Talk:PZ Myers

Atheist Ireland and Myers
Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland wrote in 2015, "Atheist Ireland is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the atheist blogger PZ Myers."

Atheist Ireland is the largest atheist organization in Ireland and it is a notable enough organization that Wikipedia has an article on it. Michael Nugent is a notable figure and Wikipedia has an article on him.

Shouldn't this matter be included in the article?Knox490 (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which article? This one? It is already there. Look for "atheist ireland". Nugent is missing though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback and correcting me about this matter. And it's ok that Nugent's name remains missing from the article. The main weight/power of the proclamation is that it is from Atheist Ireland. Knox490 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael Nugent and Myers
Michael Nugent, who is the president of Atheist Ireland, took Myers to task about his comments relating to bestiality. 

Myers is primarily known for: his atheism; his opposition to creationism; desecrating a Communion host; his advocacy of leftist views (feminism, etc.); his his refusal to condemn bestiality and controversial remarks about bestiality.

Wikipedia's Peter Singer article notes his views about bestiality, shouldn't the article on PZ Myers do likewise? Knox490 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, if done in an encyclopedic manner. This is a topic of disagreement between two major figures (Myers and Nugent) over a noteworthy issue (the ethics of sex with animals), with significant implications for atheism and secular humanism (sexual ethics in a secular humanistic mode). Approaching (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's accurate to describe Nugent as "taking Myers to task" about bestiality in the post linked by Knox490. Nugent says "I am not condemning PZ for his views on cephaloporn. I am asking him and his colleagues to act ethically consistently when judging others." Myers' references to tentacle porn are tongue-in-cheek, more like a running gag than an endorsement of bestiality. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PZ Myers said: "So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way."


 * What are the limited set of circumstances ? Knox490 (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Literally none of this is mentioned in reliable sources, and if you have to run around pulling out-of-context quotes from 5-year-old blog posts to make your point, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, please explain why the quote of PZ Myers was out of context. PZ Myers said: "So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way."  Knox490 (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Myers writes several blog entries per day. Meaning, he says a lot, and if you add everything of this level of relevance, the article will become about 500 times as long as it is now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, the Wikipedia article on the atheist Peter Singer mentions his very unusual stand on bestiality. So that is also highly unusual for a public figure to say, is it not? If Myers wrote 1,000 books, but said that bestiality can be acceptable in limited set of circumstances that would certainly stand out, would it not? If not, why wouldn't it stand out? Knox490 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see it now, Category:Bestiality by atheists. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It was tongue in cheek. Anybody who reads PZ can see that. And it was in response to a stupid question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * re: redaction of my talk page material.


 * I quoted PZ Myers himself from a website which is partly run/co-owned by him (freethoughtblogs.com) I also cited the president of Atheist Ireland, Michael Nugent.  Both these sources are reliable sources about the matter.


 * PZ Myers is a very ardent/passionate atheist who was called a provocateur given to using profanity by USA Today. Myers' emotionalism/radicalism helped earn him the label of being an "eccentric voice" by the newspaper USA Today. Myers described himself as being a "weird," "loud," "radicalized" and "firebrand" type of "New Atheist."


 * PZ Myers and his fans are very passionate atheists. Many times passionate people are reluctant to accept valid criticism. I would ask you to reconsider redacting my talk page material. Of the few people who address this matter on his talk page, I did have one person agree with my talk page post and said I raised a legitimate concern.


 * PZ Myers' fans are now trying to whitewash his Wikipedia page and even civil discussion on its talk page. But the fact remains that PZ Myers is a controversial figure even among his fellow atheists and there are legitimate criticisms of Myers.


 * Redacting my civil talk page post is a tacit admission by PZ Myers fans that they cannot rationally defend his unsavory public comments on bestiality.


 * I have no desire to get involved in contention with hardcore fans of a "eccentric/weird/loud/radicalized" person such as Myers. Fellow atheists are disassociating with him (Atheist Ireland, etc. etc.) and his following has greatly diminished as a result. He has marginalized himself as a public figure and his influence on world affairs/public affairs is now negligible. Several notable commentators on the left/right portions of the political spectrum have declared New Atheism dead and the movement is no longer a very influential movement. I have made my position clear and I am not going to get involved in a revert war on a talk page. If you persist to redacting my civil talk page posts, I will not hesitate to get a Wikipedia admin involved.Knox490 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're talking to experienced editors who know that cherry-picking words from the internet in order to associate a BLP opponent with evil is not permitted by WP:BLP. Stuff like this on a talk page is ludicrous. Taking this to an admin would save others the trouble, please go ahead. Also, please respect WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG and use this page only to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as your experienced editor remark, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2011 and I am very familiar with its policies. And direct quotes from a person and commentary by a leading figure on a topic is certainly not cherry picking. And I would remind you that Wikipedia does not have extensive rules supporting seniority and that meritocracies are often far more efficient than seniority based systems. So your experienced editor remark is not a particularly relevant remark.

