Talk:Francis Collins (geneticist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Copyright Status
It appears that the information from the genome.gov site is in the public domain per the site copyright page located at [1]. Database 01:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- removed copvio tag.--Duk 22:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, all US Government work is Public Domain. –Wulf 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Denomination of Christianity?
Does anyone know what denomination of Christian Dr. Collins practices? I briefly Googled, but didn't come up with anything. Ejectgoose 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- No specific denominationSfterry 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is he a christian then? At the moment the religion section doesn't even say that. It currently says that he believes in God and rejects creationism... so he could be a muslim or a sehki for all I know... perhaps we should be a bit less ambigious. We shouldn't assume the reader knowns these things.217.155.32.111 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, he is a Christian.Sfterry 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism section
The criticism section needs to be completely rewritten, or at the very least references added.
Cowboyathlete 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questions
Is it just me or is this article misrepresenting both Dawkins and Collins by quoting Dawkins ("the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain") out of context - as if Dawkins had no proper arguments... and then leaving it at that - as if Collins did not have a proper response? Why the emphasis on this - IMHO probably least enlightening - part of the otherwise interesting 3-way interview anyway? Mira Gambolputty 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. After reading the complete Times article, this looks like a disingenuous quote selection to me. As the section title states, this section ought to be about Collins' "Religious Views" and this paraphrase and out-of-context quote seems to be largely about Dawkins' criticisms of Collins. I think a quote like this much more enlightening and fair (it is in response to a attack by Dawkins): "But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?', 'Is there a God?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion." Anybody object to using this quote instead? (BBdsp (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Franciscollins.jpg
Image:Franciscollins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

