Talk:PZ Myers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

PZ v Sr Disco Fellow Geoffrey Simmons, noteworthy?

Every English speaking science blog is talking about this debate. Noteworthy? Uncommondescent had a thread on the topic with a link to the actual debate but the comments from the IDists were very critical of Simmons. It was so bad for their cause UD deleted the entire thread. Here are some linky link link links: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/teach-the-contr-5.html#new-comments http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/thats_some_memory_hole.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/was_that_fun_or_what.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/standard_creationist_tactics_a.php http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/pz-myers-vs-geoffrey-simmons-discovery-institute/ http://richarddawkins.net/article,2206,n,n http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/02/01/pz-myers-v-g-simmons/ Just google "pz myers vs geoffrey simmons" for more Angry Christian (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is funny, on PZ's blog he talks about how the original title of the debate was going to be "the evidence of Evolution vs. evidence of Intelligent Design". THAT would have been a fantastic debate/presentation in view of no one on planet earth has yet provided a shred of evidence that supports intelligent design, as we all know they have yet to articulate an actual theory. Predictably Geoffrey Simmons, sr fellow of the discovery institute, demanded the debate tile be changed to "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?". Is that funny or what? Those kooky creationists never cease to amaze me! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/standard_creationist_tactics_a.php Angry Christian (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

stuart blessman and hi9s backtracking and apology to PZ Myers

Before we start quoting Stuart Blessman from the expelled site you might want to read the original source http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/richard-dawkins-crashes-the-party-at-a-screening-of-expelled/ and note he back tracked and also apologized to PZ Myers. The Expelled web site seems to have overlooked those key facts when they copied the article and left out comments later made by Blessman. Nice try DLH but no cookie for your sloppy scholarship. Angry Christian (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

The image we're using here has a fair-use assertion, but there are two problems with it as it stands. One, fair-use images of living people are not usually acceptable where a free alternative could be made; and two, there is nothing more than the boilerplate text, something explicitly mentioned as unacceptable in the tag box itself. We need either a suitable permission to use this image, or another, free-licensed, image. 86.149.1.115 (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic Freedom Controversy

I retitled this as it seemed almost guaranteed to mislead readers as to what the quote was about (the need for forceful criticism of those like politicians and preachers who promote anti-scientific views). Probably, if the quote is really wanted in the article, it should be given some context to explain what was being discussed. N p holmes (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A good point , it's a blog that's been quotemined to give the impression that PZ is advocating physical violence rather than forceful written or verbal criticism. I've removed it, as an anon had earlier, since we need a reliable secondary source analysing the quote, and showing its significance to his life (if any), to meet the requirements of WP:NOR. Saying "this quote seems to nicely summarize his standpoint" isn't good enough, particularly for a biography of a living person. .. dave souza, talk 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Refresh my memory please

Who has the ID "beliver" (can't recall if he was an "advocate" per say) who was intitially denied tenure and PZ and numerous others wrote that the guy deserved tenure. He was later granted tenure but I cannot recall who it was. It could have been someone who taught at Baylor. Does this ring any bells? Angry Christian (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) ? 62.31.149.64 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, PZ would not say GG deserved tenure. Nobody with half a brain would. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

The article claims "Now an atheist, Myers comments widely on his blog about atheism and religion, and is particularly scathing and critical of evangelicalism" Um, I read PZ's blog often and he is as critical of his fellow scientists, the prcatices of certain science journals, other atheists as he is of evangelicals. And his criticisms are about what he finds stupid regardless of whether a deity is involved. The sentence is misleading. Angry Christian (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also been reading his blog for a while, and after reading the wikipedia article on him it is rediculous how much of it is focused on outrage from seemingly bigoted christians. I guess that's what happens when one gets popular over a controversy, but his blog has been great, especialyl teh coverage of Hox gene functions. Is tehre a way to vote to freeze the site until the storm passes? 65.244.107.206 (talk)Hox memeplex —Preceding comment was added at 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

why was the picture changed?

Angry Christian (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that since at least Dec. the article has linked to the same image location - it is possible that image has been replaced (vandalism?) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be my guess. I am going to delete it for now. Angry Christian (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that would not be my guess because I had no freaking idea :-) Nice guess on your part :-) Angry Christian (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the original picture of that name was first linked in the article a looooooong time ago. But that image was deleted on the 21st. The Commons image simply got loaded instead. So now my question is, is this even Myers, or does Commons have a mislabeled pictureapparantly it is why not at least have that photo in the article(?)... it isn't "vandalized", it is just a different picture... low quality, to be sure, but free enough to use. Or maybe we could get him to donate a different free image of himself. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed him asking for a better picture. That one is just terrible on so many levels. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully he provides one. --Ali'i 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He has now done so and I've loaded it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep "Stuart Pivar controversy"?

Should we keep the "Stuart Pivar controversy"? Stuart Pivar, a rich man who has a long history filing lawsuits, wrote a book on intelligent design. He published the book himself, lacks any scientific education, and then gave a copy to Myers. Myers criticized it and Pivar filed a lawsuit and withdrew it one week later.

A week long-lawsuit regarding a self-published book with limited interest hardly seems notable for a whole section. According to worldcat, the book is at 9 libraries throughout the world. Other than Myers' blog, there is only one source. Should it be included at all? Paper45tee (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that Pivar's book wasn't about ID. It was about a totally whole different kettle of nonsense.

