Talk:David Peters

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

David Peters' response[edit]

(Originally put on the page itself)

This webpage has wrongly, falsely and unfairly maligned my professional reputation.

In my defence:

My work follows all scientific methods. Prior work has been peer-reviewed and published in several academic publications including Nature, Science and the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

The technique, “Digital Graphic Segregation” simply involves coloring individual bones so more accurate reconstructions can be created using precise color tracings — and bones can be readily identified in situ even when cracked or appearing briefly beneath other bones.

Over the last six years the website “” has been building a cladogram (family tree) of reptiles, their ancestors and descendants (including birds and mammals) that now numbers 1000 taxa, with full resolution. This large gamut solves several paleo problems. Several subsequent academic papers have confirmed findings first presented on this website cladogram.

Many of my results confirm traditional results. Others break new ground.

The external link • Why the world has to ignore on Scientific American blog Tetrapod Zoology.

featured artwork NOT done by hand and included many other false statements identified and discussed here:

I cannot speculate on the motivation of the author of the disputed rationalwiki webpage, but new ideas have not met with wide acclaim throughout history, as you know. This is just one more case of the same. The dinosaur bird connection took over a century to be widely accepted. Paleontology moves very slowly.

David Peters— Unsigned, by: DavidPeters12c / talk / contribs

@Falconfly This page was previously deleted by community vote and one of the justifications, given by @LeftyGreenMario, was "Problematic article and probably harmful article that can possibly damage the reputation of Peters, evidenced by its talk page. Not what we want. Any further attempts should have more care taken to it per policy." Why are you going against community consensus? Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I support a re-delete. I am not willing to damage reputation like this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of this, though in my defense Peters harasses people very often.— Unsigned, by: Falconfly / talk / contribs
Ok, I'm willing to leave this article be for a little while and see if anyone can fix the issues. If we can't make it better in short order, it needs to be deleted. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Falconfly Can you provide evidence of harassment? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's the take on Peters' work by Darren Naish, as published in Scientific American.[1] It could probably be used for improving this article. Bongolian (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)