Jump to content

Talk:Human Biodiversity Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SPLC

[edit]

Regardless of the accuracy of this page, the huge number of Southern Poverty Law Centre references and quotes makes the entire discussion appear biased and unreliable. Who are they and why on earth are their views so important? Needs a rewrite 122.62.143.121 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS and maybe WP:NPOV. If the SPLC are saying something incorrect or irrelevant, provide feedback. 82.3.251.137 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article, for example. Allison Kaas (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

[edit]

The concept being pseudo-scientific is mentioned several times in the article and quotes but there isn't any explanation as of why. Quotes explain that the theory masquerades as being objective, implying that it isn't, but again without mentioning the reason. Neurotty (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the sources are linked. The sources have the details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. Explain the reasoning in the article or remove the claims. Allison Kaas (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give tasks to other people, you are not the boss here.
If you are too lazy to check the sources yourself, that is your problem. Quoting sources saying "pseudoscience" is good enough, this is an encylopedia and not a debunking site. See WP:NOT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained acronym

[edit]

The text uses "HBD" without defining it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1E:AD00:601:99F1:E9EE:80EF:89D1 (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes to the bottom.
Is it "Human BioDiversity"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]