I think it should be mentioned. But predominantly feature more on the Pharynguala (weblog) article--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ID creationism

The overwhelming majority view among experts on ID is that it is a form of creationism, google for cdesign proponentsists for one line of evidence, and see the Kitzmiller conclusion for a useful summary. The "official" DI line continues to deny it, but Expelled has been noted as dropping the pretence. Calling it anything else is giving undue weight to an extreme minority pseudoscience view. .. dave souza, talk 22:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Also historian Ronald Numbers in The Creationists. Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that we should call it anything else. I'm saying that even if the overwhelming majority view among "experts" is that it is a form of creationism, we shouldn't state that as fact, because it is disputable, and (as you concede) the "official" line of ID advocates is to deny it. Just because the US courts have held that it is a form of creationism does not make this indisputable fact. In an article like this, which isn't primarily dedicated to the evolution-ID controversy, we need to avoid introducing implicit bias. Walton^One 08:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

1. He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and creationism
2. He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and other forms of creationism

If you say that someone is a critic of A + B, that implies that A and B are different. To make the first statement is to repeat the IDist talking point as if it were true, when in fact we have a number of scholarly works and a court ruling which says otherwise. To make the second statement is to use the non-fringe view. We can't pretend that political talking points are true.

You say we need to avoid introducing implicit bias. I agree. Which is why we should favour the scholarly opinion over the political talking point. We cannot imply that ID is not creationism. Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I've now introduced compromise wording which, while it isn't ideal, doesn't implicitly favour either side of the debate. [1] I hope this will satisfy everyone. Walton^One 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist controversy

This section is understandably in a state of flux, since it is unfolding as it is being written here. But I added one key fact about the incident that should not be omitted: Myers' post was triggered not just by a breach of religious protocol by a student in Florida, it was largely triggered by the extreme responses of those Catholic believers who made death threats against the student.

Myers may always be ready to tear into religion, but this particular controversy came about not because of a general dislike of religion but because of the advocacy of violence against the student.

Also, Myers' post was made to his own blog, Pharyngula, though it may have been tracked at any number of other blogs. The article makes it sound as if it was featured only at Richard Dawkin's site.

And could an experienced editor take a look at some of the gratuitously provocative phrasings used to describe the situation? The selective quoting seems to be a bit too much like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.204.82 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it's section. It does not meet wikipedia standards for notability, having independent coverage. It's only publicity is through self notorisation through directly involved agents - PZ and the Catholic League. When this hits MainstreamMedia, then it may warrant inclusion as notable.

Personal outrage by editors at events on either side should be left at home when editing wikipedia.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring the section, per the following links (comments by ZZM):

• Star tribune (news article)
• Inside Higher Ed (webzine)
• Christian News Wire (webzine)
• worldontheweb (webzine)
• Jewish Journal blog (blog)

Korossyl (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you keep up somewhat with the comments section of Pharyngula - this section of the article is showing a noticeable bias. I thought NPOV was supposed to be important. 72.192.216.234 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Myers himself has made no admission that his comments were meant to be satirical. Korossyl (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading helps: "Myers, in an interview today, explained that the blog entry is more "satire and protest" than an actual threat to defile the Eucharist."--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue should not feature too prominently here. It is more appropriate on Pharyngula (blog) which is languishing for attention. It should be a small brief paragraph akin to the Pivar-controversy. Wikipedia is not news, and should not make a greater fuss over recent events.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, this is very relevant to Pharyngula. Nonetheless, I wonder if it is not worth mentioning here, for three reasons: (1) It garnered great interest among the public, and I'm certain that many people looking for info on Dr. Myers are looking in relation to this issue. (2) I think it says much about the man (that he is so vehement, fearless, and explicit), his stance (hostile to religion and/or religious extremism in general, and not only to where it touches his own field of study), and his style (prone, indeed, to "satire and protest" of such inflammatory nature and not just a mild-mannered professor and debater of biology). (3) It could have very serious effects on his career. The first is a reason for including this section now, if not later; the third is a reason for perhaps including it after the dust settles, if not now; and the second is a reason, as I see it, for including it permanently. Thoughts?

