Talk:Dr. Hugh Ross

I changed the "confrence" section to "ideas" to make this article more a presentation about his ideas, then a... well, presentation of his presentations! :)

I honestly think his "flood" explination of the x and y chromosomes is really silly, however, I have done my best to edit and work with the material I found on this page to present his views. Sethie 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes ramble when I don't mean to, and I'm glad that you tightened it up.Kilyle 08:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This article appears to have a POV that is in favour of his views, and appears to duplicate the more NPOV and balanced article at Hugh Ross (creationist), which I believe it should be merged into. -- Karada 08:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that you read the page as not Neutral, I tried to take as much POV out and make it just a description of his views.... where specifically are you seeing the pov? As for a merge, it sounds good to me. Sethie 09:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm too close to what I just wrote to see where the bias might be (I appreciate Sethie tightening up my initial article, and I am fairly certain that it started out favorably biased, no question); however, I note that the Hugh Ross (creationist) article does not seem to be NPOV either. The article reads as fairly critical: e.g., the external links has only two links to his site, but three separate categories defined as "criticism", and after the quick biography (which I think is actually pretty good, but might be expanded a little), the main two paragraphs go into no detail on his theories, but quickly connect his research to a pseudoscience link and to criticism by YECs. It does seem that someone unfamiliar with his work (and not specifically inclined to research it further) would come away from that article with a negative viewpoint of him ("well, he's got college degrees, but seems that science and Christians both are strongly critical of his findings").

I do support a merge, especially the inclusion of the bibliography and links to the Wikipedia mitochondrial DNA articles. Also, I would much appreciate an expansion of the description of his viewpoints, so that a person looking at just the one article would come away with a better idea of what he believes and/or supports. I didn't add the links to critical sites because I wasn't aware of them, and I'm glad that they are there, although (as stated above) it seems unbalanced to include only two links to his site and three categories to critical sites (even if the three categories contain only four links/references, they still read as "there is three times as much evidence against the man as for him" or even "nobody supports him except (obviously) his own site."Kilyle 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am with you Kilyle in terms of a merger that is a more full expression of him and his ideas. I also edited the criticisms section so it looks a little more balanced. Sethie 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks much better. I moved the bibliography over there (well, it remains over here too, and can be deleted here once the merge is complete). I figure while we're still discussing it, I'm not going to change the other article's main stuff, but the biblography should be fine (by nature NPOV yes?).71.113.81.228 13:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)