Talk:Eric Pianka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eric Pianka article.
Article policies
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Contents

[edit] Forrest Mims did not Misrepresent Prof. Eric Pianka's Statements

209.208.77.219 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mims-Pianka controversy#Forrest_Mims_did_not_Misrepresent_Prof._Eric_Pianka.27s_Statements

Removed from this page. No point to troll anonymously on three different pages. DLX 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation

Is there a citation for the statement that Mims misrepresented the details of Pianka's acceptance speach? I'm looking for the source or more information.

[edit] re: Misrepresentation

It is alleged that this speech, or at some point before, during, or after presentation, the UT staff was instructed not to record the comments, but there is no evidence of this yet, other than the fact no transcripts are yet available. BTW, I removed the term "Creationist" from the description of Mims. This does not fit the scope of Mims accusations, nor is it a title professing credentials. However, someone replaced it within 15 minutes. Please use Wikipedia responsibly and not for political purposes. I will leave this to someone else to correct. I am not a creationist BTW, and look forward to reading the transcript of Dr. Pianka's speech to determine the truth behind this controversy, as the speech was allegedly recorded by an audience member unknowingly and supposedly in the process of being transcribed.

You should have read the discussion below before removing the term "Creationist" DLX 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, however reading it now I remain fixated on my original position. The term creationist is still out of scope as it is used in its context. It may be important to understand Mims personal views, hoewever those are observent following the Mims links for those interested understanding the motivations of the controversy. These are how Wiki's work. Quite Honestly, the name "Forrest Mims" should be the only term referenced, allowing the reader to explore onward. By your logic and justification regarding where the inclusion appears, all of Mims personal credentials and beliefs should be posited on that line. By not doing so, you risk recording history as "sided". It appears your defaming Mims by using the same tactics currently being used to defame Pianka. I fully support your freedom doing that if you choose, however it would be nice not to see Wikipedia abused in that manner. Please allow the reader to discover history and facts on their own instead of your presentation of selective facts. This goes for anyone depositing similar statements on Mims page.

[edit] re: Misrepresentation

I followed the link to Forrest Mims. On this page there's a comment that "No other sources have as yet confirmed Mims's story; however, see this blog entry[1] for another view of Pianka's lecture." This points to a blogger named "brenna"; not sure what his relation is... He doesn't appear to contradict Mim's statement though:

While what he had to say is way too vast to remember it all, moreover to relay it here in this blog, the bulk of his talk was that he's waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population!
24.181.229.185 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Chris
Where is this cited? Who other than Forrest Mims can attest to these statements? Abe Froman 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I added the Brenna McConnell citation. Presumably, she was a presenter at the meeting -- she was listed in the program, and the blog is brenmccnnll.blogspot.com and belongs to a biology grad student. She seems to think it's a good idea! --SV Resolution(Talk) 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
What Brenna attests to isn't that Pianka wants to engineer an ebola virus to wipe out humanity, but that ecological pressure caused by increasing population makes pandemics likely. [2] Other than extremely insensitive thought experiments, where is the story, here? William Bennett got himself into similar thought experiment trouble when he claimed aborting African Americans would reduce the crime rate. In both situations, the original comments are being taken out of context tendentiously. Abe Froman 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously OR. The blogger does not claim to be McConnell. We can't use it. Guettarda 00:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Can't use it? It's the only other thing available from someone who claims to have heard the address. Why not have it back in with appropriate disclaimers -- "here's a blog entry from someone claiming to have heard the address. The blogger claims Professor Pianka said a super-pandemic was inevitable, and probably good for the earth, but does not mention him advocating anyone to make it happen". --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not the only other account of the talk. Consider Kathryn Perez's account, which specifically addresses her view on whether Mims was accurate about Pianka:

