Jump to content

Talk:Michael Shermer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Here's a question

the paragraph here:

"When it comes to the question regarding the possibility of telepathy in Folie a deux through emotional contagion, Shermer has stated psychiatry is out of his field. This is inconsistent with an authoritive author recognized for writing books on how and why people things. He defines Folie a deux, a medically documented altered state, as an anomoly."

This seems to contain a great deal of opinion. Shermer is not a psychiatrist and his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" is not a book on pyschiatry, but rather an analysis of psychology as it blurs closely with the philosophy of skepticism. His authorship of the book marks him as an authority on skepticism, surely, but certainly not psychiatry, which is the subject of Folie a deux. I have removed the sentence beginning "This is inconsistent..." under that consideration. Please discuss. 155.212.140.28 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Shermer has a degree in psychology, and has studied related topics for decades. As such, he's fully qualified to offer an assessment of Folie a deux. He needn't have a degree in psychiatry to understand it, nor to express his professional opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.143 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why People Believe Weird Things is not an analysis of psychology. It's an analysis of pseudoscientific beliefs and thinking, and as the older of a B.A in psychology, and M.A. in experimental psychology, and an Ph.D. in the history of science, he's qualified to write about these things. As far as the folie a deux, Why People Believe Weird Things does not contain a single mention of it, so I'm not sure why that book is being brought up in regards to it. Shermer's general knowledge in science and the history of science, and his ability to research relevant topics is what qualifies statements in a particular area, even if his degrees are not in that area. It is for this reason that he can point out, for example, that natural selection is supported by geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, plate tectonics, early human history, etc., even though his degrees are not in those specific areas. Arguing that he can't talk about psychiatry is like saying that Bob Woodward can't investigate the Watergate break-in, because his degree was in history and English instead of politics or criminology. Nightscream (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another question

Hey! For some reason Wikipedia won't let me edit right now, but could someone try making this change: in the second paragraph from the bottom, it states that "Shermer, with a Ph.D in psychology, has stated psychiatry is out of his field." As the article earlier correctly states, Shermer's PhD is iin the history of science, NOT psychology. Cheers! Jason 24.89.218.144 (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the line, as per Jason's comment. Can anyone fix this inconsistency (and please supply a source, while you're at it, if possible). Guettarda 03:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cryonics

I'm wondering how much more of Shermer's writings on cryonics there are than the brief account of the very commonly known problem of freezing cells included here. Anyone who looks at the cryonics article on Wikipedia can read the discussion on the possibility of non-destructive cryonics based on vitrification. If Shermer wanted to write a serious critique of cryonics then it certainly looks like he would have to have taken vitrification into account, and not just freezing. (Assuming, that is, that the research into vitrification was done before Shermer's 2001 article - as the Cryonics article states that this discovery was made at the "turn of the century". It's not clear to me if it was). But whether Shermer did discuss this or not is not clear from the brief quote here. What is quoted here does not seem to me to necessarily be representative of a serious criticism of cryonics, as it simply states a basic physical phenomenon without taking into account the fact that cryonicists have come up with scientifically plausible ways of overcoming this problem. (Hippogriff) 14:43, 14 October 2004 (UTC)

Shermer's Fundamentalism

I do remember him saying that at one time he was "evangelical" and a strong believer in religions. I beileve he says that at some time during Science Friction. Was he actually a "fundamentalist" as the word is usually used (as in, a young or old earth creationist who takes everything in the bible literally) or was he merely a devout Christian? Some further clarification is needed, and would be greately appreciated! :D --131.104.138.14 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

List

I find the list of published columns a bit tacky the way it is currently. Is there a reason for formatting it this way? I'll use a normal list. - Anas Talk? 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now. - Anas Talk? 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle name "Brant"

According to the listings in Amazon.com, Dr. Shermer was credited as "Michael Brant Shermer" in the forwards of Arthur T. Benjamin's math books. AdjustablePliers 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He was also recently on the History Channel program about Nostradamus. Fuzzform 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos

