Jump to content

Talk:James Tour

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dave Farina

[edit]

I have rewatched Dave’s videos on the topic of Tour and the DI a lot of times and I think that an in depth criticism of James’s videos should be made to make it clear via the page why people critique him Mormissen (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ty, im new to Wikipedia so i probably need some help Mormissen (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let the gatekeepers put you off. It is obviously not OR to accurately report what a source says.
Do note that you're largely wasting your time here, though, because this page is regularly sanitised by Tour's supporters, regardless of how well-sourced any criticism is. (Indeed, when Tour's own words are too embarrassing to his side, they also will be judged to be unsuitable quotes and removed.) They have a lot invested in keeping up the appearance of a man of science whose creationist apologetics have weight. 2A00:23C5:CF37:4001:E416:6FD1:A898:8B9B (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What seems obvious to you may be clearly false to people with a clue. This is the case here. And those who reject the insertion of Tour's claims are not "Tour's supporters". I think he is full of shit, and Wikipedia's rules forbid us to be his megaphone. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While im currently not in the mental headspace to comment much on this right now, I feel like saying “Wikipedia’s rules prevent us from being his megaphones” is probably also what Scientologists said before they were excluded from Wikipedia.
While I do feel I made the edit too editorialised due to my newness to Wikipedia editing, there is also a fair POV where it could have just been edited, instead of completely undone as it added important information Mormissen (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is probably also what Scientologists said What bullshit. If they said it, find the quote of them saying it. And if you think I did something that justifies "excluding" me, say what it is.
Your newness is the reason why you do not recognize that we need reliable sources talking about Tour's nonsense. If we no not have those, no amount of editing will help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A youtuber is not a reliable source. Especially, since some of his content is potentially libelous. His videos made allegations of plagiarism and Rice University found the allegations to be false. Youtube clips from a biased source are not appropriate for a biography of a living person. PerseusMeredith (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biased sources are not a problem. Self-published sources are. See WP:BIASED and WP:SPS. Regarding ignorant nonsense like creationism, sources explicitly need to be "biased" against it. See WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there is already a section about the debate I personally feel like background it’s important, and as the only written articles are either:
This article
Evolution News (DI controlled so obviously pro Tour bias)
Six days (which I assume based on the name is also creationist)
Tours university
A singular Reddit thread
And a bunch of YouTube videos, I feel like showing the actual videos where you can for yourself see exactly how Farina and Tour each said their claims are the only things that could be roughly defined as useable for this Mormissen (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I felt* I mistyped Mormissen (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the others are not useable, but that one isn't either. See WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pure forum posts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Correct, that self published sources shouldn't be used in BLP. But they also cannot include biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The youtuber in question was suspended by twitter for anti-semitism and James Tour is a Messianic Jew. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does religion have to do with this may I ask •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Perseus Mormissen (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point this is hearsay •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, nothing. James Tour makes it a point to not discuss religion in his abiogenesis videos. On the other hand, the youtuber incessantly brings up Tour's religion in a degrading, condescending way. PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tour has said he puts the bible over any evidence, also who is the designer then? The G Man from half life? Mormissen (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this back and forth underscores that this is youtube clips going back and forth and not something that should be put on a biography of a living person. PerseusMeredith (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair but when that back and forth is about if: Does an intelligent design proponent bring religion into science, something is probably wrong Mormissen (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to fight against that. See WP:RGW. Can we stop this? WP:SPS are not useable here, therefore there is no reason to discuss YouTube videos here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If degrading means using scientific logic and basically disproving everything creationists claim
Dave has nothing against religion in general he’s against the misinformation a actual scientist with a degree says is correct which everyone in that field disagrees with tour •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously a fan and that's your opinion. But BLP's must be written in a non-partisan manner with what reliable secondary sources have published. That's not the case with these youtube videos, they are self-published (which is specifically prohibited) and partisan (also prohibited) with a great deal of animus to attempt to destroy Tour's life. They don't comply with wikipedia's website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your partially right i am a fan •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But are we supposed to agree with tour so we can be so called bipartisan excuse my language i refuse to dickride this idiot who doesn’t understand middle school biology; farina ruining tours life is a overstatement tour is s spreading religious nonsense as fact to students •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still talking about this? It has no relation to improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because im a terminally online loser i know why he was suspended
1) You’re talking about a platform that’s boosting its owners post due to being jealous of Biden and who is working with the extremely pro Israeli President Donald Trump
2) the last part was important as Dave has stated that “the Israeli leadership should be executed for war crimes” and that Israel should be replaced by a state named Palestine where Jews and Arabs are equal
