SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 00:23, December 19, 2013
, 00:23, December 19, 2013explain
:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)
:"The Tiger" was one of Clemenceau's nicknames. Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track. You need a more established source than George Simon before you can claim that a generic phrase like "disturbed character" has a specific, encyclopedic meaning. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:55, 16 December 2013 (EST)
==Still problems==
I have re-reverted some of the recent reversions by user AK. These relate to what I consider to be an extremely narrow view of what the term means, so narrow that only one person is listed as an example, and to the characterization of Pasteur's scientific opponents as "evolutionists".
Here is a list of some people, all murderers. The individual details are not important:
*Lee Oswald
*Sirhan Sirhan
*James Earl Ray
*Charles Manson
*Timothy McVeigh
*John Hinckley
*Charles Whitman
*Seung-Hui Cho
*Eric Harris
*Dylan Klebold
*James Holmes
*Adam Lanza
*Karl Pierson
I think just about everyone would consider these people to be "disturbed". There has been extensive discussion in the media about their mental health, and how public mental health programs can be improved to identify such people before they commit their crimes.
So my question is: Do you consider these people (or most of them; I don't want to quibble) to be "disturbed"?
*If not, what definition of "disturbed" are you using, where do you get it, and how do you explain the massive disconnect between the way you use the term and the way almost everyone else does?
*If so, why, in an article about disturbed characters, do you name ''only one person, the person who opposed Pasteur's theories on abiogenesis?'' to the exclusion of anyone else?
As far as "evolutionists", many people were "evolutionists" in a very general sense in the years shortly before and shortly after Darwin's ''Origin of Species''. The term was used, prior to Darwin, in a very general sense, to mean one who believed in a "tree of life" of the various species of living things, without any explanation for why the tree takes that form. In any case, mixing Darwinian evolution (survival of the fittest, etc.) in with the Pasteur/Clemenceau debate on abiogenesis is absurd. See [http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_15.pdf], where Clemenceau is shown to be a Lamarckian, not a Darwinian. Note the statement that Clemenceau was a "nineteenth century biological Lamarckian with admiration and respect for the person of Charles Darwin but with some reservation for the complete acceptance of the Darwinian theory." Definitely not what one would call an evolutionist today. Of course, Lamarck's theories predated Darwin's by about 50 years.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:23, 18 December 2013 (EST)