The reader gains no benefit from seeing three portraits by the same photographer at the same session. One is enough. I'm deleting two of them. If someone wants to use a different one that's fine but please don't add them all back without discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with more than one pic by the same author, so long as it's justified. But I find the rationale given for the previous replacement of the main pic to be questionable. Wikipedia is not one editor's personal photo portfolio, it's an encyclopedia. My image, "ShermerGodOut", was added to replace the prior image, which, while a nice image of him, cropped off the top of his head. This new one that User:Loxton added was also nice, but also cropped off his head. Loxton noted in his Edit Summary that it was a "new portrait", but we do not replace images simply because they're five months newer. I actually like the lighting in Loxton's photo, but if he can upload a version of it, or another one, that doesn't truncate Shermer's head, I'd prefer that one.
As for the caption, which originally described it as having been taken of Shermer at the Great American God-Out, User:24.69.97.156 changed it, saying in his/her Edit Summary, "Updated photo caption. The previous caption was specific to atheism and may have been misleading. The breadth of Dr. Shermer's is not limited to atheism." First of all, I don't see how this is an "update", since an update implies that some real-life status has changed. It is also not "specific" to atheism, it simply describes where it took place. It took place at the Great American God-Out, and thus, that's what the caption describes. User24 says the breadth of Shermer's (I assume they meant to say "the breadth of his work") is not limited to atheism. The only one interpreting the caption to mean or imply that it is is User:24. No intelligent reasonable person would assume, from the caption, that that's all he is, when the rest of the article, including the Lead, is right in front of him. User:24's replacement caption is also inaccurate, as it stated that he was "speaking" in Manhattan. In fact, he had already finished speaking, and was now posing for the camera, as per my request. Does he look like he's "speaking" in that shot? The fact that User:24 interprets the accurate caption wildly does not mean that we censor it. Nightscream (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Nightscream suggests, "I actually like the lighting in Loxton's photo, but if he can upload a version of it, or another one, that doesn't truncate Shermer's head, I'd prefer that one." Sure thing. I'll try a new one in a moment that is perhaps more straightforward: a fairly neutral image, in full light, with his entire head. Loxton (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The hair is a bit messed up, and he isn't smiling, but it is clearer. A good choice. Are you one of the Loxton brothers in charge of Junior Skeptic? Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Super. Have we achieved a working consensus to go with this shot for now? (Yep, sure am. I'm Daniel, the Editor of Junior Skeptic.) Loxton (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it works. For a consensus, you should invite others to join the discussion to weigh in. Nightscream (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

The text in this section seems to be one man's rant against Shermer on the specific topic of complexity and determinism. Perhaps only a brief mention is warranted, along with the many other criticisms Shermer has faced in his role as a public intellectual. 157.82.237.102 (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for Deletion

This article should be a candidate for deletion. This is a biographical article on a living person. I don’t see a reliable third party published source cited as the basis for this biography. Lookunderneath (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a basis for deletion. Nightscream (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:BLP and WP:SOURCES. Lookunderneath (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly you are pretty fresh to WP to be citing policy. When new editors start citing policy it usually means they are sock puppets but it appears you honestly don't understand the policy. Please read WP:BLP more closely. A biography does not need to be "based" around a third party source, the content simply needs to be attributed to third party sources. Shermer publication record is easily documented at Scientific America or Amazon, furthermore there are plenty of third party citations in the article.--OMCV (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make personal comments about other users' experience, OMCV, or accusations or allusions to sockpuppetry without presenting evidence. Doing this is a violation of WP:Civility, specifically WP:BITE, WP:Attack and WP:AGF. The amount of experience an editor has accumulated is irrelevant to their ability or right to cite a policy. An editor might have read a policy extensively, even if they haven't edited extensively. In such discussions, one should stick to policy, and not personal comments. If you feel an editor's citation or interpretation of a policy is incorrect, then that is the basis on which you should respond. There is no policy or guideline governing when an new editor can cite a policy, and doing so would fall under WP:BOLD. Given this behavior on your part, and the fact that you yourself have only accumulated 672 edits since April 2004, you're hardly in a position to admonish others on whether their experience or understanding of policy qualifies them to cite it. Nightscream (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Category of People Pertaining to Parapsychology

I notice that on the list of people pertaining to parapsychology, Michael Shermer is listed (which is correct), but James Alcock is not. He is a skeptic who has written extensively on the field like Ray Hyman and Michael Shermer have, and he should be added to the people category accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Media appearances

He has recently appeared again on coast to coast AM on December 7th, 2009. What's the appropriate way to add that to the list of programs he's appeared on? 99.147.192.191 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Media Appearances I remember seeing Shermer give a talk which is available on the TED website. Is it appropriate to include that? He has a speaker page which could be linked to, http://www.ted.com/speakers/michael_shermer.html instead of linking to the individual talks if that is preferred. It looks like he actually gave a second talk as well. 192.33.240.95 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)clk
I added that link to the External links section. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Adjunct Professor at Claremont

