Talk:Of Moths and Men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.

"...In addition, later experiments would appear to support Kettlewell's conclusions...."

Wikipedia seems to be completely one sided for an "objective encylopedia" and, more damaging. inaccurate!!!

Then fix it. Bertus 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Speaking on these terms, the article doesn't seem very impartial at all. Dickvalentine 11:03 PST, 30th Jul. 2006

[edit] NPOV

I tagged this article because it is a long long way from NPOV. I've read this book as a confirmed believer in evolution. It is not the book described here. --Richard Clegg 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like accuracy rather than NPOV might be the concern then. Edit away. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Both are concerns. This should present an accurate reflection of the content of the book, not dogma. I will try to find time to edit soon. --Richard Clegg 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Watch out for weasel words. To say that it received "some criticism" in the scientific press seems to somewhat understate things (to say the least). The reviews I've read (the ones cited in the article) are very uncomplimentary towards the book, so I've reworded. If you can find other (scientific press) reviews then that might help us tighten the wording somewhat. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a friendly review in scientific press which caused me to read it in the first place. Can't remember where though. Damned if I can find my copy of the book as well which is somewhat hampering me. --Richard Clegg 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)