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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Some perspective here. Kary Mullis has a nobel prize on top of his PhD, should we believe everything he says without question? David D.(Talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A PhD, particularly one explicitly gained for the sole purpose of "destroying Darwinism", does not make one a "scientist", nor preclude one from being a pseudoscientist, a category defined as "people who explicitly study and advocate areas currently included under Category:Pseudoscience." Wells has never worked as a scientist, nor taught science, so would not generally be considered one. But even if he were one, it would not preclude him from being a pseudoscientist as well. HrafnTalkStalk 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just summarise what Ian Musgrave said, and attribute it to him. It's easier to do that and then figure out where it fits in best. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AIDS reappraisal again
Wells was apparently one of many signatories to a letter to the editor (dated June 6, 1991) that states:
"It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken."
Why does this article, apparently with no other references, go beyond simply reporting this? -Exucmember (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because some people are grasping at straws to find anything to make Wells sound like a kook. Roger (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two fairly short sentences is hardly "go[ing] beyond simply reporting this". And Schlafly, we have no need to do anything to make Wells "sound like a kook", he does a bang-up job of it all on his own. HrafnTalkStalk 05:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I'd suggest that Exucmember reads more carefully, there is another reference -- to a Vancouver Sun article. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Wells' own quotes make him sound like a kook, then just use them. The Vancouver Sun opinion article just says, "Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp." This does not add any facts; it is just an opinion from someone who does not like Moonies. Roger (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I don't remember reading in WP:V that we need a quote from a person to establish facts about them, or that the source has to be sympathetic. We have WP:RSs, and that's all we need. So quit your tendentious whining. HrafnTalkStalk 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
