Talk:Bernard Kettlewell

BLP

Is correct to apply BLP to dead persons? This seems nonsense to me. Berton 15:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. But while it sounds silly, I certainly think it still applies. Dead people can still be slandered. Serious unsourced information like that is verboten for living people, and policy is still that unsourced information can be removed without quarrel from articles. Happy to have it go back in with a source. Chris Cunningham 16:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the talk page for WP:BLP seems to be pretty lively on the subject, and consensus appears to be that while by the letter it would obviously be silly to apply BLP to the dead, the policy is largely pertinent to all biographies. Chris Cunningham 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you agree that is a silliness to apply WP:BLP, is necessary a plausible justification to remove this important information of the biography of Kettlewell and that is present since the beginning of the article. Remember: to remove information of Wikipedia without justification is considered vandalism. Berton 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, extracted from Website [1]:

"...his entry in The Dictionary of Scientific Biography states, ‘apparently from an accidental overdose of the painkiller he was using to relieve a back injury sustained during field work’. The overdose was not an accident. Bernard was a doctor and knew exactly how to commit suicide efficiently. Whether the precipitating factor was intractable back pain or dread of Alzheimer’s disease or general discouragement or all of the above, he did what he had always matter-of-factly told his friends he would do when all hope was lost. Someone who had seen him that day found him cheerful, even ebullient, and found it hard to believe that he could have taken his life by the end of the day. But his old friend Cyril Clarke said that Bernard’s mood swings were so extreme that it was highly possible for him to have been on top of the world one moment and suicidal the next." - Berton 17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, no problem with it going back in with a source. I'm puzzled as to why you didn't add that reference when reverting. I'll put it in. Chris Cunningham 08:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Berton 13:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Trouble is, it's not a reliable source. It's a partisan webpage of the creationist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, author of "Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity," in Dynamical Genetics pgs. 101-119, described by ID proponents as "A chapter by biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig in a genetics text explicitly supports irreducible complexity and intelligent design." [2] From the mainstream side, Panda's Thumb describes him as "a traditional creationist of the Jehovah’s Witness variety. He appeared in the German video Is the Bible Right After all? The theory of evolution lacks evidence." [3] The web page presents the creationist claim that the moths don't rest on tree trunks, so peppered moth evolution is invalid and Kettlewell's work was a hoax: see peppered moth evolution#Criticism and controversy for details. The citation is headed "Hooper berichtet im Detail...", so is actually quoting the journalist Judith Hooper's Of Moths and Men. The entomologist Mike Majerus described her book as "littered with errors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and falsehoods". If we're scandalmongering we ought to cite the source itself, but in my opinion that's inappropriate unless we want to set out the whole context on this page as well as on the peppered moth evolution page. By the way, Majerus has just reported on a seven year study that vindicates Kettlewell and found over a third of the moths on the tree trunks, mostly on the north side.[4] .. dave souza, talk 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)