Hi, I was also at Dr. Pianka’s talk at the Texas Academy of Science meeting and came away with a very different impression of his talk that did Mim’s. I think my impression was in the majority judging by the standing ovation given to Dr. Pianka by ~400 fellow scientists. Following is an email I just received asking for my support in censuring Dr. Pianka. I am amazed by the vitriolic intensity of this letter and I would like to emphasize that Mim’s has blantantly and dishonestly mischaracterized Dr. Pianka’s statements. [3]

Wesley R. Elsberry 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The blogger named Brenda could be a conference participant, but sleuthing our way to her identity is OR. An unsigned blog also does not meet the Reputable Publication standard. Abe Froman 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that this is information is a CURRENT EVENT. The most interesting and useful information is not going to be encyclopedic. Perhaps the sleuthing, allegations, references to newsclips and unsigned blogs, etc. belong in wikinews? Would it then be appropriate for the wikipedia article to point to wikinews articles? At least while the controversy is a current event? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the standard is for linking to WikiNews - there's a template {{Wikinews}}, so I assume it would be fine. However, at this point in time there appears to be nothing at Wikinews on this issue. Guettarda 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mims' Creationism

I think the references to Mims' creationism should be removed from this page. They are irrelevant to the claims by Mims, and could be seen as an attempt to discredit his allegations based on what Mims' believes. Mims' own Wikipedia page has enough details on his creationist beliefs. 203.161.88.46 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Forrest Mims is the sole, so far, source of the allegations. His background is necessary for context. Vote keep. Abe Froman 05:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
He's not the sole source. This blog entry is also a source: http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html 203.161.88.46 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep - it is needed to show the background of Mims and also creationism/evolution controversy DLX 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
But Mims' allegation has nothing to do with the creationism/evolution controversy. It's about whether Pianka said that he wanted 90% of humans to die by airbourne ebola or not. My Gripe is basically that Mims' creationism is being used in a prejudicial sense - as if that means his allegations are false. That is definately not NPOV. I can see how people might think that Mims made these allegations to "get back" at an evolutionist - but that's pure speculation at the moment, and also not NPOV. 203.161.88.46 07:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It is useful information - it puts the whole smear campaign in context. Guettarda 12:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying it's a smear campaign is again pure speculation. To date we have no evidence that Mims only did this out of vindictiveness and was not actually reporting the truth.
Yes, that would be OR and speculation, hence it doesn't go in the article. However, given whose involved it does look like a smear campaign. JoshuaZ 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You could definitely get the impression that wikipedia's position is that this is a smear campaign, but I don't believe we have enough information to justify that position. Furthermore, Mims' wiki page includes information about his religious beliefs and scientific background, which in my eyes makes the inclusion of such information within Pianka's article a smear campaign itself. At best I think we have a NPOV dispute.
I'm also not convinced that creationist is a negative term for most people anyways, at least in the US. And it is a very important part of who Mim's is. We generally do give short descriptors of individuals involved and then provide a link for more info. This is standard practice, and I think we all agree that Mims creationism is an important notable detail about Mims. (Also, you may want to sign your statements you can do so by putting four tildes together like this ~~~~. JoshuaZ 12:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
second that. Abe Froman 14:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the another fellow of the DI-Dembski- is involved makes it interesting and part of the whole story, and creatonism as a position in someone with Mim's background is very rare. JoshuaZ 12:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
My take on the relevance of Mims's past history is that it goes to his reliability as a source of information. Going on a couple of decades now, Mims has been claiming to have been fired from SciAm, even though pretty much every time that he says that he has been corrected: he was never hired to the staff position he was interviewing for, thus he cannot have been fired. By my experience of Mims, once he latches onto a misconception, he seems to have trouble letting go of it. I'm not sure exactly how that ought to be conveyed in this article, but I think that the fellow saying that people can follow the link to find out about Mims's links to creationism and ID has a point, and that those who note that Mims's credibility as a source is not complete have a point. How does Wikipedia handle reporting that a claim has been made, but the claimant has a history that might affect one's assessment of the reliability of the claim? Wesley R. Elsberry 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There are really two way - one is the fact that the article is linked, so people can click through and find out more about the person. The other way is to cite a (credible) external