Korossyl (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball WP:CRYSTAL. Including stuff just because it might interest web surfers is not the goal of wikipedia. I'm not against inclusion, take a look at my version here, it is certainly bigger than I expected. But it hasn't gained significant MSM coverage, and we have yet to see if it will die off quickly or not. One of the problems with covering current events like this is that Wikipedia can play a role in notorising them by exposing them or providing authority (wikipedia has authority??) behind them that in turns gives them more mainstream coverage. This sort of loop should be avoided.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems good to me; in fact, I think it grew since I first added it (!). I did change "perceived threat" to "apparent threat" -- for indeed, it was less of a misperception than a lack of immediate clarification. Korossyl (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole section on Pharyngula (blog) and related controversies should be summarized even more since all of this detail is available to an interested reader at blog's article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder would his prior threat to desecrate a Quran help put this incident into context, since he has a history of this sort of behaviour. Or perhaps just to put him into context as less of a reasoned intellecutal and more of a shallow thinking attention whore. Attriti0n (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; many of the comments I've heard and read have been along the lines of "he'd never do this if it was in relation to Islam." This certainly fits with my point of using this as an elucidation of his character. On the other hand, this is also why I don't think the section should undergo a major reductive summary; it says as much about Myers as it does about his blog. Korossyl (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see, none of the sources are discussing his "character" - only statements on the blog and reactions to them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I just mean this controversy is relevant to the article in fleshing out the personality and pursuits of the subject. Korossyl (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that no one, including Myers, takes any death threats seriously. It simply provided an excuse to be an adolescent rebel. Please avoid the faux hyperventilation over such obvious hoaxes. Myers or the student could walk through a crowd of 1000 Catholics and be perfectly safe and we all know it.75.174.137.46 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope that editors will use a professional approach and take efforts to see that this article does not degenerate into a rehash of the highly emotional content of some of the posts on Myers' blog regarding this issue. Even on this discussion page, it would be helpful avoid arguing about Myers' and his detractors' positions (or intentions) and instead stick to what sort of editing is most appropriate and what information should be included. 24.130.204.82 (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 24.130.204.82. The Eucharist stuff can be cut-back to precise without rehashing what readers can follow up with in the footnotes. This article should be about the person. Details on the controversies around his blog belong on that page. C56C (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, it should be noted that the news reports Myers was responding to in the first place report that the student says he took the wafer but did not eat it at once, intending to take it back to his place in the church to show a friend, but was manhandled by a woman steward or church leader, and decided to take the wafer out of the church, possibly in a sort of protest. He kept the wafer safe for a period, then responded to emails etc. and returned it to the church. Hostage released. The vicious comments and death threats may or may not have been credible, but it would be foolish not to take them seriously. Myers reported and responded to what he saw as a completely over the top reaction, leading to a completely over the top reaction to his post. As I recall, Donohue's Catholic League were involved in the original harassment of the student. The sources are there, the current version is slanted towards Donohue's Catholic League version of events and this needs to be balanced if the information stays at all. A minor stushie, only made the local press last I saw. Is it really that notable? . . dave souza, talk 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is it really that notable?" Nope. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Uggh! The final paragraph, as it currently reads, is just a selection of tabloid style phrasings that are nothing other than an attempt to make an argument rather than elucidate the radio discussion or dispute. It certainly is strongly POV and is starting to sound like it's written for TalkOrigins instead of WP. It sure doesn't sound encyclopedic in tone! Given the hot headed feelings surrounding the issue, perhaps an editor without an axe to grind or position to defend could take yet another look.24.130.204.82 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist controversy belongs on Pharyngula page

A summary of the controversy should be on this page, but the majority belongs on Pharyngula (blog). The controversy is about a posting on Pharyngula and the Catholic League's objection to UMM's link to Pharyngula. See Wikipedia:SUMMARY

