Talk:Spencer Wells

First Sentence

The first sentence does not make sense. I can't make the edit, cause I don't even understand what the author was trying to say? 216.232.98.171 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Including National Merit Scholar under the awards is idiotic.

well it is an award

I agree that it's somewhat non-encyclopedic and non-notable information. Much of the information in this entry would be appropriate for a CV but doesn't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article. Postdoc fellowships, etc., can probably be omitted.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Homo erectus

The species Homo erectus made the same journey (at least as far as Java) hundreds of thousands of years earlier. Does Wells address this in his book? It isn't mentioned in his film, nor whether we as a species are direct descendants of H. erectus. Were all H. erectus extinct by the time H. sapiens came out of Africa 50-60 thousand years ago? Badagnani 08:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

The History of Papua New Guinea article says that Homo sapiens got there 60 thousand years ago. But Wells says humans left Africa 50 thousand years ago. Both can't be right. Which is correct? Badagnani 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What does he mean?

I can't understand the following sentence which was inserted by 76.16.176.166 (talk) back in June 2009:

This question may be estimated by comparing other species with similar speed of reproduction, media have own deductible methods.

Could somebody please explain just what he was trying to say? DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential references

These were removed from the External links section today, but are all potentially good references. Please remove from the list below, once they've been used in the article. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Salon with Will Self in SEED
• Article from the July 2007 issue of Vanity Fair
• Talk at TED Global 2007
• Today Show appearance (18 Nov 2005), also [1]
• Studio 360 interview
• Daily Show interview
• 60 Minutes (Australia) segment (2008)

I have included the Vanity Fair article (really, a piece written by Wells himself about his project) and the TED video (a lecture of his). But the links to the Daily Show and to Studio 360 really aren't very useful (interviews). I hope you note that the links I removed (and I didn't remove all of them!) are basically primary sources that come pretty close to creating a repository of links out of the External links section--the kind of links that do not do a lot more than establish how often a certain person has been on TV. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those additions, that is ideal. :)

Regarding interviews, they're a standard form of WP:PRIMARY reference, and are very valuable in building articles, but should be used with care (avoiding making "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."). As a source for objective facts, quotations, and other material, they are excellent references. For example, the WNYC Studio 360 interview gives locations he has worked in, synopsese of work he has completed, and many of his personal insights and opinions. See any Featured article-class biography of a contemporary person (and numerous other topics), for examples.

Regarding the purpose of External links: Whilst I agree with and understand the desire to keep the number of links manageable, which is a constant maintenance task, one of the main purposes of EL sections (and Further reading sections) is to provide the reader with pointers towards information not currently found within our article (and secondarily, to provide a source of potential references for our editors). Hence, removals of all-but-plain-spam, should be undertaken with care. (You did take care, which I appreciate, but I wanted to emphasize these aspects thereof). </end minor rant!>

Hope that helps. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is alot of conclusions made based on Spencer Well's support of single-origin theory, however am unable to see any real data (the science) backing the theory. I was specifically interested in the genetic markers he was using to make the genomic connection to the different races and tribes over the journey. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now I am wondering if this was science, or staged? Here is one tidbit of reference from the Human Genome Project:

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.

Mapsurfer49 (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spencer Wells. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130710014353/http://www.scgsgenealogy.com/Jamboree/2013/DNAday.htm to http://www.scgsgenealogy.com/Jamboree/2013/DNAday.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

The University of Texas at Austin disclaimed any association with a professor who called for genocide to wipe out 9 million Israelis by bombing the Jewish state “until the sand turns to glass.”

By Yakir Benzion, United With Israel

A part-time professor who called for the total annihilation of Israel has been kicked out of a respected Texas university.

In an anti-Israel rampage on social media, Spencer Wells tweeted that Israel should be bombed “until the sand turns to glass,” The Algemeiner reported.

Although that specific tweet was subsequently deleted, two months ago Wells tweeted “Israel is going to be crushed beneath a giant Persian boot, funded by all of the enemies your government and the U.S. have cultivated in the region over the years.”

“When the U.S. goes down, all bets are off. Without U.S. backing, Iran will unleash all sorts of mischief in the Levant, backed by China, Russia and KSA. Israel’s days as a regional superpower are numbered, and geopolitics change rapidly,” Wells tweeted.

Wells proposed that “everyone pull their military forces out of the Middle East for 6 months and let Iran and Israel settle their issues once and for all. Whoever has more than radioactive rubble left at the end wins,” adding that he thought the result would be that “Israel is a nuclear wasteland.”

The University of Texas at Austin severed its ties with Wells.

“Spencer Wells is no longer a faculty or advisory council member at UT,” the university said on its official Twitter account last week. “He previously had a courtesy, unpaid appointment as a part-time adjunct that did not involve teaching. That ended in May and was not renewed. We do not have any association with the views held by Mr. Wells.”

Wells tried to defend his anti-Israel hatred by claiming, “I don’t have a problem with the Jewish religion at all. I have a problem with the vicious Apartheid practiced by the fascist government of Israel.”

However, Wells didn’t say why he wanted the genocidal bombing of Israel into total annihilation – the stated goal of Iran – which would result in the deaths of 9.2 million Israelis.

Wells, who calls himself a population geneticist, fled the U.S. in March and says he is “holed up a remote eastern Indonesian island.”

Wells was previously associated with the National Geographic Society, launching its Genographic Project in 2005.

Bernadette99 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Request for comment: Reliability of blog post by Israellycool as a source

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Joshgladwin (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

---

.... here is the entire RfC discussion...

This request for comment has been started about the verifiability of this page by the Israellycool blog as it applies to a series of alleged Twitter posts by Mr Wells, which have since been deleted.

This RfC asks:

1) Can the above source be relied upon solely for the purpose of alleging that the tweets were made? You'll note the blog posts contain screen shots of the alleged tweets.

2) Had the offending tweets not been deleted, could they be relied on as a source given Mr Well's twitter account is "verified"?

3) If the answer to either of the above is "no", what is preventing Mr Well's from continuing to make inflammatory tweets and delete them, without any being able to attract criticism on Wikipedia? Joshgladwin (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources unless written by subject-matter experts (see WP:RS/SPS); 2) On their own, tweets do not automatically confer notability or provide interpretation so we wait for reliable third-party coverage before including any of the millions of tweets written daily; and 3) Wikipedia is not here to provide original criticism to deter people from doing things (see WP:NOTADVOCACY). That said, I'm not saying we shouldn't mention the tweets at all in this case since there are at least a few other sources covering this. It looks like the best is probably The Algemeiner, and something called the Jewish News Syndicate has an opinion piece about it which I reckon is also usable. (The other two I found, by Texas Scorecard and the Young America's Foundation, are actively partisan/advocacy groups so it's probably best to leave them out.) In any case, it might be good to post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard since our guidelines on contentious material in biographies of living persons are quite strict. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References