New atheists and their supporters have a reputation for being militant/unreasonable and Wikipedia's article on New Atheism has an extensive criticism section which reflects this matter. I understand that you may be a new atheists and be very passionate about atheism. But I would ask you to temper your passion and stick to the facts. And the fact is that both PZ Myers and Peter Singer are both atheists who have made unusual remarks on bestiality and that civil societies around the world reject bestiality and this is reflected by many laws against bestiality and public disdain for bestiality around the world. Knox490 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are missing a lot of points here.
 * "You're talking to experienced editors who know that" was obviously not an attempt to employ "rules supporting seniority", it was a remark in the vein of "we were not born yesterday, go try to fool somebody else".
 * "And direct quotes from a person and commentary by a leading figure on a topic is certainly not cherry picking" Of course it can be. And in this case it is.
 * "New atheists and their supporters have a reputation for" - only in some circles. This is your opinion. Please do not add your opinion to articles.
 * Again, you are not fooling anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are clearly poorly quoting me in order to dodge the evidence I gave. The full quote is: "New atheists and their supporters have a reputation for being militant/unreasonable and Wikipedia's article on New Atheism has an extensive criticism section which reflects this matter."


 * The New Atheism movement has been relentlessly attacked via many legitimate attacks and it is now on life support. The atheist and evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson wrote, "The world appears to be tiring of the New Atheism movement.."  In 2016, a New Atheism convention was cancelled due to lack of interest.


 * New Atheism is not like Christianity. It did not have staying power. The goofball PZ Myers making inappropriate comments about bestiality, Richard Dawkins making a ridiculous remark about the morale monster Adolf Hitler (Dawkins said, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." ), etc. etc. quickly discredited the New Atheism movement.Knox490 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence? You were preaching, pontificating, and soapboxing. With poor logic, too. Having an extensive criticism section has nothing to do with having a "reputation for being militant/unreasonable".
 * Your low opinion of people who disagree with you and your premature villain gloating have absolutely no bearing on the improvement of the article. And that is what this page is for. So please either go away or stick to the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because I pointed out via prominent/mainstream sources that Dawkins and his fans have a reputation for being vitriolic and engaging in controversial free speech and controversial activities (as part of discussion of whether or not Richard Dawkins is a controversial figure who often embroils himself into political controversies), this does not automatically mean that I have a low opinion of people who disagree with me. I work with people on various projects who have very different opinions than me on a wide variety matters and we get along just fine. People come from a wide variety of backgrounds and they should do their best to work out solutions which benefit all parties concerned. Me thinks the gentlemen protests too much.


 * I am very familiar with logical fallacies and various forms of logic. You may recall that I pointed out you engaging in the ad hominem logical fallacy.


 * When engaging in online discourse, I try not to engage in fruitless speculation about people engaging in such behaviors such as gloating, etc. I suggest you do the same.Knox490 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Does he have any academic achievements? Papers published? Recognitions? Accolades? Anything?
Just wondering. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many; find him on Google Scholar. But this article doesn't really tell about that, does it? Thanks for the heads-up. YoPienso (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, he is entirely non notable, just a blogger 98.7.192.88 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * He has biology credentials and is notable for his education advocacy, hence this article's existence. You may want to nominate the article at WP:AFD if you think he does not meet Wikipedia inclusion requirements.  This talk page is otherwise not a forum to discuss the topic, only to discuss article improvements.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides being a biology professor at a small campus in the hinterlands of Minnesota, he's mostly a blogger that often picks fights with others and whose blog commenters have been called "screechy monkeys" by Scienceblogger Chad Orzel.


 * Myers has made himself unpopular with many due his excessively combative nature and his sometimes tasteless comments. For example, his inappropriate and ill-timed commentary about the death of the popular comedian Robin Williams) didn't win him any friends. His fellow evolutionist/atheist Jerry Coyne wrote in response to Myers' commentary on the suicide of Robin Williams: "This is one of the most contemptible and inhumane things I've ever seen posted by a well-known atheist. It reeks of arrogance, of condescension, and especially of a lack of empathy for those who loved and admired Williams not because they knew him, but because he brought them happiness and made them think."


 * Myers also has a reputation for nastiness. The biologist Massimo Pigliucci said of Myers, "one cannot conclude this parade without mentioning P.Z. Myers, who has risen to fame because of a blog where the level of nastiness (both by the host and by his readers) is rarely matched anywhere else on the Internet..."Knox490 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this rant have a point? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that you brought it up, I believe the article should be more be more neutral (NPOV). Right now, it is heavy pro PZ Myers and seems controlled by PZ Myers fans. An article in USA Today called Myers an "online provocateur" and an "eccentric voice".Knox490 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for actionable proposals to improve the article (specific text). They are not places where people can drop negative snippets and general complaints. WP:NOTFORUM applies. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the USA Today material be used in order to indicate that Myers has been called an "online provocateur" and an "eccentric voice"? Fellow evolutionists/atheists Jerry Coyne/Massimo Pigliucci appear to concur that Myers can be unnecessarily combative and also mean-spirited in his online commentary as I noted above.Knox490 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit the article and see what happens. The trick would be to find a place where such text could be added while satisfying WP:DUE. At any rate, negative views should be based on a secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. That is an entirely reasonable approach. I will keep that in mind for other articles too.Knox490 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)