Talk:Of Moths and Men

Bias and inaccuracy
"...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)

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

NPOV
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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)