Talk:PZ Myers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

PYGMIES + DWARFS

PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments is up for deletion. I've voted to merge it into PZ Myers.

Anyone who wishes to contribute to the vote should head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments. Sanguinity 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is he married ? Any children?

Yes, he is married and has three children, Alaric, Connlann, and Skatje. Skatje also maintains a blog at http://skatje.com. Quelqu'un 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, source for that information: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/timeline_pz_mg.php. Quelqu'un 02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If the objective of the PYGMIES + DWARFS section is supposed to not make any sense, seem out of place, and bore the reader, that objective has been met. Is it supposed to be making fun of PZ? I've read it several times now and I still don't get it. We can't rule out the possibility that I'm simply dense. Mr Christopher 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Quotes

==Quotes==~~this should dewiki that...

I have removed this section, too many quotes doth not an article create. There is wikiquote for that.--ZayZayEM 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• How the hell do you try and get stuff moved onto wiki-quote?--ZayZayEM 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On Religion and the Religious

"I have a higher opinion of most religious people than you may think, while having a lower opinion of religion than you can imagine."

"Yes, I'm hostile to evangelical Christianity, and I think it is a blight upon the earth."

"[Christianity is] a death cult, and it's also an Eastern Mystery Religion. [Christians] hate it when you point that out, even if it is an accurate taxonomical classification of their faith."

"I'm sure that what people willingly toss into collection plates adds up to a far larger act of wholesale robbery; a clerical collar is just a genteel swindler's uniform."

"Next time your brother, or your sister-in-law, or your grandmother, or some guy in the booth next to you at the coffeeshop, starts talking about the Rapture or the End Times or the Second Coming or whatever crap they want to call it, just stand up, turn to them, and say loudly and clearly so everyone around you can hear it, YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT. And walk away. Treat them as the pariahs they should be. This will be especially effective if you do it in your church. Don't argue with them. Don't waste any effort on them. Just make your contempt loud and clear. It's not hard. And when the conversation with others turns to those nitwits, don't wrestle with their mental problems at all. Just say, THEY ARE DEMENTED FUCKWITS. It's a message we need to get out there more."

On Liberalism

"As far as the charge of being too liberal -- no one can be too liberal. We can only be not liberal enough. Being liberal means one is for civil liberties, equality, social justice, fairness. We work to improve the world, not maintain the status quo, and especially not to enrich those who already have too much. How can someone be too liberal?"

"You can guess what I like: uncompromising liberalism. Strong words. No apologies."

Research Career

On the dispute over whether or not mention of a professor's publication history is a violation of WP:No original research, I think there's confusion about the policy.

If we were to take an original research article published by PZ Myers, one whose content did not otherwise meet the standards of the NOR policy, and use its content, that would be a violation of WP:NOR. Facts cited in Wikipedia should be verifiable and well-established.

However, it is acceptable to mention an academic professor's research career, without making any claims as to its validity or truth. I don't see this as being any different than listing the books published by an author. We're not saying that the content of the books (or articles) is true, we're saying that a noteworthy fact about the author is that he's published these particular books. Sanguinity 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NOR. Using the results of a search an editor runs on a search engine to prop up a claim in an article as being fact and conclusive is by definition a violation of WP:NOR. For such a generalized statement to make it in the article the editor would need to find a published third-party statement that meets both WP:V and WP:RS, and even then it would need to be attributed likely. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read WP:NOR, thank you. Your citation of it caused me to believe that you objected to the content of Myers' research articles, not the method used to verify the claim that "his last published article was such-n-such". Thank you for explaining your objection.

Given that your objection (as I understand it) is to the wording, would an alternate wording -- say, "Myers has published articles on blah-blah-blah" -- be acceptable to you? Sanguinity 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with FM here. I've sent an email to PZ asking him if is CV is online anywhere. If it is, we could just cite that. JoshuaZ 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

His CV is cited at the end of the article, here: Myers' CV Sanguinity 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. The link seems to be down. JoshuaZ 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize. It's up again. I've copied out the most-recent publications below, in case the page crashes again. Emphases are mine. Sanguinity 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

fixed your link wikification - for hyperlinks you do not need to use the "|" symbol, a space will do the trick

eg. [http://www.google.com GOOGLE]--ZayZayEM 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Sipple, B.A. and P.Z. Myers (2002). The Rohon-Beard cell: formation of the primary sensory system of the zebrafish. Submitted, Anatomy and Embryology.
2. Myers, P.Z (2002) Haeckel’s Embryos, in Icons of Anti-Evolution, D. Thomas, W. Elsberry, and J. Wilkins, eds. Submitted, NCSE.
3. Dudkin, E.A., P.Z. Myers, J.A. Ramirez-Latorre, and E.R. Gruberg (1998). Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with a calcium sensitive dye. Neuroscience Letters 258:124-126.
4. Myers, P.Z, B.A. Sipple, T. Hasaka, and H. Qutub (1998) Automated analysis of spontaneous motor activity in the embryonic zebrafish, Danio rerio. J. Computer Assisted Microscopy 9(3):169-181.
5. Stachel, Scott E., D.J. Grunwald, and P.Z. Myers. (1993). Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in pre-gastrula zebrafish. Development 117(4):1261-1274.
6. (...and so on, back through 1985.)

There are also conference papers and publications, running from 1995 to 2002.