Also I love watching his content and it would be wierd that he regularly calls out Eric Dubay for his anti semetic and straight up Nazi beliefs (See debunking 200 proofs, proof 198 and final experiment 2:55), if he himself was an anti semite Mormissen (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing this page with a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mb, I was simply trying to counter the (IMO) baseless anti semetism claims which the guy im responding to essentially used to try and invalidate the stuff Farina has said, instead of your actually useful help for a new Wikipedia like me Mormissen (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian* Mormissen (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does the science say? How complex is even the simplest cell? Can we assemble one ourselves from scratch? No. So how are we to believe that a mindless unguided process can do something that we can't even come close to doing today with all our modern labs and know how? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have made cells in labs Simple’s ones but cells. Cells are complex and as your 9th grade biology teacher would tell you it is directed by dna which is instructions •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said make a cell from scratch, not stealing parts from already existing cells. Make a cell from scratch. Make the lipid bi-layers etc. Which gets made first? The cell wall or the contents of the cell? If the cell wall, then how do the remaining contents get inside? If the contents first, how do they manage to maintain homeostasis until a wall is created? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to understand the fundamentals of mitosis and cell processes. •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Mitosis is not going to happen until you have a complete living cell. It doesn't explain how the first cell came to be. In order for mitosis to happen, you have to have an already viable living cell to divide in the first place. How did that nucleus get inside the lipid bi-layer in the first place? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of rna
? •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And rna world •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a plausibility but not bulllet proof •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did RNA come from? Where did the encoded data in RNA and DNA come from? Random chance? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to barge into this ridiculously long thread but this sounds increasingly forum like, which I have learned we should refrain from Mormissen (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was directed here by an editor. I am just complying as directed. I really had no choice. 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR, we need Dr. Tour vs Mr. Farina debate part 2 at Wikipedia University. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this has essentially turned into a partisan forums war between DI and Pro Evolution editors we are pretty much doing a fan version of that Mormissen (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Don't the facts speak for themselves? What does the science say? Have we ever observed self assembling complexity of the kind required to create life? It's a simple question. 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the answers are to be found on myriad scientific publications on the topic, not on a talk page for some guy. Lostsandwich (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not random chance I quote from the article rna I assume you either didn’t read or just skimmed through. Albert Szent-Györgyi, he explained that the primitive Earth's environment could have produced RNA molecules (polynucleotide monomers) that eventually acquired enzymatic and self-replicating functions. Plus its possible that it wasnt the first life form and I’m open for other scientificlly backed hypothetical scenarios •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it just randomly created those molecules and the encoded information contained therein? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would implore you to ask some one more knowledgeable in this than me •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I haven't? All I would like to see is a little honesty. Remove the biased "pseudocience' moniker that somebody seems to consistantly try to push on Tour's page. That's it. People have their own opinions, that's fine, but at least be honest about hypotheses that are neither proven nor unproven. 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality. In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement, is an incorrect statement."
from Hob’s bio, also please stop the forum waring Mormissen (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks is a personal opinion, not a scientific one. It's a statement of belief or non belief. 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually several sources agree that ID is pseudoscience those need to be added like how ID cites the pseudoscience •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So science, I mean real science, is about consensus rather than observed facts? If enough people believe that Santa Claus exists, it must be true? Is that how it is supposed to work? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done fucking arguing I'm going to bed •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how Wikipedia works. Lostsandwich (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is called as such, is because Dr. Tour himself said he is unable to prove it with science, see reference #58. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is abiogenesis proven? How is it different? 76.27.229.2 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please just forum waring, all this so doing is give my phone burn in from all the notifications that I get from Wikipedia Mormissen (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abiogenesis is considered proven or at least provable since Miller Urey experiment. Intelligent design is not provable according to Dr. Tour himself, and indeed this encyclopedia. If something is not provable, it is pseudoscience, even though we have faith in it, and it turned out to be true. This is why we don't mix science and religion together. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the scientific facts. Life arose. We did not personally observe it. That is why we have varying hypotheses. We don't know. We guess and see what makes the most sense of what we can observe today. What we observe today is, the chemistry is extremely difficult, so difficult in fact that we have no idea how it was accomplished. So we hypothesize. It's our best guess based on what we observe today. A hypothesis, any hypothesis, is just that, a hypothesis. I find it difficult to believe that in the light of all our modern science and technical abilities, we still have no idea how it could even be accomplished. I don't understand how we can look at something as highly complex as life and come to the conclusion that it just self assembled. It has to come together all at once or it won't be alive. It will just be a blob of non living chemical goo. 76.27.229.2 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fucking beg you, please, please just stop forum waring, you have been going for like 3 hours Mormissen (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus its a lottery some what •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mormissen Yeah I think this doesn’t help any thing •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts to remove claims of ID being "pseudoscience"

