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)

Like I said in December, even if Peter Uetz publishes an atticle (which he has done), it would fail WP:UNDUE as it's just a single person. We should absolutely not encourage Wikipedia editors publishing articles for the sole purpose of using said article to attack a living person on Wikipedia. FDW777 (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Its not undue since Tour made a lot of creationist claims in Carlson's show. Free Inquiry is a respected RS replying to that claims exposed in the primary source. The short text is attributed to Huetz and there's no POV problems in the wording. He isn't even called a denialist. Please, drop the WP:STICK. Ixocactus (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

So where's the talk page consensus for inclusion? Nowhere. FDW777 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2026 (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)

Let's pause.

I see many editors start piling on to the existence of this paragraph. Since these users are all established veteran editors, I think we should pause for a moment and discuss it out, (and before that, probably put the paragraph away from the article). WP:NODEADLINE

Disputed paragraph

In a December 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, Tour rejected evolution. The claims and arguments made by Tour were debunked in a 2026 article by biologist Peter Uetz in the journal Free Inquiry.

References

海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE part specifically refers to the debunking by Peter Uetz, not the Tucker Carlson interview itself (which doesn't seem to have got that much publicity anyway). As noted by Peter Uetz here, Unfortunately I am the only one who has tried so far (in addition to Dave Farina). Debunking by a single person fails WP:UNDUE, and as noted at WP:BLPN this type of editing falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. FDW777 (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that we can include a single sentence about the Tucker Carlson appearance with a Peter Uetz reply. I agree that spending too much time on it is probably not warranted. A single sentence at the end of the paragraph that we currently have should suffice. jps (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, I note that while this debunking is done by a single person, that person Peter Uetz is a notable expert on the subject and per WP:FRIND is exactly the sort of critique that we encourage as a source for fringe theories such as the ones being touted by Tour. jps (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, we actively discourage Wikipedia editors from writing articles elsewhere for the sole purpose of using them here, in this case to attack a living person. FDW777 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

My interpretation of neutrality in NPOV is to take the POV of science and against pseudo ones; and the "debunked" part is just a realization of such POV: when someone claims to have refuted evolution as a scientist, an encyclopedia will remind the reader that such claim is ludicrous and wrong.

And that among the myriad of ways one can deliver such POV, the original editor chose a piece of very pointy writing.

So I prefer an all or nothing approach. Mention JT made a wrong claim, or not mention at all, to avoid implying that Wikipedia takes no stance on the claim, (because we certainly do, as a matter of pure right vs. wrong). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it an attack of a living person? I wouldn't describe it as such. We often tell people to right great wrongs elsewhere, and while I am sympathetic to the point that we should be paying attention to secondary rather than primary sources in this regard, the source arguably is a secondary source with respect to the claims of Tour. A single sentence doesn't seem unduly weighted to me. jps (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE part specifically refers to the debunking by Peter Uetz, not the Tucker Carlson interview itself Definitely not. Including Carlson but excluding the refutation would violate WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a megaphone for those two weirdos. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Never said the Tucker Carlson bit should be included on its own, in fact I've removed it as well as the Uetz debunking. But my point remains that criticism by a single person, in this case an article written by a Wikipedia editor with the deliberate intention of using it to criticise Tour in this article, violates WP:UNDUE. FDW777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The original addition being referred to shows that the Carlson part was added at the same time. FDW777 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They should both be removed. The reference to one interview is undue. Peter Uetz wrote an opinion piece in Free Inquiry. Having an opinion piece violates the WP:BLP, in particular, WP:Verifiability.

Free Inquiry is by its own statement, a secular humanist publication and not a peer-reviewed academic journal. The inclusion of the article violates the WP:NPOV. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journals are not the only type of source we accept. While I agree that the author adding it himself was improper, multiple independent editors consider it appropriate for this context. The paper straddles the line because he is a reputable academic and the debunking itself is thoroughly cited to sources that are formal peer reviewed publications. That is the only part that was included in the article here, not his personal opinions. Would you feel better about it if we add a third peer reviewed source supporting the existence of evolution? That feels unnecessary per WP:SKYBLUE. Anyone who believes in science doesn't need that cited, and those who don't wouldn't believe it anyway. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not just the author adding it himself was improper, but as explicity stated here the author deliberately wrote the article so he could use it to attack Tour here as his previous attempts to add original research doing so were rejected. I haven't even watched the Tucker Carlson interview since it's not something I'm remotely interested in, but is Tour rejected evolution the only point that was made in the 104 minute video or is that just a cherry picked selection to start with? FDW777 (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It's a pretty decent summary of the video. It often surprises me how long-winded right-wing media can be. jps (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

If there is no refutation of Tour's creationist ideas in the article, Tour's creationist ideas should not be in the article either. See WP:FRINGE. If Uetz is not good enough, then the only solution is to delete all mention of creationist crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Tour is known for chemistry at Rice not origin of life or evolution. PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

He would not be notable then, as a chemist. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 13:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. He's had an article since 2005 and didn't even start making videos on abiogenesis till 2020. He's an ISI highly cited researcher and is from one of the most respected science universities in the country. PerseusMeredith (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Notability =/= citation. Otherwise we'd be having an article on all profs from all prestigious universities. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 14:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Cited works is a valid criterion under WP:NACADEMIC - however, it's one that's received significant criticism, because "highly cited" is highly subjective. The case for notability is much stronger if additional criteria are met as well. I stand by my opinion that if we don't have sufficient sourcing to critique his creationist claims there should be no mention of them at all, and if that's the case it should be considered at AfD based solely on his academic work. If editors who are familiar with academic articles feel the sources are sufficient to confer notability based on his chemistry work then it can stay.

