Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He his YEC chums claim that he is a geology professor. They do not mention which university he is supposed to be a professor of. If he is it is clearly a fundamentalist Christian university with an appropriate statement of faith, but which one? — Dunc| ☺ 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The link worked fine with me, and adding "Dr" in front of his name is a standard creationist POV edit, I have therefore reverted them. JoshuaZ 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This section is copied with slight edits from the "talk.origins FAQ" linked above. As such, it appears to be a copyvio, although it's hard to say, as the FAQ doesn't identify the original author. (The website claims only to be an archive.) Also, that FAQ appears not to be sourced, itself. It's a little hard to evaluate the verifiability of a web page with no author and no sources.
In other news, I removed the six redundant external links. They all link to the same FAQ, and the paragraph resembles the original enough (and has no content not found in the original) that I think it really only constitutes one large quote, rather than six little quotes of successive sentences. Sam8 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking around a bit more, I believe the whole section needs to be removed as a copyvio. Here are the salient points:
Sam8 18:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not a copyright voilation to quote academic sources provided the whole work isn't reproduced and proper credit is given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErRe ( talk • contribs) .
To comment further, I believe the statement above is a misunderstanding of fair use. While the conditions mentioned are part of the tests for fair use, they are not sufficient. (See Common misunderstandings.) The primary problem is that there is no content in that section except for the quote. One of the tests of fair use is that the use be transformative and not derivative, meaning that the use is in talking about the source, using the source to illustrate a point, study of the source, parodying the source, etc., as opposed to just appropriating the source's words.
The way I see it, there are two ways to resolve the copyright problem. One is to actually write a section in your own words describing criticism of Morris. You can then quote Foley's words as one example of such criticism, and it would be fair use. The other is to rewrite Foley's statements in your own words, as copyright applies only to the exact words, not the ideas they express. For now, I'm going to remove the section again, until one of these two things happens. Sam8 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed up the quote to something that is more likely to be fair use. The amount of quoted material is still a bit much for my taste though. (See WP:FAIR.) Sam8 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of this article is cited to Morris himself & his ICR, and it is not difficult for any creationist, no matter how obscure, to get a mention on TOA. Therefore the only citation supporting notability is the (apparently fairly brief) mention in Pigliucci. This really isn't enough -- hence the tag on the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no great affinity for the views of the ICR, but as a regular science contributor to wikipedia (and a secular university faculty member) have to question the objectivity and influences that are evidenced in the discussion here in Talk. We are to report information from reputable sources, and not to sit in judgement over the subjects of our reporting—this is encyclopedic, and not editorial work. And when bias is clear in Talk one must presume that it contributes unfairly to decisions regarding text of the article. Perhaps these influences are why there is so little informative substance in this article, e.g., about where JD Morris has lead the organization since the death of his father, its founder? This is the information I came to find, to no avail. Similarly, is it standard at wikipedia to report the incomes of heads of NGO/not-for-profits? If so, fine. If not, what is the point of reporting it here (except perhaps to insinuate that he is overpaid)? Hence, the overt and subtle distastes of the editors of this article seem clear, and this is disappointing (even though I would likely agree with the substance of the underlying disagreements). Objectivity regarding our subjects is not the aim for only those with whom we agree; it is the aim for all, and the test of our mettle as editors. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.63.82 ( talk) 13:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with this. The full quote is Lucy included almost a complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and excluding the foot). I am therefore updating the quote itself. Comments welcome. Mongoletsi ( talk) 10:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This is advanced warning that as a biographical article on a living individual, about whom earlier POV questions have been raised, the article needs us to ensure that missing citations regarding statements of record and other facts are placed in a timely manner. I'll make sure that all current "citation needed" tags are dated, and will return in 6 mos. or so to ensure that they are addressed. Note, it is the responsibility of the original editor (or others interested) in placing these missing citations, and not the responsibility general wikipedia community to do so (though anyone can help that has the needed information, and wishes to). But there's no gainsaying that doing post-hoc/forensic fact attribution is both tremendously inefficient, and encourages the original scholarly sloppiness that it seeks to obviate. (Hence the response of this editor to facts without citation, at the 6 month point, will be deletion.) No offense intended, just making clear a path to get the facts substantiated, in a timely way, for a biography of a living person. Cheers. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 ( talk) 21:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, after reading the article I still have little knowledge about what John Morris advocates. The section labeled "Criticism" starts with, "Critics have disputed some of Morris's claims." But nowhere has the page done anything to help me understand what his claims are, exactly. The criticism section briefly introduces two rather disjointed points, but they have no context so they still don't give an understanding for his claims. Secondly, It seems that the criticism section is not giving a fair representation to John Morris. Since the same source that is supposed to speak against his first claim is also the source introducing his point of view. It would be far better to have a direct contextual quotation from him regarding the point rather than leave both pro and con side to the same source since that source is arguing against him. And the point about the Leviathan seems thrown into the criticism section haphazardly since no criticism is being given against that claim. I would personally also criticize a claim such as that, but it seems poorly done to introduce it as a point he's received criticism for without giving at least one example of someone disputing the point and giving reasons for disputing it.