The user at 66.211.104.160 is continuing to remove references to Shermer being an adjunct professor at Claremont, based on their own synthesis of first party sources - basically, looking at the Claremont site and Shermer's own site, and failing to find what they expect. This is clearly original research, please see the last sentence in the first paragraph here. This title is already supported by a reliable source in the article, namely the Los Angeles Times. Please discuss here if you have anything further to add. --Krelnik (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to discuss. I do not believe that I am engaging in original research.I am impugning the reference used to call Shermer an APoE at CGU. The Los Angeles Times says he is an APoE, however the website of the CGU says *clearly* that he is *not* an APoE, but rather a "Senior Research Fellow." There is an important distinction between the two. The LATimes is a journalistic source, while the CGU website is an authoritative source. The wikipedia guildeline of verifiability is violated, since the LA Times reference can not be verified - when you try to verify it from the authoritative source, you find that it is unsupported. It seems to me if the LATimes says I'm a Professor of something and the University in question says I'm not, the University should be believed above the LA Times. (If that qualifies as "original research," I can definitely point to a blog which is not mine which is pointing out the same facts that I am pointing out, but I doubt it would qualify as a source on Wikipedia. So what is to be done?)

Here I must point something out. You had no problem taking out "of economics" even though the LA Times article says he is an APoE. Is not the LA Times a reliable source? What is your reference for making that change? Is it Shermer's own website which made the same change a few night ago? Well then, you have found Shermer's own site (a primary source?) to be more authoritative than the LA Times article. All I am saying is that, when it comes to what his title is, the authoritative source is the CGU website, not his website, and not the LA Times. Otherwise your removal of "of economics" would also be "original research," no?

(For any that care, I consider myself a skeptic as well and agree with many of Shermer's positions. I simply prefer that public sources of information about Shermer reflect the verifiable facts, and not untruths.)

Here are the two authoritative pages which demonstrate that the LA Times reference is incorrect: CGU webpage listing all of their "Adjuct Professors of Economics" (dated 2009) : http://www.cgu.edu/pages/7053.asp and CGU webpage listing all of their "Senior Research Fellows" (also 2009) : http://www.cgu.edu/pages/7107.asp

Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss. It's probably obvious that I'm new to editing Wikipedia. :) 66.211.104.160 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, the article as it currently stands is neither accurate nor verifiable, and it ought to be fixed.

The Los Angeles Times says Shermer is an "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU. If that is the standard, then "of economics" needs to be restored.

The CGU website says *clearly* that Shermer is a "Senior Research Fellow" and not an "Adjunct Professor" (which it lists, separately).

Finally, the Interim President of CGU, Professor Hough, has stated in a letter to Professor Hall at UofL that "He [Shermer] does not hold any term or permanent appointment in the University." At what point does that statement come from a "reliable source?" Is not Professor Hall a reliable source, as someone who would face academic sanction (not to mention legal action) for inventing such a letter?

I realize that most of you that have an interest in this page are fans of Shermer. I count myself as a skeptic, and that means no sacred cows. I noticed on Krel's bio that he is a personal friend/acquaintance of Shermer's. While this does not necessarily mean there is bias, I think the article would benefit from having people with a more neutral point of view join the discussion and the editing. Comments/discussion welcome.... 66.211.104.160 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:66.211.104.160, thank you for your interest in improving the article. Before all else, Wikipedia expects editors who intend to edit on an ongoing basis to sign in for an account. It's free, takes seconds, you can use a pseudonymous username, and it's easier for others to address you, and for the community to get to know you as an individual editor.
Regarding my removal of the YouTube video, in which I provided the edit summary "Removed video by uncredentialed non-notable authors, per WP:EL", and your reversion of it, with which you provided the summary, "restored video. "uncredentialed" does not appear in WP:EL and besides, Hall is a Professor at UofL. Notability applies to article inclusion, not sourcing. Please join talk, let's discuss"...
Limited character space is provided for edit summaries, so I summarized the relevant policies or guidelines, and the phrase "non-credentialed" was an example of this. I provided a more detailed explanation on the Talk Page of User talk:213.37.6.104, who was the one who originally added that video, and I'll repeat and elaborate on some of those details here.
All material added to articles, particularly that which constitutes or touches upon controversy or accusatory material in a BLP article, must be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Although I did not specifically mention these policies in my edit summary, they nonetheless bear upon the reasons why that video is not appropriate for inclusion. A heavily edited YouTube video does not constitute a reliable source, particularly when one of the two authors of it, and the narrator of it, is an uncredentialed student. While the second author, a professor, could conceivably be regarded as a reliable source, his credentials, and the material he provides, must be published in a reliable venue. Sites whose content is user-generated, such as wikis, imdb, open web hosting services like YouTube or Blogspot, etc., are not appropriate, because anyone can publish material in those venues. Moreover, if you're looking for a specific, explicit portion of WP:EL that touches upon this, there is the following:

