Talk:Paul M. Bingham

Untitled
I know that on first glance, the article on Dr. Bingham seems to lack demonstration of importance, but if you take his class on human social and sexual behavior (as explained by his theory of human evolution) you would really get how revolutionary it is. He may not be as popular as some of the celebrities we worship, but I assure you that he is important. I tried to think of a way to emphasize this in the article, but all my ideas would somewhat taint the neutral POV. Maybe someone else can think of a way. DenimForce2.0 09:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * see my comment below   DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Lack of Importance" Tag
I removed the "Lack of Importance" tag on the page because inclusion of this article is important to Wikipedia. It doesn't appear that this professor or his posting on Wikipedia is a vanity page of any sort. His contributions to molecular biology are worthy of inclusion on their own, aside from his importance in the contemporary arguments on developing a theory of history as inclusive to arguments of animal evolution. It would have been more appropriate to have included any uncertainties as part of an argument for discussion on the Discussion Page Stevenmitchell 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Status and Advice

 * I notice that you are both students of his at his college. As reviewing administrator, I  remind you of our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. But I agree that he is probably notable as a molecular biologist, and possibly also for his recent work. The notability would have been clearer if the article had not been so promotional, and the theory described as a theory, not established fact. Theories claiming to explain all of human evolution and human history, and with implied comparison to the work of Darwin, tend to be regarded by general readers as puffery and exaggeration.  Such importance needs to be shown, not just asserted, shown by  3rd party published references in reliable sources providing substantial coverage. Otherwise, how is anyone to judge.  In order to clarify these things, I have considerably rewritten the article. These problems with the article should have been corrected much earlier.    DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)