1) Myers publication record is pertinent to the article. 2) The results of the PubMed search are corroborated by Myers' CV. Thus, your objections are vacuous, and I can only conclude that you find Myers' publication record to be an embarrassment and wish to suppress it for that reason. Robert O'Brien 9:45 September 8, 2006 (PDT)

There still seems to be a slightly ORish element here. I'm also confused as to its relevancy. However, the CV is probably enough to not have an OR element so the only issue is whether when he published his last paper matters at all (note that if critics had pointed out a lack of papers that would obviously be includable but you would need an example of a critic). JoshuaZ 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You question the relevancy of Myers' publication record? You must have an interesting view of relevancy. Robert O'Brien 11:12 September 8, 2006 (PDT)

Not exactly. I question the relevancy of when his last paper was published especially when others are in the work and he has many conference papers. If we had, for example, a critic who said something like "PZ is a blowhard who claims to be a scientists but his last paper was only published in 1998" then it would be relevant. However, since no one has brought the matter up I am less than convinced of that specific fact's importance. JoshuaZ 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you see my latest edit? I mentioned that he has ten peer-reviewed publications according to PubMed, the most recent of which dates to 1998. Robert O'Brien 11:46 September 8, 2006 (PDT)

Um, still OR. PubMed is not the final word on published research. You'd need a secondary source stating that to make it into the article, as JoshuaZ has pointed out to you. FeloniousMonk 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, that rule does not mean what you think it means. In any event, the corroboration comes in the form of his CV. Robert O'Brien 10:55 September 9, 2006 (PDT)

The CV should be sufficient to eliminate the OR claim, as JoshuaZ points out. Published, peer-reviewed articles are the standard by which the scientific community evaluates ones contribution to the discipline (aside from merit), so conference papers, etcetera shouldn't be mentioned. The only remaining issue is whether the date of his last paper should be mentioned, and I lean towards the view of JoshuaZ on this matter, that we need evidence that this has been part of the public criticism of Myers before it can be included. Gabrielthursday 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The PubMed search is sufficient even without the corroboration of his CV, which leaves no doubt. Thus, you are wrong and I will continue to edit the article to include his publications.Robert O'Brien 05:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read our policy on original research? If so, please explain how this is compatible with Wikipedia policy before you re-add the information. Guettarda 05:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and the burden is not on me to show it is not "original research." The burden rests with those who are trying to suppress that datum.Robert O'Brien 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As an ill-informed outside observer (my first knowledge of this individual came when he was featured on DYK a few days ago), I see a couple of salient points: Point 1) his publication record (as delineated on his CV) is rubbish. A decent academic in a science field would be expected to produce 2-3 papers per annum as an absolute minimum (and a better-than-decent one more likely 5-6+). If his last publication was in 1998 (or even 2002, assuming his submitted papers were reviewed and eventually published, but aren't listed on pubmed) then that is poor. Note that I have no access to WoS. This should be balanced against the fact that i) he is at a minor teaching university where teaching presumably takes precedence over research (and where money and students might be scarce) ii) in some areas, work is often presented in non-traditional ways (e.g. online) and doesn't show up on bibliographic searches iii) maybe he sees his blogging and science outreach as more important and just doesn't want to write papers. However, whichever way you look at it, his career as an academic is unspectacular; Point 2) This is all completely irrelevent, firstly because a mediocre career does not in any way mark him out as ill-informed or unintelligent (although he may be lacking in ambition) and secondly (and more importantly)- as described above, unless an external third-party has attacked him for lacking academic credentials then such an accusation has no basis here whatsoever (as it is inherently OR). However, I will leave it to others to decide whether a simple (prima facie....) NPOV description of publication history/numbers is appropriate (although if based on e.g. a user-driven pub med search rather than reporting from an external written source then this may again by inescapably OR anyway....). Badgerpatrol 06:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that!Robert O'Brien 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What, Amen to my contention that adding publication information is almost certainly OR? Badgerpatrol 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Amen to your description of Myers as an unspectacular academic with a mediocre career. Robert O'Brien 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. "Mediocre career"? "Rubbish"? Can we be any more dismissive of faculty in teaching institutions? What the PubMed or WoS issues miss is that faculty at undergraduate institutions are usually expected to focus on undergraduate research, which tends to end up in non-ISI-indexed publications. That does not, by the way, make their work "rubbish" or make their careers "mediocre". After all, someone has to actually teach undergrads to love science, and work as popularisers. Guettarda 06:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A laudable sentiment which I agree with. The fact is, however, that by any objective metric his career has been, at best, mediocre. Rightly or wrongly, academic scientists are usually judged on i) publications; ii) grants obtained iii) students iv) everything else. It is perfectly possible (indeed probable) that he's a great teacher who is loved by his students, I really can't say. But surely we deal in objective, dispassionate information here? To a disinterested external observer, using these objective indices, he has not been highly successful as a scientist or as an academic. I do agree that it is very sad and disagreable that teaching effort and prowess isn't given enough weight in the modern university system. Nevertheless, as I outline above, this whole point is completely incidental anyway. Badgerpatrol 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this debate raises an interesting point about what is perhaps an inherent problem with possible POV consequences for Wikipedia. For figures such as Myers, who are notable, but not so notable that they have generated criticism from reputable publications there is the difficulty that the accomplishments of such figures are listed, as they should be; but the criticisms of them are not. The accomplishments rightly reflect well on these figures; weaknesses which might not reflect well on them are not there, due to sourcing problems. Gabrielthursday 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Or because actually don't exist. Which is more parsimonious? Badgerpatrol 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh..this guy is listed as scientist first and foremost I think a list of his publications is relevant. List them at least so we can laugh.

67.249.240.96 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"pseudo-scientific"

"pseudo-scientific" is both a disputed and unnecessary descriptor for ID. What does its presence add except the endorsement by the article itself of Myers' views? It is thus POV. I'm taking it out. Gabrielthursday 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Question: is there actually any evidence that ID advocates do not follow the scientific method other than "because I/we said so"? Jinxmchue 15:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is there any evidence that ID advocates follow the scientific method at all? Since there is no ID science program, as determined at the Dover trial, the answer is no. Please read the entire Dover trial ruling. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. In fact, it seems quite a large bit of circular logic:

Q: Do ID advocates follow the scientific method?

A: No, because there is no ID science program (whatever that means).

Q: Why is there no ID science program, then?

A: Because ID advocates don't follow the scientific method.

