Talk:Carl Wieland

Removal of Criticism
I have removed the controversy and criticism for the following reason: -DW4372
 * I was writing a rebuttal to the rebuttal when it dawned on me that this is a biography page. It seems inappropriate to be debating someones views on such a page (especially when there are many sites and blogs dedicated to the origins debate!).  I will add a generic section about Dr. Wieland being controversial, noting that much is relevant to a biography, however I don't think that a debate is appropriate to an encyclopedia, is it?  (You wouldn't see one in Brittanica!)
 * I realise this considerbly shortens the biography, so perhaps someone could expand the biographical details?


 * Actually I thought that section was informative. If it does not go here, maybe in another place in WP.--Filll 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
The previous criticism section was larger than the rest of the article, and totally POV since it didn't provide links to rebuttals such as Squirming at the Squishosaur and Evolutionist questions AiG report — Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils?, and it was all about one of the many issues Dr Wieland writes about. 203.213.77.138 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. It is excessive to devote so much of a biography to criticism of a single issue, and refuse any rebuttals of this criticism as NPOV requires.  And the new rules require even more care when it concerns a living person. 60.242.13.87 00:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again, it may have been too long, however, I should point out that nothing in WP:LIVING requires us to remove well sourced relevant NPOV information and the presented information was NPOV. Whether the amount of it is makes it an issue is a separate problem. JoshuaZ 01:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the comments about Earth magazine. Are you disputing Mary Schweitzer's findings? or Wieland's interpretation of them? Further, my understanding is Wieland's tactic is to discuss the unlikelihood of preservation of protein or DNA material for long periods, and whether or not that material is still cellular is beside the point. -- unsigned 22 May 2007


 * I have added a response to criticism section, I think it fairly represents Wieland's position, and hope it "balances" the page a little more.Dw4372 14:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor" Carl Wieland?
If searched around quite a bit for Wieland's scholarly credentials, and all I've found is that he has an M.B. and a B.S., both of which are bachelor's degrees. I have found no reference whatsoever that he actually earned a doctorate of any kind. So, could someone either find a reference and insert it into the article, or reword the article to reflect this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.145.5 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


 * He is a medical doctor ~ it says so at the end of this article: http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp

Yoda921 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Forgive me, but that's not quite what I meant. (After rereading my past comment, I can understand the confusion, and I apologize for it.) What I meant was a reference that said what his doctorate is in, what university he earned it from, and what year. In other words, something that can be verified as something other than grandiose claims and hearsay. -- unsigned

Anything at all? I'm really trying to look into this, but it's hard to do when all the evidence of someone being a doctor is the word of him and those who support him, and no one else. -- unsigned (5.18.07)

He likely doesn't have an MD. In commonwealth countries the training for medicine leads to the degrees of medicine (MB) and surgery (ChB) jointly. This is the equivalent to an MD in the US and entitles the bearer to use the title Dr. An MD is an advanced degree in commonwealth countries obtained by original research (unlike an MD is the US) though it is not as in depth as a PhD in Medicine.

Wieland earned his degree at Adelaide University in South Australia -- unsigned (22 May 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.152.135 (talk • contribs)

I can confirm that in Australia, and MB and BS degree together qualify someone as a medical practitioner. Their title, "Doctor," is for their profession, (cf. "plumber" or "pilot"). It is not the result of having earned a doctorate. 203.214.106.14 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we get a WP:RS on what his degrees are and where they are from? If the article is going to claim he is an MD then it must be sourced. His official biography is very vague on those details. C56C 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CMI-AiG Dispute
I am thinking of working up a general description of the CMI-AiG dispute that covers the basics without getting into to much detail. I aim to replace the sections in the articles for CMI, AiG, CW and KH with this same general description, an emphasising the link to the Dispute article. The dispute article would then have all the relevant information in one place making it easier for editors to update, and to avoid inconsistencies. The sections get quite out of date the way they are, probably because it is a pain to go around updating the same info in at least 4 articles.

I would thus be moving some statements into the dispute article that are not currently included. I don't plan to drop any statements, so initially the dispute article will be a union of all the current sections. Any objections? This same "notice" is going into the other articles as wellLowKey (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal placement
Portals placed & sections redone. This article needs a picture and a reference for every section. Enfermero (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)