Talk:Stuart Pivar

Art

It seems there are alot of references for Pivar and his art collection, he seems to own some very expensive artifacts as well, also Andy Warhol was a close friend to Pivar, quite alot of references for that. If I find out any further information I will add it to the art section. Chemistryfan (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

References

These are references which have been put on the article which were in the reception section of Pivar's work:

1*Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk. University of Chicago Press. p. 101.

2*http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/lifecode_from_egg_to_embryo_by.php

Please check page 101 of Pigliucci's book and there is no mention of Stuart Pivar's book being "pseudoscience", the word "pseudoscience" is not found on that page at all, what is on the page is a comment that Pivar has sent out emails to people, and how Pivar bases his arguements on "pre darwinian evolutionists" nothing about his work being pseudoscience. Cleary somebody is lieing about what is in these references and making up things to attack Pivar.

For the second reference from Myers, a public blogspot is not a valid reference, blogspots are not WP:RS on scientific matters. These references has been deleted. If there is criticism of the work of Pivar, please add a peer reviewed scientific journal. Thanks. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Then the utter crankery must not be in the article; it makes the article pure promotion. If it's not notable enough to be discussed scientifically, it shouldn't be in the article. 86.182.19.180 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He does not necessarily have to use the actual word "pseudoscience" to state that that's what it is. It's unnecessary and unfair to throw around the accusation of lying. Blogs can be used if the author is an acknowledged expert, which in this case he is. As for "lying", the article asserted that Dimitar Sasselov and Brian Goodwin both think his ideas are plausible. In fact the source, such as it is, merely quotes Pivar himself claiming that they and other luminaries including Noam Chomsky (!) said this. For all we know, this may mean nothing more than that they were button-holed at a dinner party by him and made a few polite noises while backing away towards the door. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Scienceblogs is a site that is used on WP quite a bit and is generally considered an RS. It's not like blogspot where everyone can get an account, there is actually a set of requirements. One of the reasons that we allow sites like SB or talkorigins is because most scientists don't waste their time publishing criticism of fringe theories that no one in the scientific community takes seriously and most journals don't waste valuable publication space for the same. Because we need to give due weight to actual science over fringe/pseudoscience, sites like SB are allowed to represent the mainstream. I also concur with Barlow that the actual word pseudoscience does not need to be used by the source as long as it's clear that what we're talking about is a fringe theory way outside of the mainstream. The easiest way to contend that Pivar is not pushing pseudoscience would be to publish a paper in an actual journal and get it reviewed by someone else. Until then it's just crackpottery. N^oformation ^Talk 02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pz Myers's blog is not a reliable source. He is not an acknowledged expert, he is just an average college teacher with a coupla published articles. References to a blog such as Pharangyla should be removed, as I did. Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process.[4] Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.

If such a blog says Darwin was born, that's okay. If it says X is wrong, it is not reliable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.4.26 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

PZ Myers is known for his commentaries on this sort of thing; yes, he's not a "stellar" academic, but the blog has been deemed by consensus to be legitimate per WP:PARITY and WP:SPS. Comments on the validity of scientific arguments cannot, IMO, be "libel". However, please note WP:NLT. Paul B (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting with disingenuous edit-summaries is highly inappropriate. The link is not "broken", the website is "under reconsruction". it seems more sensible to allow it time to do just that. However, misleadingly referring only to a mere external link while deleting actual content is very disingenuous. Paul B (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that consensus is now being challenged. His blog is not part of a publication which employs fact checking. So it violates Wike standards for reliable source. Furthermore, the standards for bios of living people are a little higher than those standards. to say that PZ Myers is known for his commentaries on that sort of thing is not good enough, after all, Pivar is known for his whatever it is, too. That would not make him a reliable source. and b) I made two separate edits. They had different, accurate, titles. you reverted both in one fell swoop, which is what I am querying in the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.4.26 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You revertred both in one fell swoop, so your complaint applies to yourself. If you wish to challenge the consensus you should post a message on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The two issues are separate. b) The link is broken or inactive, as I said in the first place. a) The blog is not reliable. For living persons, the procedure is indeed to remove immediately and *then* discuss and only after consensus restore the material. Anyway, I see from the history of the talk page that there isn`t actually a consensus.[[[[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.4.26 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

«Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced **must be removed immediately** from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. » — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.4.26 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. I know all this. It is not an excuse for removing sourced content you don't like. And criticising ideas is not and never has been libellous, as has already been pointed out. Your "arguments" are transparently disingenuous as you are even deleting material cited to a legal text book. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy doesn't say only libellous, it also says «contentious». Contentious material that is poorly sourced must be removed immediately. A blog spot not part of a publication with a fact checking department is not a reliable source for contentious material. A legal text book has no place supporting a section on biology....nor do narratives about lawsuits belong here. One could argue that the whole section does not really warrant inclusion: Pivar, a living person, is only famous for the art scene. If his bio theory is crackpot, then it does not even warrant a mention, unless he were famous primarily for that. 173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not really famous at all in fact. However, as it happens, this page was created by an editor to promote his bio theories! The fact that someone is not famous for something is not a reason for excluding it from his bio page. Tom Cruise is not famous for being a scientologist, but it is a notable aspect of his life. Paul B (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

¿edit wars or ownership?

I am not the only observer to think that one or more citations are in violation of Wiki policy, I quote from above in this talk page:173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

These are references which have been put on the article which were in the reception section of Pivar's work:1*Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk. University of Chicago Press. p. 101. 2*http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/lifecode_from_egg_to_embryo_by.php

Please check page 101 of Pigliucci's book and there is no mention of Stuart Pivar's book being "pseudoscience", the word "pseudoscience" is not found on that page at all, what is on the page is a comment that Pivar has sent out emails to people, and how Pivar bases his arguements on "pre darwinian evolutionists" nothing about his work being pseudoscience. Cleary somebody is lieing about what is in these references and making up things to attack Pivar.212.219.63.252 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For the second reference from Myers, a public blogspot is not a valid reference, blogspots are not WP:RS on scientific matters. These references has been deleted. If there is criticism of the work of Pivar, please add a peer reviewed scientific journal. Thanks. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is libellous or not, and I think the use of the word «crackpot» is, it is *certainly* contentious. So the person who immediately restores it, in light of the previous lack of consensus, might seem to be feeling that they own this page. I do not have a copy of the Nonsense book, but if it doesn't use the word «pseudo-science» (and Mr. 212.219 etc. seems to have checked that this word is not in the source), then I would agree that the reliable source being used, which I have not excised, is not being fairly represented. So I do not see this as an edit war unless two watchers here are also engaged in one....173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)173.70.4.26 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The blog post over which he launched his doomed lawsuit is a reasonable primary source. Two reliable sources support the statements, so it is a frivolous argument that material can be removed because one of the three sources does not meet standards. Pivar is known for using litigation to support his work in biological pseudoscience as demonstrated by reliable sources including a book on law.Novangelis (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There are different statements and different sources. I did not then, and still do not, see that all the statements, or even the statements I excised, were supported by several sources each. Your response above is a little imprecise on this score. Let us be precise. The first statement, which I did not remove and whose source I did not excise, is «Pivar's proposed developmental sequences bear no resemblance to anything actually observed during embryological development». The second statement was «it was about development and evolution of balloon animals». This is an accurate quote, is not libellous, but it is contentious, and its source is low-grade. I removed it and excised the reference. I did not see that it was supported by more than one source, nor do I see that now, so I cannot agree with your hasty assertion that «Two reliable sources support the statements». Each statement seems supported by a different source. This statement is not supported by any reliable source. Because the blog is not part of a publication with a fact checking department, was not published as a result of the peer-review process, and the author is neither eminent nor an authority. The third statement is «Pivar's ideas constitute pseudoscience.» (BTW, this is bad English. You are using the word constitute backwards. The constituents do the constituting, not the other way round.) This has a separate source, of which I do not know the qualifications since I do not own the book. But it is pejorative, obviously violates NPOV, and if Mr. 212 is right that the extremely offensive and contentious word «pseudo-science» does not even occur on the page cited, this might be an example of scholarly dishonesty. Shouldn't you, or someone, verify the quotation, the reference, before blithely restoring it? At the very least, since this is now the second time someone has objected, shouldn't this rephrasing be replaced with an exact quote? Did it not indeed need to be immediately removed because of its contentiousness and the vagueness in its sourcing? Perhaps this book is indeed a reliable source, but there is no science of analysing pseudo-science: you can't get tenure that way, there are no peer reviewed journals «annals of debunking pseudo-science», so it is not actually a reliable *scientific source*, which seems to be what one ought to have for a claim like this. 173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see from google books that Massimo Pigliucci is a professor of philosophy. Now, would any reader of this article have guessed that a professor of philosophy, not biology, was being quoted here? I, a professional scientist and editor, deny that Pigliucci is qualified to judge whether something is pseudo-science or not, simply by being a professor of philosophy at the Univ. of chicago.173.70.4.26 (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