Jinxmchue 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You claim that it doesn't answer your question, and yet you give the answer above. The second question has no bearing on that, and is absurd. Do rabbis follow the scientific method? No, because they aren't scientists, and don't do the things that scientists do. It would be pointless and absurd to ask why they aren't scientists, and even more absurd to suggest that anyone claims that it's because they don't follow the scientific method. -- Jibal 11:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this whole rabbi thing seems like a straw man argument to me. What does any of it have to do with whether ID advocates follow the scientific method or not? Some ID advocates are scientists with PhDs. Where is the proof that they do not follow the scientific method when it comes to ID? I've never seen PZ or anyone else explain it. Where is anything beyond "I/we say so?" Jinxmchue 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry yourself. Your claim of a circular argument is a ridiculous strawman -- no one makes the argument you presented; as I said, it's absurd. The claim that ID advocates don't follow the scientific method is based on the evidence. The earth doesn't go around the sun simply because I say so, but it may seem that way if you leave the evidence out, as you do. If you've never seen it, then you've had your eyes closed. -- Jibal 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't dispute its accuracy, but "pseudo-scientific" here is POV because it is unneccessary and disputed. Would putting "Godless" in front of every mention of Dawkins in Wikipedia add anything? That would both be accurate and undisputed, but would surely be POV. Similarly here, and here is added the additional problem that it is disputed- sure as the ID page points out, the majority scientific consensus is that it doesn't qualify as science- but that does not negate the fact that it is disputed. Gabrielthursday 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That ID is pseudoscience is well established. Myers postings relate directly to the pseudoscientific aspects of ID, so it is very appropriate. As for the Dawkins analogy - if a theologian was notable for his opposition to "Dawkins and other atheists" it would be appropriate to note that Dawkins was an atheist; in that context saying "Dawkins and atheists" would be misleading (much like "ID and pseudoscience" instead of "ID and other pseudoscience". As for your choice of the word "Godless" - it's inappropriate. Your implication that "pseudoscience" and "godless" are comparable terms is highly misleading. Guettarda 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As you'll note, I don't debate the accuracy of the term, which is properly explored within the ID article. However, "pseudoscience" has negative connotations, and is disputed, and its superfluous use is thus POV. You make the argument that one of the two disputed uses of pseudoscience isn't superfluous. Now, I read "id and other forms of pseudoscience" as both redundant (the introduction notes Myers is critical of pseudoscience) and principally descriptive rather than expansive. There was a quite extensive list of specific issues Myers has addressed on his blog, which didn't include any other forms of pseudoscience. Needless to say, my reading that it was principally descriptive was influenced by the other inclusion of "pseudoscience" which was wholly descriptive of id. So my question is: What other forms of pseudoscience? If someone will tell me what other forms of pseudoscience Myers has significantly addressed, I'll happily reconsider my position in that specific.

"godless" actually has fewer POV elements than "pseudoscience". I used it because it is both accurate and has negative connotations. "pseudoscience" has the additional problem that it is disputed, albeit misguidedly in your opinion. Contrary to Dennett, Dawkins and the "Bright" movement, I'd argue that "atheist" doesn't have any negative connotations that are distinct from negative views of the group it denotes. My choice of the word "godless" would indeed be inappropriate- if I were putting it into an article as "pseudoscientific" is in this. It was wholly appropriate for the analogy- I suspect you are merely more sensitive to the negative connotations of "godless" than "pseudoscientific". Gabrielthursday 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. You have this totally back to front. Please note, there is no Category:Godless - for a very good reason. Pseudoscience is the appropriate terminology here. We don't have an article called "claiming to be science without adhering to the scientific methods". There are reasons for this.

How is the use of pseudoscience superfluous? You changed "the growing pseudo-scientific creationist movement" to simply "the growing creationist movement". While I am not a regular reader of Myers' blog, it definitely seems to me that he takes issue primarily with pseudoscientific creationism (ie, creation science, ID), rather than creationism in general. Which, given the fact that he is a scientist, makes sense.

"Contrary to Dennett, Dawkins and the "Bright" movement, I'd argue that "atheist" doesn't have any negative connotations that are distinct from negative views of the group it denotes." - it is when used to describe people who do not consider themselves to be atheist. Likewise, pseudoscience isn't an epithet, it's a descriptor. People who deny that their work is pseudoscientific take it as a slur. Sure, it isn't a positive descriptor, but there is nothing that says that we can only use positive, affirming language in Wikipedia articles. Guettarda 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the article the phrase "the growing creationist movement" isn't ambiguous in the least. Regardless, Myers has been critical of theistic evolution [1] , which, combined with ID & young-earth, etc, pretty much covers the field of creationism. There actually is a policy on point: Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Needless to say, this is an even clearer case, due to the term being superfluous and disputed. Gabrielthursday 08:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, yeah, Myers talks about TE, and he also talks about his daughter's missing cat. That doesn't make them a major focus of the blog. As for saying that TE + YEC + ID "pretty much covers the field of creationism" - no, that isn't nearly true. And it's spinning things to the point where the facts are unrecognisable. Most of what Myers has to say about creationism is from the perspective of pseudoscience. Your implication is misleading.

As for "words to avoid" - be serious. The guideline (not policy) does not say that you can't refer to the fact that the KKK is a racist organisation. To follow your interpretation of that guideline, in describing an anti-racist campaigner against the KKK and other related groups, you are trying to say that the phrase "racist" couldn't be used in the same sentance as KKK? Don't be ridiculous.

As for your last statement "due to the term being superfluous and disputed" - no. The term is neither superfluous (it's a necessary clarification), and - disputed by whom? You have said you don't dispute the term. So what are you talking about? Guettarda 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I'm not disputing the accuracy of the term. Not that nobody does. The guideline (I stand corrected) says that one should avoid where possible the use of terms, which while they may be accurate, carry an implicit viewpoint. "pseudoscience" is one of the proffered examples. Your view of my interpretation of the guideline is inaccurate.

