" as indicated above by an ex-member of the church. It certainly fits in with what I think the church teaches (and I've been a member my entire adult life).

The NCSE, an excellent resource on the topic of Evolution and Creationism, quotes Frank J. Sonleitner at length, but to be brief I will use internal links, bullet points and ellipses to emphasize what I feel are the relevant points. (If you need the full context, please follow the external link.)

  • Thomson ... indicated that there were three meanings for the word evolution.
    1. The first meaning is "change over time" and is based on the fact that there are sequences of fossils in the geologic strata. ... Almost everyone accepts this: ... all progressive creationists, including Pandas. The only people who reject it are the 6 day (young earth) creationists ...
    2. ... "all organisms are related by descent through common ancestry" ... is accepted as a fact by all evolutionists and most progressive creationists. ... Pandas apparently believe that the designer made each successive form anew although it might have made use of the blueprints of previous organisms (Pandas, p. 42.) Thus Pandas is rejecting the law that "all life comes from life."
    3. The third meaning refers to the "explanatory mechanism" of evolution. The Darwinian mechanism (mutation, genetic recombination, reproduction, and natural selection) ... also is accepted by most non-Darwinians evolutionists and progressive creationists for microevolution. ... [2]

I don't like to do WP:OR, so I hope my fellow contributors can tell me (A) whether the Unification Church view fits into the progressive creationism slot and (B) whether progressive creationism is opposed to evolution.

Also, when we say "opposed to evolution" do we have in mind all three meanings given by Thomson (as cited by Sonleitner), or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't like to do OR, are you asking us to do it for you? ;) The resource is a bit elderly, from 2004, and there has been a lot said about Pandas since then. You miss out the end of the third option, "This theory is accepted by Darwinian evolutionists and some theistic evolutionists. It also is accepted by most non-Darwinians evolutionists and progressive creationists for microevolution. Non-Darwinian evolutionists postulate other mechanisms for macroevolution, but so far none have been proposed that have any scientific validity." Where the Unification Church view fits depends on some factors. They seem to reject Darwinian explanations, though that itself has several meanings. That would imply a position in the general anti-evolution movement, like others accepting "microevolution" while demanding some divine mechanism for "macroevolution", a term much favoured by creationists and used flexibly to depict whatever they reject. Do they postulate any mechanism, or just say God did it? For the article, we really need a good secondary source rather than trying to interpret the Church's documents. . dave souza, talk 19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Unification Church takes no position on evolution. The only relevant position is the strong rejection of certain literal interpretations of the Bible including 6 literal days of creation, which would preclude young earth creationism. Members have a range of views, including Wells, who claims to have found the inspiration for his position in comments by Sun Myung Moon. -Exucmember (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For me, as a UC member, there is no contradiction between God as the Creator and anything in science because God first created the principles of science and then used them to create the Universe. Since the whole process was His there was no need for Him to make any special interventions at any point. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is still a hatchet job

This article is still a hatchet job, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Any intelligent reader can immediately see that it is highly biased, undercutting what should be a very easy task - to present the facts about Wells and let him shoot himself in the foot. I wonder whether certain editors may actually prefer to make the defense of evolution look bad. This article certainly does that! -Exucmember (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacing a "hatchet job" with whitewash is no improvement, which the removal of the HIV/AIDS denial activity amounts to. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This attack on the article is still fallacious

This article gives WP:DUE weight to the vast majority of scientific sources -- who are of the opinion that Wells is a dishonest creationist whose claims are without any scientific basis. Nobody in the scientific community takes his claims seriously, so the article should not give the impression that any of them do. HrafnTalkStalk 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The following quote is an example of original synthesis (see WP:SYN).

Wells's assertions and conclusion in this book, as well as in his other writings, are rejected by the scientific community.[1]

Unless the scientific community (and who are these people?) specifically address Wells' arguments, then we cannot give the impression that they know who he is. That would be synthesis--taking fact one, combining it with fact two, in order to arrive at previously unpublished assertion three.
I'm just coming to this article from the BLP noticeboard where I notice that this article could use a little work. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That piece was more than a little cludgy. I've replaced it by a paraphrase (with cite) of a prominent history of the ID movement, which summarises the scientific reviews of Icons. HrafnTalkStalk 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This response to my critique is fallacious

Hrafn has not responded to the fact that the article is highly biased throughout; rather he - ironically - uses a fallacious argument by implying that I want the article to say the scientific community takes his claims seriously. Again, my point is that the over-the-top hatchet job done on Wells in this BLP is not necessary. Just present the facts. Have a criticism section. Don't try to pass off overblown diatribe as factual or NPOV. -Exucmember (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exucmember: the scientific community (and particularly the section of it that has expertise in evolutionary biology) is itself scathing in its criticism of Wells. AFAIK, there is little or no positive, or even neutral, commentary from that community. It is therefore entirely consistent with WP:DUE that the coverage of Wells casts him in a harsh light. This is not an "over-the-top hatchet job" -- it is merely an accurate reflection of the low opinion that scientists have of Wells. HrafnTalkStalk 10:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The views that Wells puts forward come under NPOV: Pseudoscience, and relevant provisions of policy include NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. See in particular NPOV: Giving "equal validity". The majority views have to be shown in relevant sections, and neutrality is not achieved if the article structre has them segregated away in a "criticism section". . . dave souza, talk 13:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this bias you're talking about, but I do see that you deleted sourced and relevant content, which I've now restored. Odd nature (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see the scathing criticisms made by people in the scientific community reported in an encyclopedic manner, free from diatribe, exaggeration, name-calling, using citations which say one thing to support a different statement in the article, etc.
Neutral, uninvolved editors who saw the BLP notice have made specific suggestions (above and below) for how to remove some of the bias. -Exucmember (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] opinion and advice

