Talk:Of Moths and Men

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias and inaccuracy[edit]

"...In addition, later experiments would appear to support Kettlewell's conclusions...."

Wikipedia seems to be completely one sided for an "objective encylopedia" and, more damaging. inaccurate!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.150.130 (talk) 16:06, July 5, 2004 (UTC)

Then fix it. Bertus 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Speaking on these terms, the article doesn't seem very impartial at all. Dickvalentine 11:03 PST, 30th Jul. 2006

NPOV[edit]

I tagged this article because it is a long long way from NPOV. I've read this book as a confirmed believer in evolution. It is not the book described here. --Richard Clegg 09:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like accuracy rather than NPOV might be the concern then. Edit away. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are concerns. This should present an accurate reflection of the content of the book, not dogma. I will try to find time to edit soon. --Richard Clegg 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Watch out for weasel words. To say that it received "some criticism" in the scientific press seems to somewhat understate things (to say the least). The reviews I've read (the ones cited in the article) are very uncomplimentary towards the book, so I've reworded. If you can find other (scientific press) reviews then that might help us tighten the wording somewhat. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a friendly review in scientific press which caused me to read it in the first place. Can't remember where though. Damned if I can find my copy of the book as well which is somewhat hampering me. --Richard Clegg 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]