If we're going to be pedantic, is a critique of Omphalos creationism a major focus of his blog? It's pseudoscience as well, I presume? If it isn't a major focus, then by your reasoning your own suggested phrasing is inaccurate. You claim the inclusion of TE would be an inaccuracy. Surely the incorrect inclusion of Omphalos would be similarly inaccurate? You are searching for an exactitude even you can't reach at the cost of including a loaded term in the article. I still find it difficult to believe that anyone is going to misinterpret "the growing creationist movement". Gabrielthursday 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about. "That ID is pseudoscience is well established." "Well-established" by whom? Where? When? That statement is the typical "because I/we say it is" answer that is given when ID is called "pseudo-scientific." It answers nothing and does not back up the claim that ID is pseudo-scientific. Jinxmchue 21:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that ID creationism is pseudoscience and why it is pseudoscience is explained in the intelligent design creationism article. Have you not read the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision? — Dunc|☺ 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Every time Jinxmchue encounters a claim he doesn't agree with, he trots out the "because I/we say it is" mantra. Sorry, but some things have been established. -- Jibal 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Strict omphalos creationism is entirely theological, but it is the exception that proves the rule. But it is not a widely held view, and because it is not PS less contentious scientifically, but it is very easy to bowl a reductio ad absurdum through the gate (last Thursdayism). Where does Myers discuss it? — Dunc|☺ 16:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he discussed it. Interesting point about Omphalos creationism, though. Substitute Islamic Creationism, and the point stands, however. And dunc- you've no need to point out the silliness of Omphalology to me.

The broader point I don't think has been addressed: who's going to think that the "growing creationist movement" containts TE proponents? I know I don't visualize hordes of Collinsites and Coynsians when I read that. Gabrielthursday 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Islamic creationism is a broad school which does contain pseudoscience, see the works by "Harun Yahya" - and read Islamic creationism.

Where is the creationist movement growing? You know that the demise of evolution has been predicted as imminent and a little later predicted as imminent a little later predicted as imminent a little later predicted as imminent a little later predicted as imminent... — Dunc|☺ 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, Regarding your comments on Islamic creationism: That was my point. Gabrielthursday 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: pseudo-science vs. Godless - Category:Atheism exists, "Godless" is a neologism for that; pseudo-science is the correct term for something that might irreverantly be called a sham, quackery, bogus, silly, mis-information etc.--ZayZayEM 03:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that no-one is denying that pseudoscientific has negative connotations. Neither have I read a convincing explanation of why the term is necessary rather than superfluous in this article.

My apologies if I seem short, but I haven't been overwhelmed by the willingness of my interlocutors to be, even in part, corrected. Gabrielthursday 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

murderer has negative connatations too. But Category:Murderers doesn't fall into slander either. Pseudo-science adds to this article because Myers targets ID and its ilk for its pretence of science despite absence of anything like it.--ZayZayEM 08:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Neither have I read a convincing explanation of why the term is necessary rather than superfluous in this article" - well, try re-reading the answer I gave you over a week ago. Really, read it, don't just run off on a tangent like you did last time. Guettarda 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, as I understand it your arguments have been threefold: 1. pseudoscience is a "descriptor", and as such need not be bereft of negative connotations; 2. pseudoscience provides necessary clarification; 3. pseudoscience isn't a disputed term.

As I've pointed out, WP:MOS counsels us to avoid where possible loaded terms even where accurate; thus I think the burden is on you to explain why it is necessary. You've claimed it provides necessary clarification- yet you haven't responded to my contrary argument about a lack of ambiguity, nor have you responded to my point, raised with Dunc, that even if there were ambiguity without pseudoscience in the phrase, there would be equal ambiguity with it included. To describe an argument that you don't care to respond to as a tangent is unproductive.

In answer to ZayZayEM- please take a look at the guideline I've referred to earlier: Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint What implied viewpoint does "murderer" convey? The negatives are there purely because of the object of the term. Contrarily, "pseudoscience" is being used here to import negatives onto "intelligent design" which are not there otherwise. "godless" imports negatives which are not present with the more neutral "atheist" Gabrielthursday 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"As I've pointed out, WP:MOS counsels us to avoid where possible loaded terms even where accurate" - yes, but this isn't a use anything like the examples given in the MoS. So that argument is specious.

"nor have you responded to my point, raised with Dunc, that even if there were ambiguity without pseudoscience in the phrase, there would be equal ambiguity with it included" - you raised that point? I can't find it here - in fact, the only place I find the word "ambiguity" is in your latest post. But, to answer it now - "how so?"

"to describe an argument that you don't care to respond to as a tangent is unproductive" - I described it as a tangent since it failed to respond to what I had to say. It's tangential to go into a long discussion about omphalos - in fact, it's utterly irrelevant.

As for my points, since you continue to miss them: 1. when making generalisations about a large body of work, you can't disprove the generalisations by making a handful of exceptions; 2. "Words to avoid" do not say "don't call a spade a spade" (and actually try reading what I said); 3. No, the term isn't superfluous or disputed - it's a highly relevant descriptor. By your interpretation, "pseudoscience" could never be used, because it would be disputed by someone. That line of arguing is full of holes. Guettarda 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the issue of ambiguity: you claimed that pseudoscientific was a "necessary clarification". By necessary implication, the lack of necessary clarification leaves ambiguity. I responded: who's going to think that the "growing creationist movement" containts TE proponents? I know I don't visualize hordes of Collinsites and Coynsians...; clearly addressing the ambiguity/necessary clarification argument you raised.

With respect to the supposed tangent, it pointed out that including "pseudoscientific" leaves the same kind of supposed ambiguity as you claim omitting "pseudoscientific" would result in. Sure, I wrongly assumed Omphalos creationism had pseudoscientific elements- but as I pointed out, the argument stands with respect to Islamic Creationism.

With respect to the WP:MOS guidelines: the guidelines give the example of applying the term "pseudoscientific" to homeopathy, whereas we're talking about applying the term "pseudoscientific" to intelligent design. That's totally different.

