This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
<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)
[3]. . dave souza, talk 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.mp3 VatoFirme ( talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Allecher ( talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
<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)
[3]. . dave souza, talk 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.mp3 VatoFirme ( talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Allecher ( talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)