Talk:James Tour

Minor fix needed

The phrase "religiously-motivated" should be hyphenated. I added the hyphen, jps removed it when reverting other IP edits, then restored it, and it was then removed as vandalism by Alephjamie, who really should read about what vandalism is on WP. Would someone please restore it? I can't as the article is protected. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't hyphenate after adverbs ending in -ly. See MOS:HYPHEN #3. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

In the future, you can also use {{edit protected}} template which gets listed in relevant noticeboards if you want to request an edit to a protected page. jps (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, jps... you're right, I probably should have done that. It's rude to dismiss anyone's good-faith contributions as vandalism, even if the MOS declares them to be wrong. Alephjamie has, disappointingly, chosen not to comment here, nor to respond to Firefangledfeathers's user talk post about the WP meaning of "vandalism" (thanks for this posting, FFF). However, since FFF posted, Alephjamie has taken the time to remove from user talk the NPOV warning that jps posted (as he did to another user talk warning that he received previously) and to make an edit to this BLP that does not (in my view) make literal sense. I am not impressed.  :( 1.141.198.161 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No, the phrase "religiously-motivated" should be removed.

The statement does not "rely on pseudoscientific reasoning" (as it presents none) nor "offer various religiously motivated arguments" (zero arguments included). 49.183.93.192 (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The statement is one installment of the Discovery Institute's religiously motivated, pseudoscientific campaign to misrepresent evolutionary biology to the general public. The Dissent from Darwinism in particular has been used as a rhetorical tool to claim that there is more scientific debate and criticism of the theory of evolution than there really is. Although the text of the statement itself is bland, those who signed it did so aware of the authoring organization. It's not unreasonable to connect it to pseudoscientific reasoning and religiously motivated arguments, though I concur that the exact link could be made clearer. Mossgazer (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Birthday

add birthday as 19 Aug 1959 Talented-Intellectual-69 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

By Wikipedia policy, biographical statements need citation to reference to verify the details. Do you have a bibliographic reference for this date? DMacks (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bornglorious.com/person/?pi=11206500 Is this a reliable source? WeLiveInASimulation-12 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@WeLiveInASimulation-12, it is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Why tho WeLiveInASimulation-12 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

At the bottom it says the information is from Wikipedia, so it's a circular reference. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson interview

I have added the following section about Tour's interview with Tucker Carlson to the page (with citations omitted, as they do not copy). I think it illustrates Tour's (uninformed) thinking about evolution and is thus noteworthy. However, it was reverted by PerseusMeredith due to "original research". I politely disagree with PerseusMeredith as the section was thoroughly sourced and all citations are either from the interview or from the published literature. Any opinions about this?

Tucker Carlson interview

Tucker Carlson interviewed James Tour on his show on Dec 15, 2025, which included the phrase "Lies of Evolution" in the title.Tour's main argument against evolution was his doubt of macroevolution, specifically his claim that "you never see body plan changes" (ca. 49:40; time points refer to the podcast, not the video). The problem with this argument is that body plans, roughly equivalent to (animal) phyla, only originated a few dozen times in animal evolution, many before or during the Cambrian explosionabout 540 million years ago. There are few fossils before that time because there were few tissues such as bones or shellsthat would fossilize in the first place. Tour did not question that there is micro-evolution, nor did he doubt that there is evolution within phyla, e.g. from fish to humans (although he did not explicitly address that issue). Evolution within a body plan requires relatively few changes, e.g. the transition from early amphibians to mammals requires no fundamental changes to the overall vertebrate body plan.

Tour also made the point that changes to gene regulatory networks are so sensitive to mutations that they cannot evolve: "You clip one wire and it is catastrophically lethal" (ca. 51:40). This statement is almost always wrong, given that perturbations of gene regulatory networks are rarely lethal and, in fact, such networks evolve rather fast. By contrast, changes to gene regulatory networks are essential for evolution, given that small genetic changes can lead to exactly the large structural changes that Tour claims to be impossible. PubMed had more than 4,000 publications on the evolution of gene regulatory networks at the time of the interview.

Tour made many other unsubstantiated claims such as "the biologist doesn't talk at the chemical level" (ca. 1:00:00), an absurd claim given the huge body of literature on biochemical and molecular evolution (Pubmed had more than 200,000 citations on molecular evolution, more than 65,000 on the biochemistry of evolution, and more than 230,000 on the evolution of metabolism in December 2025). Peteruetz (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Peteruetz, the problem with the text and sources that you added is that they are what Wikipedia considers original research. You have one source, the Carlson show itself, that is about Tour. (And an argument can be made that if no independent sources noted Tour's appearance on Carlson's show, why is it worth even mentioning?) You then argue against statements Tour made on the show, using sources about evolution.

