Talk:John Woodmorappe/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.