[edit]

Hey @76.27.229.2 i checked back on the discussion and i feel like your repeated attempts at removing the term "pseudoscience" from the context of ID is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance aka WP:FALSEBALANCE as the scientific concensus is currently for evolution, not ID. Sorry if this is repeating the same mistake as above but i feel like this needs to be said. Mormissen (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Straight up removal of section regarding opposition to OOL

[edit]

I was checking this page for something im writing on my own userpage and found that somehow the entire opposition to OOL area of the article got removed, even the portiont that was there before my mistaken edits in December and i would like to question why? Mormissen (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this has mainly been by an IP user, while its most likely not the same person as 76.27.229.2 i do find it odd their previous edit history has been adding 2 links on the page "Catholic Bishops' Conference of India" and removing three words on the page "Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram". Also that after they suddenly removed 1,5KB of info about Tour's opposition to OOL (which is important to note had largely in effect been there BEFORE i made my mistaken edits) they within 5 minutes have requested protection for the page. Mormissen (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were no good sources for all that. I think it is an improvement. The method "I found this crappy idea in the writings of this person and I have to add it to their WP page, let's also add a YouTube discussion and some blogs" is not a good one. If reliable secondary sources ignore the fact that a particular person spreads stupid ideas, we should ignore it too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I alerted WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I reproduce my own comment from FTN:

I have tried to collect my thoughts on this. There are two usable sources for this mess: [1] and [2]. From those sources we can say that in 2014 Tour tried the Non-overlapping magisteria approach to his religion and science even while he signed a clearly pseudoscientific declaration of war against biology. In 2023 he lost a debate to a high school science teacher. Not sure there is enough there to really establish something WP:WEIGHTy. Anyone see anything else? jps (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to discuss anything about this, these are the only two sources we can use. We could workshop a paragraph on the basis of those two sources, but it would have to read something, I guess, I like this:

Workshop

[edit]

==Religion and evolution==

Tour became a born-again Christian in graduate school, and in 2001 he signed the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism statement that relies on pseudoscientific reasoning to offer various religiously motivated arguments against evolution. In a 2014 profile in The New Yorker Tour was reported to have indicated that this signing "reflected only his personal doubts about how random mutation occurs at the molecular level. Although he ends e-mails with “God bless,” he says that, apart from a habit of praying for divine guidance, he feels that religion plays no part in his scientific work."[1] Tour has subsequently become more outspoken about his incredulity regarding origin of life research, going as far as to debate science YouTuber Dave Farina at a May 2023 event at Rice University.[2]

  1. ^ [3]
  2. ^ [4]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Tour&oldid=1280289638"