Also let's keep Donohue's accusation of anti-catholic bigotry out of the heading per WP:UNDUE. Donohue accuses of a lot of people of that, and asserting Myers is anti-Catholic in the heading is a violation of WP:BLP. We66er (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The anti-catholic category does not belong. We66er (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The category does belong. It does not necessarily mean he is anti-Catholic (although some may argue strongly that he is), but that this is a subject which notably relates to the topic of anti-Catholicism. He has notably been accused of anti-Catholic bigotry, so the category is plainly applicable to this article. Mamalujo (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. He might be as against Protestantism or Sikhism as Catholicism, but he is notable to this issue. He's probably one of the most notable people to the issue. That said it'll probably be removed consider the demographics of Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Catholicism is a subset of Category:Opposition to religion, which is more appropriate. He is as much anti-Protestant as anti-Catholic, and bigoted accusations of bigotry should be treated with care on a BLP. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur. "Opposition to religion" is more accurate and appropriate. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism is not a subset of opposition to religion. On can be Anti-Catholic with opposing religion, John Hagee is only one example. And personal arguments of editor as to whether Myers is anti-Catholic or not aside, he has been notably accused of it. BLP does not prevent application of this category.68.126.62.214 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur that "opposition to religion" is more accurate. Not all "anti-Catholics" are anti-religious (e.g., Hagee) but all anti-religious people are anti-Catholic too. Myers is definitely the latter. Is it possible to compromise and have both categories, or is that just over-categorization? justinfr (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"anti-catholic" is ambiguous, and possibly misleading as a category. Trishm (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Although it's possible to be one and not the other it's also possible to be both. He is both against religion and against Catholicism. Then again I'm Catholic so my opinion doesn't matter. (And for the record Donohue is kind of nutty. He does tend to throw darts at every target, but when you do that it's plausible you'll hit one correctly once in awhile) In any event it's not misleading as he's become notable on the topic. William A. Donohue himself should plausibly be added as well. Or, alternatively, it should not be on any article concerning a person.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Do we have a reliable source saying that he's specifically anti-Catholic? The most recent news report on this issue confirms formally that Donohue has no authority to speak for the Catholic church, quite apart from his obvious unreliability as a single issue lobbyist. Myers has treated a Catholic symbol with the same disdain that he'd treat any other symbol, including a symbol of opposition to religion. This was not a protest against Roman Catholicism, but a protest against death threats and attempts to destroy the career of a Roman Catholic student whose ideas differed from those of the particular church he was attending. The Magesterium has given no open support to such threats, so how is Myers anti-Catholic? Verification is needed if we are to include the category. . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The category is not "Anti-Catholics" it's "Anti-Catholicism." He is notable in connection to it, even if he would dispute his notability to it. (And I doubt he would to be honest) Also in Catholicism the Eucharist is not merely a symbol anyway, it's a sacred object that is not to be obtained without personal qualification to have it. Donohue has no authority, but you could ask any authority in Catholicism and they'd tell you this is considered a hostile act. I know where the wind is blowing on this, but if he stays in I will add Donohue so you can get a better sense what the category is even about.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That said as a compromise I changed it to Category:Christianity-related controversies. There are a few individuals listed in it.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. . dave souza, talk 11:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the "cracker" thing illustrates that Category:Opposition to religion is appropriate, as he included a Koran in his photograph. I'm certainly not opposed to adding Category:Christianity-related controversies, but I'm restoring the other category as well. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. As for anti-Catholicism, it's barely discernable in PZ's case, not near being in the same league as Pastor Jack Glass [2] :) . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it in so something could relate to this and because I saw how the wind was blowing. I personally believe his actions would make him very relevant to the issue and therefore to Category:Anti-Catholicism itself. Still in the past I've been leery of having living people in the category even if they clearly fit. (Amanda Marcotte isn't in it either) For that reason perhaps I can make my actions acceptable to myself. Although if PZ Myers were a nineteenth century scientist with the exact same history I'd have no qualms with putting him in the category and would maybe push harder to keep him in it. I really have zero doubt he belongs as he's linked to an anti-Catholic incident, but BLP concerns do matter. I'm sort-of hoisted by my own petard on this one then.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Myers' target appears to be not so much catholicism as what he perceives as religious persecution, which in this case was carried out by people who thought they were acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic church. Perhaps the Diocese was doing so when it described Webster Cook's actions as "a hate crime", but Myers' main target seems to have been those who threatened Cook's life and well-being, and the ever-present Mr Donohue. Those people have no official affiliations with the church and do not speak for it. The pretext for the attacks on Cook were the they believed he intended to desecrate the host, so Myers said he himself would go ahead and desecrate it. In his later blog entry summarising the act, Myers listed a number of acts of religious persecution, including mass murder, that had been carried out against those (mainly Jews and Muslims) who had merely been accused of host desecration. So yeah, opposed to religious bigotry, or even anti-religious. Neither anti-catholic in the narrow sense nor specifically focussed on doctrine at all, but on actions in the name of the church. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then he should've made fun of Donohue as South Park long has. I'm not a big fan of Donohue's either. Sorry Myers actions were focused on a doctrine and if he did not know this would hurt many peaceful Catholics than he is unusually foolish. And violence for host desecration hasn't occurred in over 17 decades according to the Wikipedia article. In addition death threats are best dealt with by the law, what kind of logic is it to deal with death threats by intentionally angering "those people" even more. Even if you think Radical Catholics are as bad as Radical Muslims what good would flushing a Qur'an do for Ayaan Hirsi Ali.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• What Myers did was in response to a Catholic problem there for what he did was aimed at Catholicism. --Hihkite (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist controversy – the movie

[3]. . dave souza, talk 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page exist after all?

Academically, Professor Myers hasn't done anything of note that any other tenured Dozent is not already doing. His contributions to science have been negligible. He excels as an ideologue and a bad one at that. I don't believe he deserves a Wikipedia entry. May be when he actually discovers or invents something benefitting something other than his large and healty ego, perhaps. I vote for removal of this entry.Teófilo de Jesús (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for being the subject of a Wikipeida article is being notable; the subject of published material in reliable sources. Myers clearly meets the criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really feel that way, you can visit the guidelines at WP:AFD, though--just a heads up--I suspect the result will be a speedy keep and a lot of accusations of a bad-faith nomination. justinfr (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist controversy did NOT occur in a church

Just to set the record straight, Webster Cook attended a mass held in the student union at UCF - NOT in a church. It was being held by a Catholic student group, which receives money from the student government. As in most public state universities, any student group funded by student government must be open to all students, free of charge, regardless of their religious beliefs. Cook tried to sit in the back row to observe the mass and discuss it from afar with his friend and he was ushered forward to join the mass. The controversy began with arguments between Cook and his friend Ben, and a member of the Catholic student group named Michelle Ducker, who accused them of disrespecting the gospel and demanded they unquestioningly participate in the ritual, and she made it a point to watch him and whisper to others to watch him. When he took communion he walked three steps before he was stopped and ordered to eat the wafer. When he tried to sit down, Michelle tried to pry it from his hand and promised him she would make a "huge scene". Webster was then led out of the ritual and informed that a blessed eucharist can be used for witchcraft.

So let's not pretend like this kid snuck into a church with the intention of disrupting a private religious ritual.