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

YouTube is explicitly mentioned in regard to this and other criteria of WP:ELNO in its own subsection of WP:EL, seen at WP:YOUTUBE.
No, notability is not, in of itself, a criterion for inclusion of material, but I mentioned it in regards to reliability, as one example of a criterion by which an authority's reliability can be determined. I apologize if I was unclear or if I chose my words less than well in writing my edit summary. But regardless of whether Anthony J. Hall has his own Wikipedia article or not, the fact that he appears in a video screaming at Michael Shermer from the audience of one of Shermer's lectures does not constitute a reliable source, nor do the credentials that Joshua Blakeney flashes on screen because, again, it's an edited YouTube video by a self-identified student, who is therefore not a recognized authority in any field relevant to Shermer or the topics of his own credentials. This is not to say that Hall and Blakeney are conclusively wrong, only that a sufficiently reliable venue must be the one in which they're assertions are published in order for them to be viable for inclusion. Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for not chiming in earlier after inviting this discussion when these edits first occurred, but I've been travelling. I'd like to point out that arguing over whether someone is or is not an adjunct professor is kind of humorous on some level. As you can see from the article I linked there, this is a very "low man on the totem pole" title in the academic world. Basically, if you are an adjunct professor you are someone with specialized knowledge or experience, and the institution contracts with you to teach a class now and then. You get no tenure, you get no benefits, you don't get an office. Adjunct professors are on-again off-again positions as the associated classes get scheduled or dropped. This explains why Shermer's name might or might not appear on a list of adjunct professors at Claremont at any given time. He's only listed when he's got a class coming up.
I contacted Dr. Shermer about this, and he has CC'ed me an email from Joseph Hough, current Interim President of Claremont that confirms that Shermer is in fact still an adjunct professor. He is scheduled to teach a course titled “Evolution, Economics, and the Brain” in the Spring semester of 2011.
It should be clear to anyone who has examined the links and sources that we keep reverting out of this article, that there are folks who have a beef with Dr. Shermer who are trying to push an idea that he has lied about his qualifications and that this is some sort of scandal. I agree with the other editors here that the sources being offered are not reliable and that this idea is purely original research.
Bottom line: folks, if there is a story here, then interest a reporter in it and get a news story written about this alleged scandal. THEN you can add it in here. Until such time, this whole thing just does not meet Wikipedia standards. --Krelnik (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that Shermer has been an adjunct prof at CGU since 2007? So far, I haven't seen a single footnote actually supporting the claim made in the article. User: Urbie —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Footnote #16 does. Nightscream (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the most recent version of the page listing Faculty, including Adjunct Faculty, at Claremont Graduate University Claremont Graduate University Faculty and Claremont Graduate University Adjunct Faculty I also checked the Faculty Listings by Department and Michael Shermer is not listed on any of these pages. User:86.177.103.238 10:33, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't usually make edits in these articles, but in doing a report for my class I came across this issue recently, and checking the last link given above, found his name listed under the School of Politics and Economics Faculty: Core Faculty: Senior Research Fellows: Michael Shermer, PhD, Claremont Graduate University. Now I don't know if this would give him the title of adjunct professor or what not, or if he was one in 2007. However, this does show he did go to that university. I agree with the above that his name should be listed in other areas, and with his current popularity his name should be easier to find on the universities website, maybe for some time there was glitch or system error occurring on the site? Which would explain why some people became skeptical about him. Therefore, I hoped this finding resolved the issue. Thanks. Eirione (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Shermer in ACSH

Michael shermers activities as "scientific advisor" to ACSH should also be descriebed in the article. Since ACSH is using "The sceptic movement" as a frontorganisation to spread ACSHs views on their questions and Michael shermer is an important person even if he officially is not a spokes person does he serve ACSH well. See http://www.acsh.org/doclib/20041110_traces_2003.pdf and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.196.69 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Level of detail

This article contains excessive detail for a person of Shermer's notability. ask123 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

There is no "Criticism" section of the Skeptics Society or Michael Shermer. I guess that pretty much sums up my own skepticism of the balance and validity of this promotional "Ra Ra" essay on Michael Shermer and his Skeptics Society. Jamenta (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are generally discouraged. What notable criticism has he attracted that could be worked into the article? --McGeddon (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Marriage info in Personal Life?

Does anyone have sources for adding whether Shermer is married or divorced and whether he has acknowledged children? I have been told that in 2006 he was a married man and that Mrs. Shermer contacted someone to make a comment about Michael's affairs, but I don't know if they are divorced (yet). Monado (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article previously contained sourced information about Shermer's wife and daughter, but when he divorced, he asked that information about his marital status and daughter be removed from the article for reasons of privacy. After I consulted with Jimmy Wales, who approved this, I removed that info, in keeping with WP:BLPPRIVACY. Nightscream (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Certain allegations

Certain allegations are common knowledge across the Internet. It does no good for Wikipedia's reputation to pretend nothing is happening. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not link to speculation about a living person when it is only sourced to blogs. This issue is not getting standard coverage: [1] and has no weight required due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP before worrying about wikipedia's reputation. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to stop and take note of what Jimbo said about a recent similar case:

"It is never a violation of BLP policy to post exact quotes of reliable sources on the talk page to facilitate discussion by editors of how a controversy ought to be treated in the article space."