Seeing this listed on the noticeboard for Bio, it appears to me that an emphasis on the evidence for the SPOV on darwinism, and aids, is altogether redundant. The article here links to the articles on those subjects, which is quite sufficient. The excessive amounts of quotations attacking his view on these subjects are overemphasis, as is the excessive length of the quotations from them opposing him, when the material is on the web in full. I have edited accordingly. the nature of his views is clear enough. Even from a SPOV, it is a more effective presentation when it does not look grievously unbalanced. DGG (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Most of WP's articles on creationism, ID, etc. could also use some work. That is not something that I am very interested in however. I only pay attention to Jonathan's article because he is a fellow Unification Church member. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. The amount of POV quotes against Jonathan Wells is excessive. One does not need to bludgeon the reader over the head in such a way that it becomes obvious that the article is no longer neutral on the life and writings of Jonathan Wells. This point, by the way, is not limited to the Wells article. It's something that occasionally surfaces when writing the biographies of living persons. By all means, include notable (and cited) criticism from reliable sources. I find them useful. But for goodness sake, it should be done judiciously. One needs to be careful about not creating a coatrack article (see WP:COATRACK) in which, nominally, the subject of the article is about the life of the author, but instead turns into something else entirely. J Readings (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW the opening sentence says that Wells is a "disbeliever in evolution." Strictly speaking we don't know for sure what he really believes, just what he writes and says. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I've tweaked the first paragraph to incorporate his statement about "destroying "Darwinism" and showing that what they're opposing is the scientific consensus. As I'm sure they'd agree. And of course WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV/FAQ require us to show the majority view of Wells's views. Agree that the life of the author in itself doesn't need that particular context, but the notability of the author is entirely due to his extreme minority views which have to be shown in compliance with policy. . . dave souza, talk 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you have made an improvement to the wording. And Wells knew he was going against the scientific mainstream when he decided to do what he's doing. I'd say that should be noted with about the same weight as an article on a socialist or libertarian whould say that that person is taking a position against the political mainstream. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Gegenheimer's website

I removed all references to the Peter Gegenheimer website. The most important reason is that it appears to be a self-published source. Regardless of who Gegenheimer is, we cannot use its material in the biographies of living persons. According to WP:SPS, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's is not a self-published source in the sense WP:SPS or you mean. I agreeWikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources obviously precludes "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" as reliable sources. But An Introduction to Intelligent Design is part of Molecular Biosciences program at The University of Kansas-Lawrence Evolution Homepage and is used as reference in the course syllabus. If The University of Kansas sees fit to host it as a reference source for students it meets the criteria as an academic resource.
Even if you could successfully argue that it's just another self-published source, which I would continue to say it isn't, Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and Peter Gegenheimer is a Associate Professor, Biochemistry & Biophysics at the Department of Molecular Biosciences at University of Kansas-Lawrence. Per WP:V he meets the bar as a "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Odd nature (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. No. The source needs to be removed immediately. There is no editorial oversight involved with this personal homepage. It is not published by The University like a university press publication. If there is evidence that it passed through the legal department and fact checking departments before publication, then it would not be self-published. That's why we generally accept academic journal articles, newspapers, and books -- they are generally peer-reviewed to maintain some form of accuracy. There is no way we can tell if there is any attention being paid here to fact checking based on our reliable source standards. Most importantly, and this is key, you're looking at self-published sources from the wrong angle. We're dealing with third parties here. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. It does not read "sometimes" or "occasionally" or "frequently". It reads "never". But if you're adamant about presenting this self-published source on the biography of a third-person, we can always ask the Reliable Source noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard what they think. I don't mind at all. In the meantime, I'm going to remove it to be safe. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Odd nature: This is not a self-published source. This is part of the departmental curriculum, and is published on the departmental website. This falls squarely outside the domain of WP:SPS. I have posted on the reliable sources noticeboard. If someone experienced in assessing the quality of sources sees fit, then he or she can revert me. But I think you should probably refrain from doing so. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I look forward to reading what they have to say, too. Though, to be honest, it probably would have been a good idea to wait for a reply from them before quickly re-adding the questionable material. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I have a question for Odd nature and siℓℓy rabbit. You both claim that this website is part of a "departmental curriculum". Where specifically does Peter Gegenheimer say that on his website? I've read his website and haven't been able to find it yet. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS denialism

I agree with the AIDS denialists that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, just like rattlesnakes are not the sole cause of rattlesnake bites. I am not sure of Wells's exact position on this but I think it should be more clearly explained in the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, both primary and secondary, say Wells signed a list of people denying the current scientific consensus that AIDS is caused by HIV. Wikipedia's policies, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:V state the article should simply state just that. What you personally believe is neither here nor there for Wikipedia or this article. Odd nature (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting my opinions be included in the article, just that Wells's be made more clear. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We do not know what Wells' position is in any detail. All we know is that he signed a petition in 1991 calling for "reappraisal of the existing evidence for this hypothesis": that "HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS". The article should state the facts. Critics have called this "AIDS reappraisal" and "AIDS denialism", so one of these two labels has to be used to be concise in the section heading. Two of the three cited critics, including the only one that has more than a passing mention (having some substantial discussion of the issues) call it "AIDS reappraisal". "Reappraisal" is the word actually used in the petition. Why would we use the harsher, minority recharacterization of a critic rather than the majority characterization of critics which agreed with the original word, if we're interested in being objective, accurate, and encyclopedic? -Exucmember (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)