Finally, to deal with the arguments you ennumerate: your first argument is not one you've previously advanced here, but for what it's worth, I don't disagree with it. With respect to your second point- you can't ignore the guideline by pointing out that it isn't an absolute rule; there is a place for discussing the application of pseudoscience to ID- and that's on the ID article. Lastly, "pseudoscientific", while relevant is also superfluous and highly loaded. Put it together, and it's POV. Gabrielthursday 05:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as your examples go, "pseudoscience" is much closer to "murderer" than to "godless." The term "pseudoscience" doesn't imply negatives, it shouts them from the rooftops. Tsumetai 20:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And, amazingly, we have Category:Murderers but no Category:Godless or Category:Godless people. Guettarda 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read the section relevant. Removal of pseudoscience requires replacement -- It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear POV or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. -- please suggest a valid replacement. The word pseudoscience contributes to the clarity and meaning of this article as several have already mentioned - Myers targets ID primarily because it is pseudoscience, and targets other forms of pseudoscience when they arise. I cannot think of an equivalent neutral wording. Like I mentioned, I used pseudoscience, because "heap of religious shit pretending to be science" really was not appropriate. ID's pseudoscience is well established. --ZayZayEM 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've contended, there doesn't need to be a replacement, since the term doesn't add any clarity to the sentence. As I've said before, the correct place to discuss the attributes of ID is the ID article. The wording ought to be something along the lines of "criticizing intelligent design and other forms of creationism". Gabrielthursday 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've left this alone for awhile, but I haven't read anything to change my view on the issue. I'm therefore asking the NPOV crew to take a look. Gabrielthursday 08:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As others have pointed out elsewhere. ID lacks the content to be considered pseudoscience; it is merely a rhetorical device based on false dichotomy.

Editors at wikipedia are not granted the power to judge whether ideas are scientific or not or given the role of deciding what can or should be labeled "pseudoscience". Editors at wikipedia simply describe the issue in terms of how other reputable independent or authoritative references do so, and in a manner which fairly and accurately maintains the weight given to those particular views in these other sources. Whether or not the term pseudoscience is pejorative or unearned is not for editors to decide. If this is the term used by other reputable sources, then that term should be used here in descriptions of the disputes between ID proponents and its critics who call it pseudoscience, if and when the use of the term is ascribed to those sources that use it in their criticisms. In the current revision the term appears one time in the text. This is certainly a legitimate usage in its context in this particular revision.Professor marginalia 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pee Zee or Pee Zed?

Taken from the Afd discussion on P+D.

"Just merge it with PZ Myers, btw is it PeeZed or PeeZee? — Dunc|☺ 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)"

Being American, it's likely Pee Zee, but even my half Canadian linguistics says that sounds funny.--ZayZayEM 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The man is American. His name is PEE ZEE. It's not PEE ZED, or PEE IZZARD. It doesn't sound any funnier than pronouncing "out" (OWT) as OOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments merge

I undid the textdump merge. This needs to be done properly. Guettarda 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Present Criticism section

This section is encyclopedic, it quotes a couple of bloggers - 3 to be precise, and 4 blog entries. None of these bloggers are particularly notable, and one of the articles doesn't seem to mention Myers by name. It's simply unencyclopedic.

It's relationship to PYGMIES+DWARFS is irrelevant due to Wikipedia's somewhat flawed nature. Personally I felt that was unencyclopedic enough to get the whole thing listed on AfD.

I am sure there is more concrete criticism of Myers in the blogosphere. If it is quoted, or referenced, I will not oppose it. As it stands please do not reinsert it.--ZayZayEM 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider Myers "particularly notable." In any event, my primary motivation is adding in his publication record (I added the other criticisms to round out the section), which I will continue to do. Robert O'Brien 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Myers meets notability Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). points 2, 4, 7. 2 &4 backed up being sourced by Nature (and other journals/magazines/newspapers) often as science spokesman; point 7, Pharyngula has won notable blogging awards. --ZayZayEM 05:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Myers may be "notable" in creation-evolution debate circles but he is not notable as an academic, as evinced by his pathetic publication record (q.v.). Please stop slavering over him.Robert O'Brien 16:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But this article isn't about him as an academic. It's about him as a commentator and spokesperson. Badgerpatrol 01:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I didn't use point 3 to back up my statements. Myers isn't notable not for having a strong published record, but for the reasons I mentioned. Publication records are a very poor way to measure the merit of a scientist. You don't rate a builder by how many houses he's built. They might all be shite.--ZayZayEM 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What "shite" is the comparison. Publication records make a very good way to measure the merit of a scientist, because they show how often he managed to convince other experts in his field that his conclusions are sound. --213.209.110.45 16:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are citations still a requirement

Check this out:

A self-avowed "godless liberal" and outspoken atheist, he is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) creationism and a key activist in the American controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution. He is a vocal skeptic of all forms of religion, superstition, spirituality and pseudoscience. He is quoted as having "nothing but contempt for ID" and its followers.

That is an awful lot of commentary with absolutly no citations or support for any of it. It may be true but those sorts of claims should be supported. Finding reliable sources to quote should not be a problem for those who have an interest in the subject. if one were to delete the unsupported allegations in this article we'd have no introduction. I realize one or more editors here is primarily interested in slandering this guy, so be it, but try and abide by Wiki standards in your effort to use Wiki as a means of slandering folks you do not like. Thank you. Mr Christopher 18:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is libeling Myers here? Robert O'Brien 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore,

a key activist in the American controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution

Since when was teaching evolution controversial? I believe every biology depertment in America teaches ToE. I don't recall any recent law suits ovet the teaching of evolution. In fact, if my understanding of pop culture is correct it is the theory of intelligent design creationism which is controversial. IDc is NOT taught in any biology classes and has been challenged in court and found to be nothing more than recycled creationism. So why does the article mistakenly suggest there is a controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution? This sort of sounds like something the DI or D*mbski would write "Darwinism is in its last death throws" or somesuch nonsense. I'm going to try and fix a few glaring errors in the article. Mr Christopher 20:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I used "teaching of evolution" because that is where the contraversy lies, it is not a contraversy over evolution itself, which is scientific fact, but as to how evolution should be presented in the classroom. Using contraversy of teaching intelligent design would be deemed POV and libellous, so I avoided that (though I did get in trouble by pointing out it is pseudoscience).

The information in the lead can all be supported by Myers' weblog, and other sources cited and linked at the end of the article. In-text citations are good, but not a requirement AFAIK. References are a must.--ZayZayEM 02:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Which Book is PYGMIES + DWARFS from

That might be a useful piece of information.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is from self-published Creationist (or Biblical literalist) cartoons by Jim Pinkovski. The argument is that people were larger in Old Testament times ("There were giants in those days") and the clincher of the argument is that now we have PYGMIES and DWARFS.

Use of "PYGMIES + DWARFS" on Panda's Thumb

This line:

The use of the phrase "PYGMIES + DWARFS" (usually capitalised) has been adopted by some pro-evolution bloggers as a response to certain arguments adopted by creationists, particularly on The Panda's Thumb weblog.

