From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Currently, the article on Woodmorappe is not balanced, and is more a soapbox to serve those who disagree with his publications and conclusions. The fact that the main author of the article spells out his intentions ahead of time (believing Woodmorappe to be "crazy") tells me that Woodmorappe has as much chance of being fairly represented here by this gentleman as Martin Luther King would be if he were biographied by a Jim Crow advocate. It seems that if any counterbalance (or removal of unnecessary, diatribal comments, as well as moving of numerous hyperlinks to the reference section) is edited into the article, it won't last long. Not everyone has the time to police every page here, and more than likely, this article (if corrected) will be the subject of further personal attacks and off-topic debating against Mr. Woodmorappe. As is, the article is unbalanced more in attacking Woodmorappe (and rather shamelessly pronouncing private details about himself on the web, without any concern as to how such actions may affect his current employment or publishing opportunities within a secular scientific community). This is a very shameless display on Wikipedia, which is normally reserved for encyclopedic (not editorial) articles. Balance should be given. The problem is that the apparent Woodmorappe critics go on numerous rabbit trails as is in the article; any rebuttal against the off-track criticisms will only lead to more details having to be brought forth; hence, the bulk of a tangential article will detract from the main point (which is basic information on Woodmorappe and his research), and will turn an otherwise encyclopedic page into a tasteless debate forum. And for the record, I didn't see any substantial, succinct material on any of the *technical* points Woodmorappe raises, merely character assassination against him. I propose that most of the info be edited; that succinct, accurate and *dry* additions be made of pertinent research Woodmorappe has done in regards to geology, radiometric dating, cladogram critiques; and the hyperlinks to any and all counter critiques being moved primarily to the reference section. If any critiques stay on the mainpage, they should be published articles, either in journals or in books; and the wording should be to the point and *relevant* to the technical points discussed therein. For the most part, I only saw internet editorials used as proper references, either for or against Woodmorappe; and that without any technical merit. Let's keep this article clean, to the point, and without soapbox tendencies. (edit)

Hey all! This is my first article here. Woodmorappe's name was mentioned during the course of a debate I'm having on the scientific merits of Creation vs. Evolution, and I started researching. The more I read about the guy, the more I thought, Geez, this guy's crazy! And then I thought, I wonder if Wiki has an article on him? So I look, and lo and behold the poor guy has nothing written about him. So I decided to write an article on him. By the way, this is only the lede of the article. I'm not done yet, but I wanted to get this part saved and out there while I got the other parts ready. I'll post here again when I've finished with it. While it's in progress, feel free to edit mistakes I make- again, I'm new to this and thus open to criticism. And if you guys know stuff about him that I missed, I'd really appreciate it if you pointed the stuff out. Zero.exe 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Zero here. Not sure who made the edits to the page, but thanks. Guess I got a little long-winded... If anybody knows where I can find some more biographical information on Peczkis, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd post it on the talk section.

Contents 1 NPOV 1.1 False attack on Woodmorappe 1.2 This page needs responsible additions and editing 1.3 Delete this article?

[edit] NPOV

• The work NA: AFS appears to a major rationale for this bio, yet no overview or summary of the work (nor its impact) is provided—only a summary of the more damaging criticisms. Is NA: AFS accepted by the mainstream creationist community? Some discussion along these lines should be provided as a minimum.

• Woodmorappe’s rejoinder to Morton is not accurately summarized (e.g., Woodmorappe did substantially more than merely name calling). This needs to be corrected.

1) We have no reason to believe it had "ANY" impact and it appears to be a minor work in the creationist community. 2) Reading Woodmorappe's rebuttal, if offered little academic response and contained a heavy dose of name calling. Feel free to add evidence and improve the article, but that is not reason enough to put the NPOV tag. Thus, I am removing it.

[edit] False attack on Woodmorappe

The people who composed this article are obviously not well-read on the Glen Morton's critic or John Woodmorappe's answer. Whoever wrote this blatant lie is surely a outlaw:

Woodmorappe has offered a rebuttal to the criticism.[4] This response includes namecalling, such as claiming Morton is called "naive," accused of having "fantasies," and displaying "ignorance." Thusly, backing up Morton's assertion in the original criticism that "Woodmorappe resorts to lots of name calling when he does not like an adversary's argument.[5]

The response by woodmorappe includes no such thing! In his last response, such words as "naive" isn't there proving the non-objectivity of this wikipedia article. And here are the owners of wikipedia trying to tell us that bias is not into this encyclopedia...Furthermore, i see absolutely no reason why christians can't pose attacks on a person when he/she is expose great ignorance and a unwillingness to take heed to the evidence. --Macguysoft 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you believe the article is biased, please point out specific errors of fact.As a statement of fact, the word 'naive' does appear once on the link mentioned, although it's not clear to me if Woodmorappe or Morton wrote it. Bregence 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs responsible additions and editing

Currently, the article on Woodmorappe is not balanced, and is more a soapbox to serve those who disagree with his publications and conclusions. The fact that the main author of the article spells out his intentions ahead of time (believing Woodmorappe to be "crazy") tells me that Woodmorappe has as much chance of being fairly represented here by this gentleman as Martin Luther King would be if he were biographied by a Jim Crow advocate.

It seems that if any counterbalance (or removal of unnecessary, diatribal comments, as well as moving of numerous hyperlinks to the reference section) is edited into the article, it won't last long. Not everyone has the time to police every page here, and more than likely, this article (if corrected) will be the subject of further personal attacks and off-topic debating against Mr. Woodmorappe.

As is, the article is unbalanced more in attacking Woodmorappe (and rather shamelessly pronouncing private details about himself on the web, without any concern as to how such actions may affect his current employment or publishing opportunities within a secular scientific community). This is a very shameless display on Wikipedia, which is normally reserved for encyclopedic (not editorial) articles. Balance should be given.

The problem is that the Woodmorappe critics go on numerous rabbit trails as is in the article; any rebuttal against the off-track criticisms will only lead to more details having to be brought forth; hence, the bulk of a tangential article will detract from the main point (which is basic information on Woodmorappe and his research), and will turn an otherwise encyclopedic page into a tasteless debate forum. And for the record, I didn't see any substantial, succinct material on any of the *technical* points Woodmorappe raises, merely character assassination against him.

I propose that most of the info be edited; that succinct, accurate additions be made of pertinent research Woodmorappe has done in regards to geology, radiometric dating, cladogram critiques; and the hyperlinks to any and all counter critiques being moved primarily to the reference section. If any critiques stay on the mainpage, they should be published articles, either in journals or in books; and the wording should be to the point and *relevant* to the technical points discussed therein. For the most part, I only saw internet editorials used as proper references, either for or against Woodmorappe; and that without much (if any) technical merit.

Let's keep this article clean, to the point, and without soapbox tendencies. Kh123

[edit] Delete this article?

If this man's work hasn't had any impact (see above comment), then why does he merit an article? Is there anything else notable about him? If so, it doesn't come out in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.202.2 (talk) 13:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

The editor who claimed minimal impact was either lying or ignorant. Nearly every creationist article I read that addresses skeptical attacks refers to NA:AFS as a rebuttal reference. It looks like that editor was single-mindedly aimed at minimizing honors and preserving criticisms of prominent creationists. ~ MD Otley (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)