The purpose of the article is to summarize what reliable sources say about Tour. It is not a platform to argue with what he said on the show, particularly since I cannot find any reliable sources that have paid any attention to that appearance. It's even written as a personal argument with Tour, not as an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Aren't people commonly cited based on what they said on TV or whatever video? The video is probably not widely cited because it is just a week old, but creationists already cite it all over the place -- I actually learned about it from a creationist who emailed me the link. It's clearly worth mentioning as 'the interview had 600,000 views in ONE WEEK!, hence it is important to debunk some of the claims made by Tour. Tucker Carlson doesn't allow comments on his video page, so I mentioned it on Tour's page.

I can certainly tone it down, but I hardly said anything subjective about Tour. The problem is that Tour propagates his opinions about creationism widely, but does not publish on it in scientific journals (which is telling), hence the public should be informed about him spreading pseudo-science. I am certainly open to suggestions how to handle this in a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

If independent sources start writing about his appearance on Carlson or about what he said on that show, then it's likely worth mentioning in the article.

The text you added is taking the approach of an investigative journalist rather than a wikipedia editor. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I just corrected my previous comment, adding that " the interview on Youtube had 600,000 views in ONE WEEK" and almost 6000 comments (not counting views on Tucker's website or the podcast) -- if that's not worth mentioning, I don't know what is. Look, I am desperately trying to fight pseudo-science and if the pseudo-science is coming from a renowned scientist, it's even more important. Unfortunately, Tour is a chemist, spreading unqualified falsehoods about evolution and it must be made known. Peteruetz (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand that motivation, @Peteruetz, but you can't use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs". As that essay advises:

Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion.

Schazjmd (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I did: I used reliable secondary independent sources to debunk some of the statements made in the interview. Anyway, I will write a "secondary article" about the interview that I can cite, so you and other Wikipedians are satisfied. In any case, I appreciate the constructive criticism. Peteruetz (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you don't waste your time doing so, since it will either be not permitted per WP:BLPSPS or if that hurdle is overcome there's WP:UNDUE weight issues involving a single person criticising the comments. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

You are obviously well read on the subject so I'm sure seeing an interview that is incorrect would b frustrating. However, I do think we need to be careful of Recentism. The interviewer is a bombastic figure that can get a lot of clicks but ultimately I don't think this is going to be relevant in 10 years. PerseusMeredith (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

If you find a reliable secondary source commenting on Tour's appearances on talk shows/radio and his tendency to regurgitate religiously-motivated pseudoscience in his capacity as an interviewee, that's something to write about. But, aside from it being a primary source, focusing on this YouTube video is not helpful for an overall summary of Tour's public presence. It's one example of a pattern of engagement with the public, which is the actually relevant information to a tertiary source like Wikipedia.

Also, instead of rebutting his claims as you have done, it would be better to link to another Wikipedia page that explains the scientific and logical flaws. Mossgazer (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Potentially curated at the behest of the subject or his institution

It's written in boastful tone and embellishes his accomplishments. For example,

His lab's discovery of the flash graphene process in 2019 for the 10-millisecond bulk formation of graphene from carbon sources including coal, petroleum coke, biochar, food waste and mixed plastic waste, has implications in environmental stewardship through materials and waste upcycling.

reads quite boastful and it was a part of the edit in Special:Diff/963282656 by PhaseChangeMemory (talk · contribs) which is used exclusively to add flattering contents about James Tour, which makes it a single purpose account. Another major content adder YoungDuke (talk · contribs) is also almonst an WP:SPA. They've both uploaded a photo of Tour that looks to be taken by a professional photographer that they've received personally by email. Such communication isn't prohibited per se, but combined with their single-purpose account nature and general hagiographic tone, undisclosed paid public relations editing is likely. Much of accomplishment still present in the article originate from these two accounts. Despite the delayed discovery, I've templated them with UPE/COI. Graywalls (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

This section has now been cut down. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I don't know how to edit articles, so if someone could make these edits, that would be great:

(1) Tour is not actually a proponent of Intelligent Design. There are many videos where he says he doesn't support Intelligent Design.

(2) Tour did not convert to Christianity in grad school. He was an undergraduate.

Thank you. ~2026-25866-00 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)