The allegations against Shermer which were published by PZ Myers are mentioned in this Daily Dot article: The online atheist community keeps pushing away its feminist supporters. The Daily Dot has been established as a reliable source. Shermer was interviewed about the allegations by a blog of unknown reliability. Unless there is reason to suspect that the interview is fake, I see no reason not to link to that interview. Note that I am not suggesting that the allegations be included in Shermer's bio here, but the Asaram Bapu incident has changed the playing field for discussing these types of allegations on the talk pages of BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
For context, I think your comment is the first time that the Daily Dot source has actually been raised here; all previous edits have simply been sourced to Myers' original blog entry, which is straight WP:BLPSPS. --McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It is difficult to know what has been raised here because some edits have been revdeleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
True, but it any case as most of us agree we wouldn't put this into a BLP at the moment - alleged accusations don't belong in BLPs. If there is actually a court case that receives mainstream media publicity, then we will have something for the encyclopedia. As for the deleted edits, they've been Oversighted and obviously I can't comment on them. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, we're talking about allegations made on the talk page, not in the article. Secondly, I assume you mean that the edits have been revdeleted, since you don't have Oversight rights. Thirdly, you may choose not to comment on them, but there is no reason why you could not identify the source, for example, to make this discussion productive rather then speculative. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The material which was deleted did not contain a link to a reliable source as far as I am aware, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just deleted the allegations from the article again as unreliably sourced; the sources were twitter, blogs and forums. I guess I should request the edit be Oversighted? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I sent a message to Oversight, just in case. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious if now WP feels there is enough "weight" to include this information: [2] Multiple named sources from within the movement, acknowledgement by notable figures. - Boss1000 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, larger media outlets have been slow to pick up on the issue, leaving only blogs and other unreliable sources. Until there are reliable sources, these allegations cannot be added to the Wikipedia. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What to put in the Infobox under Religion

I am thinking about this edit. Part of me likes it, and part of me doesn't.

Consider these imaginary infobox entries:
Atheism is not a religion. --> religion = None; self-described as agnostic atheist and nontheist
Bald is not a hair color. --> hair color = none; self-described as bald
Vacuum is not a gas. --> gas = none; self-described as vacuum
Off is not a TV channel. --> TV channel = none; self-described as off
Dry is not a kind of liquid. --> Liquid = none; self-described as dry

The current version is a lot better than religion = atheist, but did he self describe as "I am an agnostic atheist / nontheist", or did he self-describe as "my religion is agnostic atheist / nontheist"? As written, it sort of implies that he said the latter, which could be argued as being WP:OR. I know that Penn, Teller, and Randi all strongly reject any claims that atheism is a religion; I don't know about Shermer.

I think what bothers me is that "atheism is just another religion; you need faith to not believe in God" is a standard argument that gets thrown at people like Shermer a lot. It just feels like putting "favorite mythical creature = none; self described as being Jehovah" in the infobox of an outspoken christian evangelist.

I have mixed feelings about this. Does anyone else have any thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

as far as self identified "I am an atheist. ... But I detest all such labels. Call me what you like — humanist, secular humanist, agnostic, nonbeliever, nontheist, freethinker, heretic, or even bright. I prefer skeptic.
the proprietary position that someone's "religion" or "religious beliefs" or lack thereof must be important classification in identifying the person seems silly.
I see no need to include some label in the info box when his position is clearly more nuanced than can be encapsulated in a single term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent point. How about this; because it is too nuanced for an infobox entry and because he says he detests labels, let's just delete the religion label from the infobox. Does anyone have a problem with that? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree, putting labels on a guy who doesn't like labels without any reason seems a bit pointless considering we clarify it in the article. (although I could be convinced otherwise) IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Just getting back to this page after I made the adjustment edit above the other day. Removing it entirely is fine by me, no worries... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. (Thanks, IRWolfie!) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the Infobox should indicate that he is an atheist/nontheist/whatever. I don't think it should be blank. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

While it is nice to be able to concisely reproduce simple information in infoboxes, this appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes where the content requires enough context and nuance that it cannot be simply reduced.
And it is right there in the lead section for anyone literate enough to actually read 3 paragraphs so its not as if the information is not readily available to a reader skimming the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Shermer & Eugenie Scott

I found Shermer's article quoted in this article [here]. I cannot find anything published by Eugenie Scott about it, although I admit to not having seen the video which is the current source. The relevant quote is

Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.” in a forced binary choice between the “theory of creationism” and the “theory of evolution,” 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were “unsure”). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be “very informed” about evolution.