You can hear Webster's side of the story in the second half of this podcast: http://media.libsyn.com/media/ffrf/FTradio_117_071908.mp3VatoFirme (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Myers seems to have misunderstood that point in his original post on the matter, the news report describes it as "Mass held on campus" and calls Michelle Ducker a "church leader", while the diocese describe it as their "Catholic Campus Ministry". I've added another refs. tag to show the podcast source, which was already cited after the point about the wafer being returned a week later. . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of this article in the "Anti-Catholicism" category

Myers is anti-religion-in-general. The eucharist kerfuffle may suggest that the Anti-Catholicism category is warranted, but that fails to see the big picture. Indeed, the fact that he included a Koran in the image he released closing out the "cracker-desecration" episode points out his wider contempt for religion in general rather than Catholicism in specific. Don't include the article in that category. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is of course your opinion. However, he has notably been accused of anti-Catholicism. That warrants inclusion of the category. The fact that he may oppose religion in general does not mean the category does not apply. Tossing in the Koran only occured after he was accused of anti-Catholicism. After all, his first instinct wasn't to desecrate the Torah or blow up some Buddha statues.Mamalujo (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Global warming has been notably criticized as pseudoscience, but we don't add that category. By doing so, it states the premise as a fact, which requires a much higher burden of proof, which cannot be met. The same may or may not apply here, it depends on the number and strength of sources. But notability alone is not enough. Aaron Schulz 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The category is not "Category:Anti-Catholics." Nor is it intended to be so. It's a category for people who are notable in connection with Anti-Catholicism. Hence Lyman Beecher, who curiously is not in it so far, could clearly belong in it for leading to the burning of a convent. Even though Anti-Catholicism is not the main thing he's known for and he probably disliked other non-Protestant faiths as well. Now an argument can be made that he's not notable connect to Anti-Catholicism, but that's where the argument should lie. Not in "he dislikes all religion" or "He doesn't hate all Catholic individuals." For an analogous example see the inclusion of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Update on seeing that living people are in it I've added William A. Donohue to the category.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source do we have for this "anti-Catholicism" charge, and how does that become more notable than his open anti-religion stance? The only source I've seen is the very dubious Donahue, who is not a spokesman for the Catholic church, holds no official position and is not even a theologian. We should not give undue weight to a minority position. Oh, and he's offered to "desecrate" the Koran long before he suggested henious cracker abuse. . . dave souza, talk 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Catholic sources aware of this, that I've found, consider it Anti-Catholic. If a person burned down several churches they could be both in Category:Anti-Protestantism and Category:Anti-Catholicism. When a more specific category is valid it is allowed.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the alleged anti-catholicism is more (or less) notable than his open anti-religion stance". Both categories should be included, they are neither mutually exclusive nor subsets of the other.Mamalujo (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal experience aside, is there a reliable source for the category? Aaron Schulz 07:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

James Martin (Jesuit writer) of America (magazine) links him to it.[4] Granted that's a blog. "Catholic Online" just calls him Anti-Catholic [5], granted like Martin they're Catholics. So this might not be enough.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually America Magazine and James Martin are both reliable sources. Also, the charge has been reported all over the mainstream press, including the local press - the Star Tribune, or whatever it is.Mamalujo (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"...granted like Martin they're Catholics." And that's just it. To a Catholic, Myers is anti-Catholic. To a Muslim, he's anti-Islam. To a Baptist, he's anti-evangelism. What he is is anti-religion, and specific persons' individual perceptions on this are neither relevant nor encyclopedic. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any reliable source has accused him of some other bigotry (the Baptists out there aren't saying he's bigoted towards them, only that they think he's wrong). And the fact that some of the accusers are Catholics is really beside the point. When Abe Foxman at the ADL points out antisemitism, it is a Jew at a Jewish organization who is doing so. Nonetheless, his organization is the preeminent Jewish civil rights organization in the country, as is the Catholic League for Catholics. Now sometimes people have accused Foxman of being political or mistaken, as they do Donohue, but that is not the point. Louis Farakhan, has the category anti-semitism on his article, but there are those who argue that he is not. The question is not whether or not he in fact is, but whether he is a subject who notably is involved with the subject. Subjective opinions of editors here as to wheter the opposition to religion category is more appropriate are totally irrelevant to the appropriateness of this category. They are not reliable sources and do not make the subject of anti-catholicism any less notable with regard to this subject.Mamalujo (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you would bring up Louis Farakhan. It's appropriate that he's in the anti-semitism category, but remember that he is himself a religious person. Likewise, there are many otherwise religious persons who are anti-Catholic (e.g. Jack Chick), who should have that category attached to them (but are certainly not anti-religion). Myers does not fit this model at all.

The point is this: if Myers is to have the anti-Catholic tag, he must also have all of the other the anti-whatever tags. That would be silly and burdensome to the article, when the perfectly good alternative of anti-religion already exists. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

His only actions have been on Islam and Catholicism. And on Islam it was because Catholics suggested he was "chicken" for not going after Muslims too. (This was rather juvenile, but I'm not saying Catholics are always mature) The categories are about becoming notable in an issue. He is not notable in connection with Anti-Protestantism or say Anti-Hinduism so far, even if he doesn't like those religions either. I can see how it's a bit of a gray area though.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're apparently focusing on the "cracker" episode. If there were a separate article for that in and of itself, I would agree with you on this point where the categorization of that article would be concerned. This article is about Myers, though; not this single chapter in his life. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I suppose, but I just mean the purpose of the category as I've understood it. The category is not a category for "Anti-Catholics", but people and organizations notably linked to the topic. Now I admit it's a bit of a gray area, but being linked to a notable anti-Catholic action can merit an article's inclusion. (The burning of a church, desecrating a grave, vandalism, etc) I think the tendency though is to just scoff and say "he dislikes all religion" or "he doesn't hate Catholic people", both of which indicate the person doesn't understand the category at all. His inclusion might be debatable, but I feel it's not easily dismissible unless you're intent it be so or don't understand the category.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Again