...is in serious need of a citation. I couldn't find many examples of it on Panda's Thumb or anywhere else. A handful of people using it quite rarely doesn't justify it's inclusion here. Maybe someone else's Google-fu is better. Jinxmchue 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• As far I I can tell, this phrase has been used on Panda's Thumb only around 7 times on about 6 entries since PZ's initial entry on Pharyngula's original site[2]. Its use is also very uncommon among other bloggers and even PZ himself. This hardly justifies inclusion of the above line in this article, so I am removing it. Jinxmchue 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"PYGMIES + DWARFS" notable?

I'm going to question the inclusion of this entire section in the article. In my search for citations to support my previous concern, I found that the "incident" is, in my opinion, no more or less notable than anything else on his blog. No searches produce any notable citings of the "incident," and despite PZ's statement that "[i]t's an incredibly useful phrase that's going to come in handy" and the now deleted claim of usage by other bloggers, it has been used very rarely by anyone. If anyone can provide verifiable (I can't stress that enough) reasons why this section should remain, please do so. As is stands right now, however, it seems to be just a dig at Jim Pinkoski and definitely not something that should be included on Wiki. Jinxmchue 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree--ZayZayEM 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• The only notability I found was that Myers did feel he had to repost the entries because he was getting queries about references to PYGMIES+DWARFS.--ZayZayEM 06:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that earlier. Kind of a "self-notabilitization" (okay, I made that word up). Jinxmchue 15:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything to say to include this? If so, revert & explain why it should be here, because I'm removing it. Gabrielthursday 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • PYGMIES + DWARFS may have a place, along with the present Mike S Adams issue on the Pharyngula (blog) main page as they are more about the blog, and issues arising from it than Myers himself. They will need sources to back up any information added though.--ZayZayEM 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

move

PZ himself simply doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines, but his blog may meet WP:WEB. This guy doesn't appear to be remotely notable professionally. His blog might qualify as notable, I guess, because of the Nature nod. Therefore, this article ought to be named after and focused on his blog. His bio info can be a section in that. Derex 05:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is an author who writes a notable book not therefore notable? He is notable because of his blog, full stop. No move. Badgerpatrol 05:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What part of WP:BIO do you assert he satisfies? Derex 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A writer's notability stems directly from their body of work. If the blog is notable (it is) then I would suggest that Myers automatically becomes notable by extension. An argument could be made that this subject satisfies e.g. criteria 1, 7, 9 and 10. By the same token, WP:BIO is not policy, and specifically states that its own criteria are non-exclusive- as always, the real testing board for any issue is the community's opinion. If you have concerns about the subject, then I suggest the best avenue would be to nominate the article to AfD. Badgerpatrol 01:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not always true. For example, the "Loose Change" movie is notable in and of itself and has warranted a Wiki article, but it creators are not notable enough for their own articles. Outside of Pharyngula, PZ is no more or less notable than any one of thousands of professors around the world. Pharyngula is his sole "claim to fame" as it were and, quite frankly, that probably isn't enough to warrant a Wiki article for him personally. Jinxmchue 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By this stunning logic we shouldn't have an article on Harper Lee either. --Cyde Weys 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And by your stunning attempt at wit, we should just give anyone and everyone a Wiki article. See, there's a bit of a tiny little minuscule HUGE difference between Pharyngula and To Kill A Mockingbird. For starters, TKAM was a widely acclaimed bestseller that has stood the test of time to become a classic of literature that is still widely read by all walks of life and is included in grade school and college classes. Pharyngula is - even with the Nature nod - an obscure blog with a limited audience. When someone mentions TKAM, almost everyone recognizes it. When someone mentions Pharyngula, quizzical looks or blank stares are probably commonplace. People may not know much about Harper Lee or know what she's famous for, but if told she wrote TKAM, it is an immediate recognition. It is not the same with PZ and Pharyngula. Once PZ is retired and Pharyngula is gone, hardly anyone will remember him or it. Jinxmchue 19:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, doubtful. Pharyngula has played a notable role in the debate over intelligent design, as has Myers. I'm for keeping the article as is since Myers role in this national debate shows no signs waning. FeloniousMonk 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, from a quick glance at Loose change, it isn't obvious to me that the main creators actually are ineligible for their own biographies, although I confess I hadn't heard of the film until you mentioned it. The main difference of course between almost any film and almost any written material (book, article, newspaper column, blog) is that the former are generally collaborative efforts and the latter are usually (although of course not always) solo efforts. A blog especially directly relates the experiences and/or opinions of the writer, a feature which (to me) obviously transfers notability. However, as I say above, if anyone has serious concerns then they should nom the article to AfD for a fuller debate on the issue. Badgerpatrol 01:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to AFD nom a page move; it's standard stuff easily discussed here. At any rate, as the blog is the sole source of notability, I'm creating an article on the blog, Pharyngula (blog). What you do with PZ then is up to you. Derex 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you've kind of missed the point about what a blog actually is, but if you want to create a new page then that's up to you. Badgerpatrol 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen no clear justification for a move, and the claim of non-notoriety is utter bullocks. Meyer's roll in the current crationism v evolution debate has been quite substantial, and his substantive posts have been quoted in other fora, including the preeminent site on the evolution side of the debate, [www.talkorigins.org]. Thus he is quite notable, and any attempt to downplay his role in the debate smacks of fear and disenguous censorship. As such, neither I nor others will countenance such a move. •Jim62sch• 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