I'm not sure this is notable enough to be in the article SPACKlick (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant section of the lecture is 00:42:42~00:43:53. A relevant quote from Scott is in the last seconds of this segment ("Michael is simply wrong when he says this").
As for the reliability of the "YouTube video": WP:YOUTUBE explicitly states that "it's a YouTube video" is not an argument either for or against a source. Saying the source is a YouTube video is in effect the same as saying the source is a "[books.google.com Google book]". The YouTube account responsible for putting the video where it is is the official YouTube account of the University of Michigan (as per the statement on their official website). The scholar giving the presentation is one of the foremost experts in the area of creationism vs. evolution (she was until recently the head of the National Center for Science Education).
126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@User:SPACKlick: Didn't notice this section was already opened. I specifically provided a link to the source I used (a lecture given by Eugenie Scott in January 2006), but because I was editing on a phone the link I provided apparently was not clickable on other types of devices. I apologize for any confusion caused, but simply copy-pasting the link into Google (or even into the URL bar and removing the redundant parts) would have brought up the video anyway. I see no problem with linking to the original Shermer article, but without the context (another respected expert in the field saying he got it wrong) this piece itself is not particularly relevant (I'm sure he's written thousands of similar articles). 126.0.96.220 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Addressing notability more directly: Shermer made an incorrect statement about science in a publication aimed at a general audience, and he was criticized for this by other members of the scientific community. ("other" might be problematic, though: is Shermer referred to as a scientist in reliable sources? I'm noticing now that this article refers to him as a historian and journalist.) Scott's views, if they could be called that, can generally be taken to represent the consensus view among her organization (other members usually echo her "God had nothing to do with it is not a scientific point of view" point when discussing the issue). WP:CRITICISM says that we should include negative information in accordance with WP:NPOV, but be particularly careful when dealing with BLPs. WP:BLP, in turn, says that If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Eugene Volokh a legal writer who now blogs at The Washington Post (or one of the other legal professors on his staff) said basically the same thing on his website before they moved to The Washington Post. We could say "his wording was criticized by law professor Eugene Volokh on the grounds that this is not the standard scientific theory and if it was it would be illegal in the United States to advocate evolution in public schools"; but frankly I think the criticism from Scott is much more relevant. Honestly I'm more inclined to blame Gallup for creating an arbitrary distinction between theists who accept evolution and atheists who accept evolution. They have probably been using the same wording in the pole for over 30 years, and can't fix their wording because this would lead to different results and the trends would go wonky. Shermer's "paltry 12%" is actually not the proportion of Americans who accept the scientific consensus; it's the proportion of Americans who are atheists and just happen to accept the scientific consensus. All the low figure in the poll results has ever shown is that a minority of Americans are atheists. But Scott (and others) criticized Shermer because it's not Gallup's job to educate laymen about the scientific consensus; that's Shermer's job. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
126.0.96.220, thanks for clarifying the url issue. Can you add the time index at which Scott makes this point? Given the length of the video, I think it would make a good addition to the citation. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I definitely agree the time stamp should go in the reference (should note again, I still haven't been on a device where I can view the video so I can't speak as to content). With the Eugene Volokh article as well I think that's sufficient to cover my notability concerns. Having re-read the paragraph however I think it could do with a reword for accuracy. Strictly Shermer didn't categorise the standard scientific theory of evolution as being without god, but catgorised evolution without god as the standard scientific theory. Anyone object to the reword below?
original
In another issue, he characterized the standard scientific theory of the evolution of mankind as being that God had "no part in [the] process"
reworded
In another issue, he characterized the position that "God had no part in the process [of the evolution of mankind]" as the "standard scientific theory";
SPACKlick (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Shermer's Last Law