We've had two IP editors recently re-add the category. I'm going to revert, but I thought I'd double-check on whether the consensus for that still exists. My opinion is that his actions indicate antipathy toward all religions, and so we should have anti-religion. He also ripped up a Koran and a copy of the God Delusion--should we tag the article with Anti-Muslim, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Atheism? justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. The anti-religion category covers Anti-Muslim and Anti-Catholic, and demonstrating that he holds nothing sacred is hardly Anti-Atheism. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

An allegetion

PZ Myers have climbed the back of a saddled Triceratops intended as a photo op for children under twelve during his visit to Creation Museum. There is a photo here and Answers in Genesis noting the same here. I added the allegation twice in the article and they got reverted twice by USer:Aunt Entropy and User:Mark Shaw on the accounts of Ken Ham's blog not being a reliable source which I do think is on this matter. Should the allegation be added back or should the articke be left as it is? --12:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)EvilFlyingMonkey (talk)

It's not a reliable source, and it's non-notable trivia. So no, it should not be in the article. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the blogs are limited reliable sources as primary sources; they may be used as reference for their content. Establishment of relevance and analysis must come from a secondary (or less preferably tertiary) source, and I don't know of any that have picked up on this. The crux of the matter is that an argument between two bloggers is not a controversy, for purposes of Wikipedia, unless an outside reliable source has noted it (establishing notability) and defined it (no original research) as a controversy. I was aware of the event when I wrote the description of the visit, but did not include it for the reasons stated above: I limited the content to what was in news sources. Novangelis (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Desecration of the Koran

Unsourced speculation on sufficiency of "desecration"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's worth pointing out that although PZ claimed that he desecrated the Koran as well as the Eucharist, in fact he only desecrated an ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Koran. This is important because the Koran is only sacred to Muslims in the original Arabic, not in translation. 207.237.243.185 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Firstly, your claim is not in the cited source, and WP:V is sacred here. Secondly, why should it matter? "By the way, I didn't want to single out just the cracker, so I nailed it to a few ripped-out pages from the Qur'an and The God Delusion. They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred." Nothing there saying that either is sacred, and while I hate to disillusion you, The God Delusion isn't sacred to anyone. While people very reasonably get upset about any book getting damaged, that doesn't mean it's sacred. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC) It matters because if he had actually desecrated the Koran in the original Arabic, his name would be on several muslim hit-lists. Instead, he cleverly kept himself safe by desecrating an English version. 207.237.243.185 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Nothing in his statement indicates it's an English translation. You're reaching for an excuse here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC) If you actually have evidence that he was cognizant of this (or that violent Muslims believe it to be true), then by all means, post it. Otherwise save the propaganda for the pulpit, theist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.12.67 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Well i heard a rumor that the cracker he desecrated was made in China! Ha! That clever Meyers, by desecrating a Chinese cracker he kept him self safe from the American Catholic clergy. Those clever atheists are always one step ahead! How do they manage to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

why a controversies section?

wikipedia:criticism: "Sections and articles dedicated to controversies about a topic are generally discouraged, for many of the same reasons discussed above for criticism-related material" and "Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to (such as a particular event, policy, or product)."

My proposal: separate section for the Expelled appearance/screening, the Eucharist controversy under Internet involvement, and Creation Museum visit under education & activism.

Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree that "Controversies" sections are not a good idea. An article is for encyclopedic material, not what some describe as a controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Publications

I reverted NBeale's addition stating that Myers has 11 scientific pubs since it was credited to his online CV, which was last updated in July 2003. That's far too out of date to be a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea that documents published more than 3 years ago are not reliable sources is pretty novel! If there are more scientific publications we can always add them (if that isn't OR :-)). Actually Google Scholar shows nothing since 2004 (a book review in Nature is not a scientific publication) which may explain why he has not updated it. NBeale (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A six-year-old CV is not a reliable source. For example, it says that he's an assistant professor. Which he isn't. You are using it to source the statement that he has published 11 papers. It doesn't support that statement. It doesn't include his main achievements (tenure, teaching-related achievements, outreach; all things that are valued at least as much as research at a liberal arts college). The internet is littered with web pages that are badly out of date. If I had to guess at the reason, it may be related to the fact that he isn't job-hunting. As for search engines - it's pretty well established that Google scholar doesn't capture everything, nor does pubmed, nor does Web of Science. So the absence of a paper on any single database isn't reliable evidence that such a paper doesn't exist. Aside from the issue of OR (which it is), you simply cannot use a search engine to demonstrate the non-existence of something. (You're also making an artificial distinction between research publications and review articles, but that's another issue.)