I personally feel it's better to debunk his claims for the reasons you stated (ideally more thoroughly than has been done thus far), but if people are going to get hung up over a single citation for a single sentence, we can roll things back to the bare bones - is he or is he not notable, and for what reason? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that, in addition to the subject's notability under WP:NPROF criterion 1 (highly cited), he is also notable under

• criterion 2 (awarded Centenary Prize)
• criterion 3 (fellow of AAAS, member of National Academy of Engineering), and
• criterion 5 (named chair appointment as T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry)

I have practically no doubt that the article would be kept at AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Known for: Advocate of intelligent design

While he most assuredly is not an expert on the subject, I don't see how we can justify an article without mentioning it, and in order to do so responsibly we must also include criticism. Lacking that we'd be looking at AfD. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The article does mention criticism of it, in the lead no less. FDW777 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, he had an article for 15 years prior to opining about abiogenesis. Why would he have an article before he waded into a contentious topic if he wasn't a notable chemist? Everything I've read is that it is undisputed that he is a notable in synthetic, organic chemistry. PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Why would he have an article before he waded into a contentious topic if he wasn't a notable chemist? Mistakes happen. The fact that there was an article back then does not prove anything by itself. You need to show notability, not just point out that someone claimed it by making the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Considering that as early as 2007 the article was mainly about Tour's pushing of intelligent design, he has been opining about things related to abiogenesis for well beyond the timeframe suggested. It was more recently, as he became more prominent with people pushing back on his work in the area specifically, that this article saw attempts to scrub such advocacy, while adding almost every single scientific paper he has written into the article. These attempts were flagged as potential paid editing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

That is included because a NY Times article was written about Tour and his stance on evolution. NY Times doesn't write articles about random scientists, he was featured because he is notable and a clear expert in his field. The wipidedia article already features language regarding his stance, I'm fine with keeping that. I think the reference to the Tucker Carlson interview should be removed. It does not seem to be covered anywhere else by RS. PerseusMeredith (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

NY Times article was written about Tour and his stance on evolution, so what is notable about Tour per RS, are his stances in the area of creationism/intelligent design. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

And if his stance is not put in context, it has to be deleted per WP:FRINGE, which means the source cannot be used in that case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how we can justify an article without mentioning it Not having usable sources for something is a good justification for not including it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not one reputable source gave a shit about Tour's interview with Tucker Carlson before Uetz tried to insert it into the article and manufactured a citation in the name of fringe hunting. His attempts to put it on Wikipedia would only promote Tour's fringe views and Carlson more than it should as a twisted variation of the Streisand effect. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect it might be a bit broader than that - it seems a lot of people just don't give much of a shit about him in general.

I would also discourage making significant changes to the article while this discussion is ongoing. Even if they are appropriate people already have their feathers ruffled, and it doesn't hurt anything to discuss the changes here first since they are related. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

As is the case with many people in the circles of creationism/intelligent design with backgrounds in various sciences, while they may become very prominent within the circles that care about the matter, those circles tend not to overlap much with news outlets that we consider RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Right - by "people" I mainly meant editors and RS. The POV pushing doesn't appear to have been too bad compared to what we sometimes see on more prominent right wing subjects. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

A brief summary of events

• On 22 December 2025 Peteruetz adds a relatively large section about the Tucker Carlson interview, all of it original research. This was removed
• On 23 December this addition was discussed at #Tucker Carlson interview 2 above.
• At 21:44, 23 December 2025 Peteruetz signals his intent with Anyway, I will write a "secondary article" about the interview that I can cite, so you and other Wikipedians are satisfied
• On 23 July 2026 Peteruetz (the edit by another editor is unimportant) adds back a smaller version of the Tucker Carlson interview, with a cite to an article written by himself, with some apparent original research too. Presumably nobody objects to this being classified at the result of the 21:44, 23 December 2025 post?
• At 11:50, 24 July 2026 Peteruetz states I do not benefit in any way from citing myself but someone needs to debunk Tour. Unfortunately I am the only one who has tried so far (in addition to Dave Farina)

Now putting aside any arguments about the validity of the content, this is absolutely not something that should be encouraged in any way (see also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing). The start of WP:NPOV states All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. But this is not an attempt to represent a significant view. The video in question attracted barely any attention at all at the time (as confirmed at 11:50, 24 July 2026), so Peteruetz has in fact attempted to skew NPOV by publishing an article on a subject that nobody was bothered by at all, and the sole purpose of publishing the article was so it could be cited here. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve", and in my opinion that is a transparent attempt to move the curve. FDW777 (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

NPOV is not balance. Peteruetz working to debunk Tour is the equivalent of a fact check. Wikipedia only benefits when experts create sources explicitly to make sure that facts are identified as facts and opinions as opinions. I am sympathetic (in that I think it is at least defensible) to the argument that the material may be of little interest in the general reader. After all, we are not required to include every point that can be reliably sourced, we just need to make sure that points that are included are reliably sourced. But in this instance, I think it does help the biography somewhat to show that Tour has migrated away from his stances some decades ago as evinced in the New Yorker profile where he seemed comfortable with non-overlapping magisteria to today when he seems to be on the warpath against a significant swathe of academic molecular biology. jps (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)