PZ is notable in the context of Pharyngula, he doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF in any independent sense. A merge to Pharyngula (blog) that didn't lose any info might be warranted. I'll change my opinion if independent evidence that he meets WP:PROF can be produced. JoshuaZ 01:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether he meets WP:PROF (which is not policy) is highly debatable. But not relevent- because he's not here in his academic capacity, he's here as (essentially) a political commentator. The blog (which is notable) is merely the medium by which he disseminates his views. I do not believe we have particulary many articles on newspaper columns- but we do have quite a few on newspaper columnists. I must confess, I'm not 100% certain how this situation is any different. Personally, at the moment I advocate merging into this article with a redirect, since I don't really think the two are sustainable side-by-side. Badgerpatrol 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The solution proposed by Badger certainly makes more sense than that suggested by JoshusZ. I should also note that Myers has published a fair number of scholarly papers, certainly more than a number of other professors I have stumbled across on Wiki. Seems to me that Joshua and others are being too strident and overly dismissive in their application of what are merely guidelines (and rather subjective ones at that). •Jim62sch• 10:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Jim. Pharyngula is notable as the creation of PZ. If we are only going to have one of the two, I think it should be this one. On the other hand, even though there would be substantial overlap, I see no problem is having both articles. Guettarda 12:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that person>blog. c.f. Ze Frank, notable for anything other than the Show?--ZayZayEM 13:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

City Pages cover

It was I who added Image:PZ Myers City Pages.jpg to PZ Myers. Having since read the likely pertinent discussion at Template talk:Magazinecover, I have changed my mind. I'm not sure if altweeklies qualify specifically as newspapers, magazines, or both (see my query at Template talk:Newspapercover on this subject), so I'm going with what appears to the most conservative of these two fair use rationales (magazine), just to be on the safe side. Consensus seems to be that the use of magazine cover images to illusrate persons depicted on such covers in the articles about such persons does not qualify as fair use - at the very least consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Therefore, I have removed the image from this article until other editors with better understanding of WP:FU (how's that for a funny abbreviation!) than mine agree that it may be used here. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PYGMIES +DWARVES???

There seems to be a confusion over this phrase

here: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/if_you_doubt_this_is_possible_how_is_it_there_are_pygmies_dwarfs/ is the origination of the phrase in context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.233.96 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Negativity out of line

I have a temperature so I'm not in a condition to fix it, but this article is way too negative to be neutral. I suggest that all the quotes that come from primary sources and aren't in context be nuked. This is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. Reinis^talk 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the quotes about evangelicals and churches. Thos were added by User:Jinxmchue, who has personal grudge against Myers judging by Jinx's blogs, so you may be right that they are being misused out of context. On the other hand, having read PZ for some time now, I doubt he much cares. What do the others here think? Odd nature 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've no more of a personal grudge against Myers than the media has a personal grudge against Karl Rove. Oh, wait... Bad example. In any case, if you can prove the quotes are out of context and do not accurately reflect PZ's feelings towards religion and the religious, go right ahead. Otherwise, all you have is empty accusations. Jinxmchue 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that context needs to be provided. I think most of the quotes could stand, and that context could be worked into the prose. I also don't think PZ would really care, this particular brand of quote mining doesn't really make him look out too of order. Oh no, those people are being mean and saying I said I hate evangelicals. Oh, wait, I did say that. And I meant it. What was the point again?--ZayZayEM 02:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, one of the most notable aspects of Myers is his attitude towards religion and Christianity in particular. Gabrielthursday 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Links are context. Jinxmchue 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't. Many readers are lazy. If context can be worked into prose it should be. c.f quote mining.--ZayZayEM 05:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jinxmchue's version always seem to play loose and fast with context. FeloniousMonk 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Want to make it clear I am not judging Jinx' edits. I'm just pointing out what might be perceived as problems.--ZayZayEM 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for me, there would've been no indication exactly what "scathing and critical" meant. Without it Now that it's gone, this would be is a fancruft page. Do you think I would get away with the same treatment of Ann Coulter's page? Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The quotes are fluff, not terribly informative since PZ is already well-established as an atheist and clearly uses them for rhetorical effect rather than conveying new information. It seems pretty clear to me based on how they came to appear on the page that their addition was driven by a personal campaign by a known anti-PZ blogger and meant to fan the passions of the faithful by the simple(minded) expediant of a pot/kettle association while getting a few digs in at his expense: [3] Whether they stay or go, I doubt they achieve either goal. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are informative of Myers' noxious attitude towards Christianity, not his atheism and as such are independently important. Gabrielthursday 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinions about importance are not a criteria to include something in Wikipedia articles. Reinis^talk 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As it now stands, "scathing and critical" is wholly without context. As a safe descriptor, "scathing and critical" is accurate. However, his attitude is arguably bigoted and certainly offensive. The best way to deal with this is to include the quotes and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. If there is a deficiency in context, it should be addressed. Your edit was premature and without support here, except arguably from FeloniusMonk. I am reverting. Gabrielthursday 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:BLP, and did you read WP:SELFPUB? That in your opinion he is "offensive" is no grounds to include selective quotation. I was completely justified in removing something that was not neutral, not in context established by proper non-primary sources, against WP:BLP and even more against WP:SELFPUB (being contentious and about third parties). Reinis^talk 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "A quote is not self-published material within the meaning given it." Could you elaborate? Also, WP:BLP (not WP:BIO, you must have confused those two) says that "Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." Selective quotation based on nothing but your own feelings that is used to promote a POV is definitely not neutral, and clearly original thought. If you can find valid sources about things that he has said that establish context, you can feel free to include that and give the quotes for reference, but not otherwise. As I said, "He has said something that I find offensive" is not a criteria for inclusion by any stretch. What next, should people add, say, positive or humorous quotes for balance and "let the reader to draw their own conclusions"? Reinis^talk 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the edit was marked as minor by Twinkle, not me. Reinis^talk 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the quotes per WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Reinis^talk 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for whitewashing! Nice to see nothing around here has changed. I think I'll go whitewash Ann Coulter's article now. Jinxmchue 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is similar tendentious editing at Ann Coulter, I welcome you to remove it. Reinis^talk 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of negativity regarding things she's said on- and offline. Glad to know you'll back my removal of it all. Jinxmchue 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't troll. Reinis^talk 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an unwarranted attack which could equally be applied to yourself, Reinis. Gabrielthursday 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a look at Ann Coulter, most quoting uses third party sources to establish notability of Coulter's position (or a particular self published piece). ::Example ::Coulter contracted with USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She wrote one article that began, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..." and referred to some unspecified female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." The newspaper declined to print the article citing an editing dispute over "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable." An explanatory article by the paper went on to say "Coulter told the online edition of Editor & Publisher magazine that 'USA Today doesn't like my "tone", humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them.'" USA Today replaced Coulter with Goldberg, and Coulter published it instead on her website.[32][33][34][4]

1. Coulter, Ann. "Put the speakers in a cage". WorldNetDaily. July 26, 2004. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.
2. Staff Writer. "USA Today drops Ann Coulter." CBS News. July 26, 2004. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.
3. Memmott, Mark. "Coulter column canceled after editing dispute". USA Today. July 26, 2006. Retrieved on July 11, 2006.