In addition, we don't usually list how many papers an academic has published. It's not encyclopaedic, it's not terribly interesting. More to the point, Myers doesn't have an article here because of his achievements in research. He's notable in the world of outreach and science education. But some people see his lack of pubs as a stick to beat him over the head, or as a way to make snide, belittling remarks like yours. Since the primary reason to include this information is to disparage the subject (ooh, look, he isn't a productive scientist!), it's reasonable to expect that information like this be (a) reliably sourced, and (b) be supported by a secondary source to demonstrate its salience. Find a better source, and find a source that demonstrates salience. To make matters worse, you have a COI on this subject - Myers has mentioned you[6] and Polkinghorne in, if not negative, then at least a less-than-favourable, light. Someone with a COI should not be adding poorly sourced, negative material. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, is this a question of Truth? Good point about the need for a reliable secondary source to establish notability, and the question of listings of papers which doesn't seem to be standard, even for the most eminent of scientists. So, good call deleting a very dubious paragraph with implied WP:BLP issues. . dave souza, talk 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the paragraph that attempts to establish the subject's academic credentials using WP:OR. The article makes no claims about the subject's academic standing, so using the obviously broken CV from 2003 plus some Googling is not required. This article would still exist, pretty much as it is now, even if Myers were a janitor at the university since his blog is notable and well-known for criticism of intelligent design. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We often mention people's publications record which is one of the first things many people want to know about a scientist. See eg Martin Nowak. NBeale (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's worth mentioning if that's why the person is notable. Guettarda (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It borders on the hilarious that you are so desperate to defend your "hero" that you want to suppress his publication record. What is it about atheists that makes them so anxious to hide facts that they find inconvenient? NBeale (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article PZ Myers. If you want to goad or prod atheists on their personal failings, please go elsewhere. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

<ri> This is amusing. A chappie who N. Beale appently considers "one of the greatest living writers and thinkers on science and religion"[7] doesn't have that sort of total given on his Wikipedia page, as far as I can see, but does have an external link to a "* Google Scholar List of Papers" which gives an impressive number of Ghits. The same search gives about 60 for PZ. However, as his notability arises from his work as an educator I remain of the opinion that it's not a significant aspect of his notability, and see no reason to add that search to the external links here. . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the publications information which for some reason these editors want to hide is "Myers has 11 published scientific papers to his credit, including one in Nature in 1986 and 3 in the Journal of Neuroscience (1986 and two in 1993)." WP articles are not confined to the things that make someone notable, but is your point that Myers is not a working scientist anymore? NBeale (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...let's see. Given how Beale threaded his comment, it seems like it's directed at me. For what it's worth, my opinion of Myers has little bearing on this matter, as do my religious beliefs. Of course, my religious beliefs and my opinion of are irrelevant. What matters is our content guidelines and policies. Myers is notable as a blogger and an advocate. One's impact in these fields isn't closely tied to one's scientific output. In fact, it would be reasonable to expect a negative correlation. Myers' main job is a professor of biology at a liberal arts school. Again, this is an environment that stresses teaching and service far more than does an R-1 institution. So being notable in that context (which he isn't, really) doesn't really hinge on one's publication record. So again, his research output doesn't appear to be terribly relevant. Finally, in my experience, the only people who make an issue of this are people who are trying to disparage him.

So, we have material which is meant to cast Myers in a negative light. Obviously that doesn't mean that it should be left out of the article. But it does mean that we need a reliable source. An out-of-date web page isn't a reliable source. It's also important to establish that the information is salient. So far, no secondary source has been provided that indicates anything of the sort. All we have is the advocacy of someone who appears to have a conflict of interest on the matter, who seems intent on assuming bad faith on the part of his fellow editors. And, not that it matters in the least, I do not consider Myers to be a "hero", and I'm not an atheist. Bit more of a Spongian...you know, one of those liberal, wishy-washy accommodationists that everyone hates? Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an old CV is a reliable source for a lower bound on Myers's publications. Also, Natalie Portman's article lists her scientific publications, and they certainly are not relevant to what she is mainly notable for. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now why can't I see you making those exact same arguments in regards to negative material about someone of an opposite religious persuasion from Myers, Guettarda? 68.112.120.57 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Where precisely is Myers published in Nature (journal)? There does not appear to be anything. This is a claim that needs evidence.Anocide (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a supporting footnote after the statement. It's not ideal - a secondary source would be much better - but click the link and you'll come across this. Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Fix the many incorrect references to "Pharyngula.org"

The Pharyngula blog URL is http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

Dr. I. Needtob Athe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.75.166 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed to http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ with the scienceblogs still there, but not regularly updated. JHobson2 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the information that is linked to via scienceblogs.com/pharyngula has been moved to freethoughtblogs.com. Scienceblogs.com/pharyngula is still active, the latest post is dated 24 Aug 12. "Controverial" topics are only posted on freethoughtblogs, I believe. If you can find the same material on freethoughtblogs.com, you can change it yourself, or put the changes here and someone else will edit the article. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

PZ Meyers officially leaving Skeptical Movement

As per his post here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/05/i-officially-divorce-myself-from-the-skeptic-movement

In there he says, "So don’t call me a “skeptic”. I’ll consider it an insult, like calling a writer a stenographer, a comedian a mime, a doctor a faith healer, a scientist a technician."

So how should his article reflect this new stance? Should we remove those categories that include him in the Skeptical Movement? Should we reword anything? Rjmail (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to remove the category "American Skeptics" but I don't really see a lot of skepticism (separate of his more pure scientific work) in this article.

I am pretty strongly against mentioning this "divorce" in the article itself. I do not think it is encyclopedic nor important enough to his entire biography.