source - one that meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources, preferably, which had made that connection. It isn't really our place to say "Person A lacks credibility because...", but rather, to say that "Person X has questioned Person A's credibility because..." (or better yet, "Person A's credibility has been widely questioned (Ref A, Ref B, Ref C). The level of credibility for a given publication varies with the assertion - if Person X says this in his blog, then the blog could be taken as a source (since it says what it says), but the issue would then be (a) the relevance/reputation of Person X, and (b) the reliability of the blog - how willing you are to trust that the blog is actually written by Person X. Guettarda 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia criteria: "outlandish claims beg strong sources." Which raises the question, why is this issue even a part of the article on Pianka? No strong source has supported Mims's outlandish allegations, and a variety of good sources have disputed them. Wesley R. Elsberry 20:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Given the interest it has generated, it makes sense that this should be covered here (or spun off into a separate article linked from here) - Mims made the claim, outlandish as it is, and many people will have heard of Pianka for the first time because of it. We need material here which neutrally states the facts of the matter - Mims made an outlandish claim, Dembski and others jumped on board, but there appears to be nothing that supports Mims' claim. What is a concern is that this article gives a totally warped view of Pianka. It needs to talk about his contribution to science, education and conservation, and put this crap into context. Guettarda 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This article should have a bunch of stuff about the fifty years of science Pianka has contributed despite the physical handicaps, and then have a section for the outlandish accusation to be referenced. The outlandish accusation itself should be a separate article. Wesley R. Elsberry 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's not give any of this undue weight. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It's about whether Pianka said that he wanted 90% of humans to die by airbourne ebola or not. It shouldn't be. The accusation was that Pianka not only saw a population crash as good for the environment, which has been said by any number of people since Malthus, but that Pianka wanted people to manufacture and deploy a pandemic agent to accomplish that. It is this last part that is outlandish and, so far as I can see, completely unsupported by anyone but Mims. Trying to make this about whether Pianka thought the results of a population crash were good or not misses the point. It's interesting to see people with great concerns that Mims's reputation not be unfairly tarnished while blithely passing on outlandish calumny about Pianka. It's a complete inversion of the principle that someone is innocent until proved guilty. Come on folks, it isn't Pianka's place to establish his innocence (which he is shouldering as a burden anyway), it is up to his accuser to back up the claim. "We don't know that the accuser isn't telling the truth" is an invalid justification for treating a claim credulously. Wesley R. Elsberry 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks bringing this back down to Earth. Giving Mims full faith while denying it for Pianka isn't going to fly here. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Mims-Pianka controversy? Guettarda 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Or Mims-Dembski-Pianka controversy, considering Dembski's starring role as lead fink. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you betting this will be the only instance ever? How about Doomsday ecology? Wesley R. Elsberry 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If we are aiming for something that someone might actually type in and get an exact match, Mims-Pianka controversy beats Mims-Dembski-Pianka controversy. If we count on users finding it by searching on "mims pianka", then any of the three should work if the names are included in the article. Wesley R. Elsberry 05:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Malthusian scenarios would be another possible name for an article that would include, but not be exclusive to, the current Mims-Dembski-DI-Pianka flap. Wesley R. Elsberry 09:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website

Dennis Prager read a Senguin Gazette article (I believe this was the newspaper) reporting that some students who took Pianka's class had mentioned his calling for 90% of humanity to be exterminated in his lectures on Pianka's page at the the university's website, but that all student comments were removed within the last few days. The article apparently quoted some of the comments before they were removed from the website. -- Gerkinstock 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a cite for this information? Abe Froman 19:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I've seen blog comments from people who claim to have been in his classes and said he said such things. I have also seen blog comments from people who say they were there at the talk who said that he never said what Mims said he said, that the cameras were never turned off when he spoke (contrary to what Mims said) and that excerpts from the talk were shown on the local news that night. All of this is, of course, unverifiable. Guettarda 19:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website

The comments from Pianka's ex-students have not been removed, to the best of my knowledge. See here:

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/bio357/357evaluations.html

Specifically, do a word search for "ebola". This is from 1998 if I'm reading correctly.