I reverted the recent content removal here as it's not readily apparent why we'd need a secondary source for this. The facts that Shermer introduced this concept and that he based it on Clarke's Third Law are relatively straightforward statements that can be verified by any person who accesses the primary source involved (have a look at Shermer's column). It's been in his BLP continuously for seven years now and seems notable enough, so I think the goal should be to preserve the content and modify the phrasing slightly if there really is a genuine secondary sourcing problem here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:PSTS. Information that goes to a topic's notability needs secondary sources. It is not about whether something is straightforward or verifiability. Secondary sources allow us to gauge which accomplishments and ideas of the subject's merit specific mention. Shermer has put foward many different ideas, laws, axioms, etc. in his books, columns, speeches, etc. Without secondary sources, the question would arise which of them should be explicitly mentioned. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to chip in on this and here are my thoughts
  • I agree we need secondary sourced to prove notability of this, and then a further discussion needs to be had on the article
  • There must surely be some secondary sources so I will try and find some for assessment
Here are my first scans of the internet for sources
  1. Can't work out the authour
  2. Minor Blog
  3. ABC article&interview
  4. Minor outlet, minor mention
and there I run out of even remotely acceptable secondary sources. It may seem this isn't notable enough to be worth including.SPACKlick (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Nightscream asked me to comment. I'm sure sometime in the last 48 hours I stripped stuff out of a BLP because it was all things he'd done which no one else mentioned. As much as I like Shermer, we do need to be able to show that this is significant. And I've been no luckier thant SPACKlick. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted it to a stable version from before the latest flurry of reverts so that we can all come to a consensus instead of making edits that are likely to be reverted.
In my opinion, this article should be left in its stable version (nothing wrong with making uncontroversial changes, of course) and anyone who wishes to remove material about Shermer's last law should start by nominating our Shermer's last law page for deletion. If that page survives an AfD with a decision to keep or merge, then Shermer's last law is notable enough for inclusion here. If that page is deleted because of lack of notability, then we know that Shermer's last law is not notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Guy, your reverted the most recent edits, stating in your edit summary that you were reverting the article to the version prior to the "edit warring". The material you removed concerns not merely Shermer's Last Law, but also material that was not being contested, namely Shermer's position on gun control (which I think my last edit resolved, since it incorporates both material that was in the article and the material that 24.3.189.55 added), and the issue of Shermer and Eugenie Scott's disagreement over the place of God in the standard scientific evolution of mankind. There was no ongoing dispute on that (at least, I don't think 24.3.189.55 was about to quibble with my resolution of the gun control material), so those passages were indeed stable. There has been no edit warring, since there have not been any consecutive reverts that qualify as edit warring.
Also, you stated that "anyone who wishes to remove material about Shermer's last law should start by nominating our Shermer's last law page for deletion". I actually did place a deletion tag on it, and when you removed it, you stated in your edit summary "discussion at Talk:Michael Shermer shows that this is not an uncontroversial deletion". These are non sequiturs, because they conflate two disparate things: 1. Inclusion of material in an article, and 2. maintaining an article on a given topic. The manner in which the first issue is resolved does not have any bearing on the how the second one is resolved. This discussion only shows that the inclusion of mention of Shermer's Law in the Michael Shermer article is in question. It does not bear any mention of whether deleting an article on Shermer's Law is controversial or not, for the simple reason that it doesn't mention deletion of the article. The idea that anyone who wishes to remove material about Shermer's Last Law from the Michael Shermer article must nominate the Shermer's Last Law article for deletion is false. Editors are not required to edit or participate in discussion of all articles that pertain to a given topic, and notability has nothing to do with inclusion of material in an article, only whether it qualifies for its own article.
In any event, I've nominated the other article for deletion. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
First, WP:PROD and WP:AFD are not the same thing, and removing the prod and suggesting afd was entirely proper - this needs discussion. Second, does everyone else here agree with your claim that your latest edit reflects the current consensus? It loooks a lot like something that is still being discussed to me. Third, if Wikipedia has a page on Shermer's last law, then Shermer's last law is notable enough for inclusion in Michael Shermer. If the consensus at afd is to keep Shermer's last law, then Shermer's last law stays in Michael Shermer -- if that happens I would strongly advise against removing it against a clear consensus. If the consensus at afd is to merge Shermer's last law into Michael Shermer, again I would strongly advise against removing it against a clear consensus. If the consensus at afd is to delete Shermer's last law, it may or may not be notable enough for inclusion in Michael Shermer. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I never said that WP:PROD and WP:AFD were the same thing. I tried the former, you removed it, so now I've proceeded with the latter.
The issue of Shermer's Law is being discussed. The other material you removed is not.
Yes, if the other article were kept, then it would be reasonable to include mention of that topic in this article, but that's only going to happen if secondary sources are provided to establish notability for that topic. Without secondary sources, that topic will merit neither its own article nor inclusion in this one. Deletion of an article does not automatically lead to merging of the little information in that article into another one. It could very well be neither. Nightscream (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The three most common outcomes of an AfD are:
  • Keep (notable enough for an article of its own)
  • Merge, (notable enough to be included in an existing article but not notable enough for its own article)
  • Delete (not notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia).
Each of those is a pretty good indication of what the consensus of the community is, but if there are still doubts in anyone's minds they can confirm the consensus with an RFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, so the decision on the article itself was delete. Is there enough consensus here to remove the content from the article? Was looking at an old version of the article rather than the current one where content has been removed, ignore me. SPACKlick (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

Have commenced tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Gullibility vs agreeableness/accommodation confusion

The section "Earning his Ph.D. and teaching", paragraph 2, is utterly unclear. The first sentence talks about gullibility ratings for "several scientists", not naming any, then mentions just Wallace, on an apparently different scale ("agreeableness/accommodation"), with a mysterious floating "scientists who give less credence to such (which?) ideas" at the end. Having read the (very good) article on Wallace, with lots of references to Shermer's book, I suppose this is trying to say that Wallace gets a "gullible" rating. But it would greatly help to expand slightly: what other well-known figures were rated how? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

About reception to one of his books

User:Inquiry201 recently added a couple lines on criticism right after the section about Shermer's book The Moral Arc, which I removed because it didn't seem appropriate to this article, then User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted my removal.