quotation from Wiki policy on reliable source: «Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, » Now, the science blog lacks meaningful editorial oversight even though membership be limited to a select few. Therefore the response to Mr. 212 etc previously, which response was «Scienceblogs is a site that is used on WP quite a bit and is generally considered an RS. It's not like blogspot where everyone can get an account, there is actually a set of requirements» is totally irrelevant. It is the fact-checking, editing, peer-review, and publisher's reputation which makes for reliability.173.70.4.26 (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer the title question of this section, repeatedly deleting reliably sourced material is edit warring, especially if done by someone who has not looked up the sources; the onus of providing evidence falls upon the person making the change. Everything else wikilawyering. (Hint: when wikilawyers run out of guidelines to quote out of context, they try to come up with obscure quotes to impeach the credentials of the authors of reliable sources.) Pigliuuci is a renowned expert on evolutionary biology and philosophy of science, holding two Ph.D.s. The word "pseudoscience" appears in relation to Pivar's doodles on page page 103, but given that pseudoscience is the topic of the book, there is no need for the word to appear on every page. PZ Myers is an expert on embryology, but more importantly the blog entry was made relevant as a source by being targeted in a suit that is reported upon by reliable sources. Nothing needs to be removed.Novangelis (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The PZ Myers quote has been challenged repeatedly, and restored repeatedly. Now, as to the Pigliucci quote, I did not actually remove it in my most recent edits. But Pigliucci is not renowned as a scientist. He is an evolutionary biologist who has become renowned as a philosophically committed warrior-populariser, and the keynote address of the same title as his book is not scientific in the least, it is merely emotionally charged language. This pejorative and inaccurate quote from PIgliucci should be turned into a precise and accurate quote, and since he is a only a philosophy professor at a mediocre, worse than mediocre, university, with PhDs from places that are, really, just academic jokes....Connecticut? Tennessee? Ferrara?, I really do not see the neutrality in quoting him at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.4.26 (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you not think it's a bit hypocritical to claim something is pejorative and then lay in to someone for coming from a "mediocre" university in a clear ad hominem attack (which addresses none of the points made)? Anyway, none of these are policy based reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, feel free to post a message on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is *certain* that the scienceblog of PZMyers does not fit the general Wiki definition of a reliable source. The editors who revert my editing have not even troubled themselves to fix the grammatical mistake I have pointed out. There is not any consensus on the acceptability of the excised sections, if one looks at this talk page, it seems to be 4 in favour and two against. That is not a consensus. I have always provided justification for my excisions, you simply do not like my justifications.173.70.4.26 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the record of this talk page will show that the hasty and intemperate reverts being carried out by watchers is an edit war, not my good faith removal of contentious material which is poorly sourced. such material should not be restored until a consensus is built. 173.70.4.26 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly to include. You, Mr list-of-numbers, are on your own and you are trying to bully you edit preferences into the page. After a while people stop reading your dogmatic outpourings and just revert you. No editor should be able to edit war their way to their own preferred text. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that uninvolved editors at WP:RSN also agree that it's perfectly reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

RS/N, here we come

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#PZ Myers on Stuart Pivar's Lifecode, and cease the reversions. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)