This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I suggest: (a)we put Orr's: "Good science demands two things: that you ask the right questions and that you get the right answers. Although science education focuses almost exclusively on the second task, a good case can be made that the first is both the harder and the more important. Getting Mendel's laws from Mendel's data may not be easy, but surely the hardest part is daring to ask Mendel's question: Despite all appearances to the contrary, might heredity obey simple laws?" (which comes from his Science review) into the main article. It puts a well-established point very well. (b) With regard to the other reviews, there is a clear precedent here in the reviews of The God Delusion which have been basically stable for some months and reflect a hard-won consenus. What do people think? NBeale 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak, but a quick comment won't hurt :) First, thank you both for moving forward, I will now archive the above discussions. In any case, while the google query numbers don't mean anything to me, the rest of NBeale's reasoning is convincing and Orr is playing a very important role in the science and religion debate. However, on the other points, I fully agree with Snalwibma, or I would go even further as I don't like the God Delusion precedent at all, the structure of that article was a compromise, and it's a bad one, featured articles on books don't look like that. So at least here, I think, we should draw on these reviews to describe his views, but not in the form of a synopsis of each review. I will try a rough outline for a real biography page, tell me what you think. -- Merzul 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Some more problems that we shouldn't forget
Ok, that's all, I will now continue enjoying my so-called wikibreak :) -- Merzul 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's better to characterise Orr's work outside the narrowly scientific as Philosophy, Science and Religion. Although some of his reviews (eg of TGD or Rocks of Ages) are in Science & Religion, really it seems to be the philosophical aspects that interest him at least as much. No time to do the editing now, but directionally I think that's how we should go. Something like "Orr considers that <sourced statements about science and philosophy>. He is critical of Gould's NOMA ... He denounces <intelligent design ....>. But he is also critical of <Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett...>" NBeale 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I've had a go at this - please edit and improve. As you see I have stayed off his specific criticisms of Dawkins - partly because they are covered elsewhere and I don't want to confound Orr's overall views with his specific concerns on a controversial book. NBeale 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Orr's Boston Review review of Dennett can be found here:
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Orr.html
In fact, I have just noticed this is referenced in the article!
Rosa Lichtenstein ( talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I know this is late, but I'd like to add that this occurs on ANY scientist's page that even only briefly mentions the Science and Religion debate (if you can even call it a debate, more like a spitting contest). Anyways, I think it's crucial that we find things OTHER than that tired debate to add to the article. Maybe toning down the article a bit would help. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 15:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on H. Allen Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I suggest: (a)we put Orr's: "Good science demands two things: that you ask the right questions and that you get the right answers. Although science education focuses almost exclusively on the second task, a good case can be made that the first is both the harder and the more important. Getting Mendel's laws from Mendel's data may not be easy, but surely the hardest part is daring to ask Mendel's question: Despite all appearances to the contrary, might heredity obey simple laws?" (which comes from his Science review) into the main article. It puts a well-established point very well. (b) With regard to the other reviews, there is a clear precedent here in the reviews of The God Delusion which have been basically stable for some months and reflect a hard-won consenus. What do people think? NBeale 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm supposed to be on a Wikibreak, but a quick comment won't hurt :) First, thank you both for moving forward, I will now archive the above discussions. In any case, while the google query numbers don't mean anything to me, the rest of NBeale's reasoning is convincing and Orr is playing a very important role in the science and religion debate. However, on the other points, I fully agree with Snalwibma, or I would go even further as I don't like the God Delusion precedent at all, the structure of that article was a compromise, and it's a bad one, featured articles on books don't look like that. So at least here, I think, we should draw on these reviews to describe his views, but not in the form of a synopsis of each review. I will try a rough outline for a real biography page, tell me what you think. -- Merzul 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Some more problems that we shouldn't forget
Ok, that's all, I will now continue enjoying my so-called wikibreak :) -- Merzul 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's better to characterise Orr's work outside the narrowly scientific as Philosophy, Science and Religion. Although some of his reviews (eg of TGD or Rocks of Ages) are in Science & Religion, really it seems to be the philosophical aspects that interest him at least as much. No time to do the editing now, but directionally I think that's how we should go. Something like "Orr considers that <sourced statements about science and philosophy>. He is critical of Gould's NOMA ... He denounces <intelligent design ....>. But he is also critical of <Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett...>" NBeale 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I've had a go at this - please edit and improve. As you see I have stayed off his specific criticisms of Dawkins - partly because they are covered elsewhere and I don't want to confound Orr's overall views with his specific concerns on a controversial book. NBeale 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Orr's Boston Review review of Dennett can be found here:
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Orr.html
In fact, I have just noticed this is referenced in the article!
Rosa Lichtenstein ( talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I know this is late, but I'd like to add that this occurs on ANY scientist's page that even only briefly mentions the Science and Religion debate (if you can even call it a debate, more like a spitting contest). Anyways, I think it's crucial that we find things OTHER than that tired debate to add to the article. Maybe toning down the article a bit would help. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 15:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on H. Allen Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)