Firstly, when I did the removal I didn't even check the links User:Inquiry201 had used. Now I see that all three sources are commenting not on The Moral Arc, but on The Mind of the Market. So it was, at the very least, misplaced, and I have now moved it to a more appropriate place.

Secondly, if we are to add reception to this book, per WP:NPOV there should also be the favorable reviews, which also exist (http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-mind-of-the-market/reviews/ - granted, this is not a very unbiased source on the matter). And should we start adding criticism and praise to all of his books? I really think not. VdSV9•♫ 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the material to a more appropriate section. I agree that it is possible to over-burden articles about authors with material about their books, but there is no reason why there should not be at least a brief mention of favorable and negative receptions of their works. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I just copy-edited the paragraph, to tidy up the references to the end... do we really need so many? Otherwise, I think this is a perfectly balanced bit of comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

More precision needed in a reference

The current reference #15, used three times, is "Shermer, 2002, p. 127". However, Mr. Shermer has two published books in 2002 and is the editor of an encyclopedia the same year according to the Bibliography section of the article. Can anyone clarify to which of the three the reference is intended to point? --papageno (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of Category:Skepticism

I am curious to know why an editor first changed the Skepticism category, then started removing it altogether. I've looked here for the explanation claimed by the editor, but I don't see it.

The subject of the article is a leader in the field of skepticism, the founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine: Skeptic -- so I find the repeated unexplained deletion baffling. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As you already know that cat is for Philosophical skepticism not Scientific Skepticism. They are completely different things. Grouping them together is like grouping together the jobs postman and president becuase they both begin with p.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
As you already know that cat is for Philosophical skepticism not Scientific Skepticism. --Apollo
Incorrect. As I already know, Category:Skepticism is for Philosophical skepticism, Scientific skepticism and Religious skepticism, as the Skepticism article clearly explains. Category:Skepticism is a parent category which covers those more specific forms of skepticism, as well as others. To borrow your anology, what you are arguing is that Category:Jobs is for president but not for postman, which is nonsensical. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
No because those are both jobs, the only thing scientific skepticism etc have in common is one word, skepticism.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Apollo, I've moved your comment to where I think you meant to put it. I can't really understand your argument. Please consider my suggestion.

May I suggest putting this article in Category:Skeptics or, better yet, Category:Skeptics_by_nationality. YoPienso (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Skeptics does appear to be an applicable category. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The article is now categorized in "Skeptics" as well as the more specific sub-cat of "American skeptics". Would there be any objection to me removing the redundant upper-level "Skeptics" cat? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No objections here. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've removed the redundant cat. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Shermer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Shermer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor Suggestion on Quote

This is a pretty minor point, but a quote attributed to Shermer appears to be incorrect. The quote states, in paraphrase, "this is the greatest collection of minds ever assembled in the White House with the exception of the times Thomas Jefferson dined alone"; this was said back in the sixties. Still, maybe people already know that, and take it into account that Shermer did not originate the quote, just repeated it. I can make a change easily enough, but seems like those who actually care about this guy might be better suited to doing it. The text is as follows:

'He says of Jefferson, "When he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates."' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The passage doesn't quote the saying from the 60s. It quotes Shermer's paraphrase of it from his book, which it explicitly indicates. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion

This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Shermer. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see this discussion was raised at BLP. It is striking how nearly the entire article was developed from primary sources and devoid of secondary sources. Quite a few reviews of Shermer's books are out there yet they have not made it into the article. For interested editors, please see the overview page for the subject at Publisher's Weekly: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/michael-shermer.html There are at least 10 reviews listed on that page alone. These should also be incorporated into the article. Cedar777 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cedar777: Thanks for taking the initiative on shifting the balance more towards secondary sources. I'm not sure if Publishers Weekly reviews are the best sources, although they might be used in concert with other more scholarly reviews or to help gauge due weight for views. Capsule reviews, or those that simply reiterate the thesis or plot with a platitude like "fans of [author] will enjoy this" aren't very useful, in my opinion. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Right you are. Academic sources are preferable. Cedar777 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Shermer/Archive_1&oldid=1168234002"