I would recommend either filling out the context and neutrality on this page or referencing better pages that already have enough context and neutrality, in which case all that needs to be done is mentioning the specific areas where John Morris' opinions differ from the referenced pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.116.209 ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is the "Criticism" section in this article so much longer than any other section. This article, just like any other article about a person, living or dead, should be about that person, not the criticisms about them. The criticism section should be reduced, and the "Biography" section should be expanded. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John D. Morris. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He his YEC chums claim that he is a geology professor. They do not mention which university he is supposed to be a professor of. If he is it is clearly a fundamentalist Christian university with an appropriate statement of faith, but which one? — Dunc| ☺ 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The link worked fine with me, and adding "Dr" in front of his name is a standard creationist POV edit, I have therefore reverted them. JoshuaZ 01:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This section is copied with slight edits from the "talk.origins FAQ" linked above. As such, it appears to be a copyvio, although it's hard to say, as the FAQ doesn't identify the original author. (The website claims only to be an archive.) Also, that FAQ appears not to be sourced, itself. It's a little hard to evaluate the verifiability of a web page with no author and no sources.
In other news, I removed the six redundant external links. They all link to the same FAQ, and the paragraph resembles the original enough (and has no content not found in the original) that I think it really only constitutes one large quote, rather than six little quotes of successive sentences. Sam8 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking around a bit more, I believe the whole section needs to be removed as a copyvio. Here are the salient points:
Sam8 18:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not a copyright voilation to quote academic sources provided the whole work isn't reproduced and proper credit is given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ErRe ( talk • contribs) .
To comment further, I believe the statement above is a misunderstanding of fair use. While the conditions mentioned are part of the tests for fair use, they are not sufficient. (See Common misunderstandings.) The primary problem is that there is no content in that section except for the quote. One of the tests of fair use is that the use be transformative and not derivative, meaning that the use is in talking about the source, using the source to illustrate a point, study of the source, parodying the source, etc., as opposed to just appropriating the source's words.
The way I see it, there are two ways to resolve the copyright problem. One is to actually write a section in your own words describing criticism of Morris. You can then quote Foley's words as one example of such criticism, and it would be fair use. The other is to rewrite Foley's statements in your own words, as copyright applies only to the exact words, not the ideas they express. For now, I'm going to remove the section again, until one of these two things happens. Sam8 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have fixed up the quote to something that is more likely to be fair use. The amount of quoted material is still a bit much for my taste though. (See WP:FAIR.) Sam8 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Most of this article is cited to Morris himself & his ICR, and it is not difficult for any creationist, no matter how obscure, to get a mention on TOA. Therefore the only citation supporting notability is the (apparently fairly brief) mention in Pigliucci. This really isn't enough -- hence the tag on the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no great affinity for the views of the ICR, but as a regular science contributor to wikipedia (and a secular university faculty member) have to question the objectivity and influences that are evidenced in the discussion here in Talk. We are to report information from reputable sources, and not to sit in judgement over the subjects of our reporting—this is encyclopedic, and not editorial work. And when bias is clear in Talk one must presume that it contributes unfairly to decisions regarding text of the article. Perhaps these influences are why there is so little informative substance in this article, e.g., about where JD Morris has lead the organization since the death of his father, its founder? This is the information I came to find, to no avail. Similarly, is it standard at wikipedia to report the incomes of heads of NGO/not-for-profits? If so, fine. If not, what is the point of reporting it here (except perhaps to insinuate that he is overpaid)? Hence, the overt and subtle distastes of the editors of this article seem clear, and this is disappointing (even though I would likely agree with the substance of the underlying disagreements). Objectivity regarding our subjects is not the aim for only those with whom we agree; it is the aim for all, and the test of our mettle as editors. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.63.82 ( talk) 13:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with this. The full quote is Lucy included almost a complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and excluding the foot). I am therefore updating the quote itself. Comments welcome. Mongoletsi ( talk) 10:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This is advanced warning that as a biographical article on a living individual, about whom earlier POV questions have been raised, the article needs us to ensure that missing citations regarding statements of record and other facts are placed in a timely manner. I'll make sure that all current "citation needed" tags are dated, and will return in 6 mos. or so to ensure that they are addressed. Note, it is the responsibility of the original editor (or others interested) in placing these missing citations, and not the responsibility general wikipedia community to do so (though anyone can help that has the needed information, and wishes to). But there's no gainsaying that doing post-hoc/forensic fact attribution is both tremendously inefficient, and encourages the original scholarly sloppiness that it seeks to obviate. (Hence the response of this editor to facts without citation, at the 6 month point, will be deletion.) No offense intended, just making clear a path to get the facts substantiated, in a timely way, for a biography of a living person. Cheers. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 ( talk) 21:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, after reading the article I still have little knowledge about what John Morris advocates. The section labeled "Criticism" starts with, "Critics have disputed some of Morris's claims." But nowhere has the page done anything to help me understand what his claims are, exactly. The criticism section briefly introduces two rather disjointed points, but they have no context so they still don't give an understanding for his claims. Secondly, It seems that the criticism section is not giving a fair representation to John Morris. Since the same source that is supposed to speak against his first claim is also the source introducing his point of view. It would be far better to have a direct contextual quotation from him regarding the point rather than leave both pro and con side to the same source since that source is arguing against him. And the point about the Leviathan seems thrown into the criticism section haphazardly since no criticism is being given against that claim. I would personally also criticize a claim such as that, but it seems poorly done to introduce it as a point he's received criticism for without giving at least one example of someone disputing the point and giving reasons for disputing it.
I would recommend either filling out the context and neutrality on this page or referencing better pages that already have enough context and neutrality, in which case all that needs to be done is mentioning the specific areas where John Morris' opinions differ from the referenced pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.116.209 ( talk) 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is the "Criticism" section in this article so much longer than any other section. This article, just like any other article about a person, living or dead, should be about that person, not the criticisms about them. The criticism section should be reduced, and the "Biography" section should be expanded. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John D. Morris. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)