• The paragraph references CBS (third party) report of the incident, quotes Coulter as reported by USA Today (not self published), and also quotes directly from the Coulter article in question (which is also not self published, being on World Net Daily.
• Really, the Coulter page is for the most part a good page to follow the example of.--ZayZayEM 10:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep personal attacks out of edit summaries

These edit summaries toe push the line, if not outright cross it:

1. 22:37, August 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) PZ Myers (→Background - more Jinxmchue repair)
2. 22:32, August 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) PZ Myers (→Background - fixing more inflammatory pov from Jinxmchue)
3. 22:31, August 15, 2007 (hist) (diff) PZ Myers (→Background - fixing misquote and POV from Jinx McHue)

Jinxmchue 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To toe the line is the opposite of crossing it, not marginally less. Gabrielthursday 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I thought one word and typed the other. (More used to typing "toe the line.") Jinxmchue 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What's out of line with policy here was your presentation of quotes out of context and extending them beyond what the speaker originally intended, e.g.; changing "He has once described an evangelical church as..." to "He also considers every church to be..." etc. Please. You need to knock off using Wikipedia as an extension of your blogs to carry on the PZ Myers bashing. Odd nature 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it out of context? On his blog, he first stated that "Morris has got 14 or 15 churches as it is" and then stated "the last thing we need is another parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population." He didn't say "a parasitic institution." He said "another parasitic institution," clearly indicating what he felt about the other "14 or 15 churches." He made no denominational distinctions. By logical, rational extension, he obviously thinks all churches are "parasitic institutions."

Oh, and the "You need to knock off using Wikipedia as an extension of your blogs to carry on the PZ Myers bashing" line crosses the "no personal attacks" and "assume good faith" Wiki policies. If you retract, I will not report it. Jinxmchue 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There, I added context to the "parasitic institution" quote. Jinxmchue 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I call 'em like I see 'em. Observing that an editor is replacing simple, neutral descriptions with content that places the subject in the worst possible light is not a personal attack. Noting that same editor has a history of attacking that subject on their blogs and then edits the subject's Wikipedia article and changes it using the same rhetoric as their blogs is not a personal attack and relevant to maintaining the article. Odd nature 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that none of those things in and of themselves constitute personal attacks. However, phrasing such observations as "You need to knock off using Wikipedia as an extension of your blogs to carry on the PZ Myers bashing" DOES. It's very ironic and hypocritical that you would mention placing subjects "in the worst possible light" after making that statement about me. Jinxmchue 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

see WP:SYNTH. Wikiepdia does not encourage editors to think and reach conclusions, readers should do it for themselves.--ZayZayEM 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the metaphors are "Toe the line...", "Cross the line...", or "Push the envelope..." Mixing them muddies your message. Further, individuals with personal, passionate stakes in a subject (i.e. Pro- or Anti-PZ) should not be editing here. If you can not leave your bias out, please edit an article on, say, the Heavy Metal Umlaut. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Six of one, half-dozen of the other

"He has described religious people"

"He characterizes religious adherents"

char·ac·ter·ize /ˈkærɪktəˌraɪz/ –verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing. to describe the character or individual quality of

ad·her·ent (ād-hîr'ənt, -hěr'-) n. A supporter, as of a cause or individual

Characterizing is describing and adherents are people. Was that edit absolutely necessary? Jinxmchue 01:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing reads better to me. FeloniousMonk 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just adding that characterizing and adherents both read better, and also carry a better sense of accuracy. Adherents are a specific kind of person. It's like specifying "enthusiast", liek "bird enthusiast" istead of "bird-liking people".--ZayZayEM 10:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding a fanboy page

I originally wrote this article [5] (not claiming ownership) with minimal OR and not referencing Pharyngula at all (except possibly unattributed in my summary of pharyngula topics). Seems like that was a good move.

After reading the above enforced guideline of WP:SELFPUB it seems clear that Pharyngula really can't be used to support any position about Myers' attitudes without third party recognition. This means a news source or possibly a fairly reliable third party blog (i.e. not a fanblog or an attackblog) must be also included to verify and support notability of that facet of Myers' personality.

I did leave a note on Jinx' talk page that I was sure that Myers has done at least one TV interview. Using a transcript of that to summarise Myers' view on organizations like YECs, DI or Creation Museums (he must have been talking about one of those) would be fine (even preferred and recommended) as far as I can tell.--ZayZayEM 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Similar discretion on using Pharyngula as a major source will have to be applied to Pharyngula (blog), lest be accused of bias.--ZayZayEM 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand No quote can be included to further a position (even an obvious one) that isn't already illustrated by a secondary resource. Quotes cannot be cherrypicked, quotes must be notable (which needs to be established by an outside source) to be included, otherwise they are cruft.--ZayZayEM 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"godless liberal"

Is calling PZ "A self-avowed "godless liberal..." really inflammatory?

My original version was "A liberal and self avowed "godless" atheist..."

Also I do not find the words "godless" or "liberal" anywhere else in the article, so I'm not sure how OddNature can say the "point [is] ... already made elsewhere".--ZayZayEM 02:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I added that phrase back in, and was puzzled by the "already made elsewhere" remark of the reverter. It's not a calumny, but rather a label PZ himself is proud of! Anyone able to point to a reliable source for a particular phrase? Snalwibma 07:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

tagline @ Pharyngula: "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". See I didn't make it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 00:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

American Richard Dawkins

Actually that's courtesy the Discovery Institute's John West [6]. Guettarda 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of phrase usage? Relevance? Self notorizing/grandstanding/name calling. Really don't see it as improving the article. Particularly against introducing the term in the lead.--ZayZayEM 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)