Allecher (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

American sceptics is about the only category of relevance here. Since he appears to find the term offensive (although I still think it is accurate), I'd suggest replacing it with the Freethought Cat. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I did the switch, any thoughts? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Also he is referred to as a 'skeptic' in the article. While that could just mean the simple meaning, it is linked to Scientific Skepticism. Do you think we should unlink it, or is that pretty benign? Rjmail (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think changing the category is sufficient: I don't see anything in the article itself. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

He still analyses things sceptically, so I think it's a little bit over the top to remove all mentions of the word. It's an accurate descriptor. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2005 Koufax award

The article lists PZ Myers as awarded a 2005 Koufax award. The only references to a Washington Montly, but it shows the award given to Informed Comment. Was Myers awarded this? Did I find the wrong citation? Jim1138 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And what the hell is a "Koufax Award", anyway? Some poll on the internet seven years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.37.62.241 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

it seems to have been some sort of popularity contest type thing that disappeared (the domain appears to have been taken over), rather than an actual award. I've removed it as such, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Can you provide third part references"

The quote is in the linked article, though difficult to relate to the rest. You can also look at the earlier articles in Myers' blog to get the context. What did you think the whole thing was all about? As it is, the paragraph does not make sense. It is just useless abstract concepts. All it says is Myers does not like Swiss but not why. The original author [8] botched it, and I tried to repair that.

Also, would you please restore my NPOV change "what he saw as" that you reverted? This is unacceptable behavior bordering on vandalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Again! What is the matter with you people? You revert me, I talk, you are silent. I reinstate, you revert, so I will try to talk again.

User:Jim1138, would you please consult the Talk page before reverting? Especially the part would you please restore my NPOV change "what he saw as" that you reverted? This is unacceptable behavior bordering on vandalism.

Now explain what is wrong with my NPOV insertion "what he saw as"! Do you really want Wikipedia to state as fact, instead of as Myers' opinion, that the skeptic movement does misappropriate the label "scientific"? Here, on the article Talk page, not on my Talk page or your Talk page.

I am not accustomed to such disruptive behavior. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss here. I said everything needed on your talk page. Per wp:verifiability, you need to wp:cite a wp:reliable source to put that information on the article. Where is the source for "by which he meant that skepticism gives religion special privileges." and "what he saw as". Use of wp:synthesis or wp:original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You people just do not listen! You are hiding behind letter salad but you ignore the actual reasoning.

The sentence "He also expressed his frustration at the skeptic movement's misappropriation of the label "scientific"" implies that the skeptic movement does really misappropriate that label. That may well be, but Wikipedia cannot say it is, since it has an WP:NPOV policy. I am finished talking to brick walls, I will now just remove the POV statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the whole chapter should go. It does not clearly say what the differences are about, and its content can be reduced to "Myers and Swiss had a row", plus sources, without much loss of information. I read Myers' articles back then, and the responses. What the chapter says is just a small part of the actual disagreements, which were about the organized skeptics' handling of women, minorities, misogynism, molestation, and religion.

The chapter was added by User:Approaching, who has inserted creationist POV in articles before. I guess that user is just happy noting that the enemies of creationism have disagreements, and the subject of the disagreement does not matter, leading to that meaningless chapter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Approaching, and I notice I've been tagged in this discussion. For the record: It is not true that I am a creationist. It is not true that I am happy noting disagreements among the enemies of creationism. I advocate evolution, and endorse the teaching of evolution in schools. I request you cease the false and slanderous accusations you have made towards me, Hob Gadling. If anybody here is interested in my views, I request you get in touch with me directly. Thanks. BabyJonas (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said you were a creationist. You did try to brand those who want to call ID a pseudoscience as "culture warriors" [9], removed the word from the article [10], and your edits on Evolutionary argument against naturalism [11] qualify as "inserting creationist POV", or replacing NPOV wording by POV wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your quote-mines and selective misinterpretations of my statements do not justify your attempt to poison the discussion on this talk page. Stop harassing your fellow editors. BabyJonas (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not quote-mining. You were trying to water down the scientific... you know what, this does not matter. This is about the Myers/skeptics section. I maintain the section does not serve a useful purpose. As I said above, its content can be reduced to "Myers and Swiss had a row". It is not a sensible addition to Myers' biography. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the situation disregards the plain reading of Myers' statements distancing himself from the skeptical movement. Instead if keeping the focus on Myers' views, your reinterpretation focuses on the conflict and the people involved in the feud. Two things: (i) First, Wikipedia is not a gossip column. We are not here to relay drama and conflicts to the audience. (ii) Second, Wikipedia BLPs are the place to mention notable views and positions of living persons, of which one famous position happens to be Myers' rejection of the Skeptic Movement which he previously called home.

As pointed out above, your edits violate Wikipedia standards, particularly wp:synthesis and wp:original research. I'd rather see only verifiable information in the article. BabyJonas (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see why people would want to revert one of the changes I made but not the other. When you wrote "his frustration at the skeptic movement's misappropriation" you clearly introduced Myers' POV and thus probably your own POV into the article. When I added "what he saw as" I just moved it in the direction of NPOV. Then those two revertbot wannabes put your POV back in.

What do you mean, my interpretation? That actually were the subjects of disagreements that had been going on for years. But as I said, the whole section is not needed so you can hardly accuse me of trying to turn WP into a "gossip column". Rather, I am trying to move it away from that. The section is misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)