  • EDIT* Comments are from the fall 2004 class.

[edit] quote

If Pianka wants to warn the world as he claimed in the news interview then why were cameramen at his speech asked to turned their cameras off as Pianka told the audience that the world wasn't ready to hear what he had to say? This is a total contradiction and exposes Pianka for the liar he is but the biased self-proclaimed 'journalists' didn't pick up on it. [4]

--Striver 23:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So far, we dont have confirmatiom that the claim about cameras is even true. JoshuaZ 23:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually we have the exact opposite - people who claim that the cameras were not turned off and that parts of the talk were shown on the local evening news. Guettarda 01:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, with injuries that Pianka has, it wouldn't be a wonder if he feels uncomfortable in front of cameras. DLX 04:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not citable (blog) but interesting - [5]. Apparenly the TAS has issued a statement basically backing Pianka's version of events and also it turns out that the newspaper that initially reported the matter is one closely affiliated with Mims, he has written for it in the past. A few other details are there also. JoshuaZ 12:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Panda's Thumb isn't a garden variety blog - it's more of an online publication. Nick Matzke is known and reputable, and PT was named one of the top 25 Science and Technology websites by Scientific American. I'd say it meets the standards of WP:V. Guettarda 14:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
We still haven't gotten a real consensus on the matter as far as I am aware. I talked to Wesley R. Elsberry about this earlier. I would support declaring PT to be a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes but I'm not sure current policy and guidelines really allow for it, and I'm worried about invoking WP:IAR for this. However, if other editors think it is reasonable, I'll go along with it (and then send a note to Elsberry to the effect that PT has been approved a citable source). JoshuaZ 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
PT is reputable to the extent that as you can trust that Matzke is who he says he is. Matzke is a reputable source based on his position at NCSE. The post relates to a statement by the TAS which he says he received. Is he credible enough a source to be trusted as to the source of the letter? Is PT a prominent enough source that if it is a forgery it will soon be decried as such? From that position, I'd be more than comfortable calling it a reputable source for this information. Guettarda 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections to that logic. I'll send Elsberry a note that PT has been approved on a basically case by case basis then. JoshuaZ 15:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of article

I think that the basic structure of the article is sound: there's the biographical information and accomplishments, followed by a section on the recent controversy. However, we seem to have a "wag the dog" situation, as the section on the recent controversy is the most detailed thing on the page. I propose that a separate Wikipedia article be started to contain the details on the Mims accusation. I'm not sure what the title should be; I will leave that to those of you who know Wikipedia policies better. The "Controversy" section should probably be renamed, as I suspect that Pianka will be involved in further controversial encounters with his critics. Perhaps "Controversial Stances" or something of the sort would be a better section name. Within that, I would suggest that one paragraph summarizing the events so far and a link to the separate article I proposed would be sufficient. Most of the links and references in the article currently should be moved to the new article. That's my $0.02. Wesley R. Elsberry 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to the folks who acted on my suggestion. I think the page organization and balance are much better now. Wesley R. Elsberry 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed Partial Transcript

Here [6] note that Pearcey is yet another fellow of the DI. Also, reading this through, she seems to think that it supports Mim's version, but it doesn't. The statements I see look pretty close to what Pianka claimed he said. Is this just me or these people completely miseading it. JoshuaZ 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not just you. I ran across this on StumbleUpon, people were talking about it like he'd planned with his scientist co-conspirators about how best to kill everyone else (sort of a Rainbow Six plot... whoops, sorry if you haven't read that yet, ignore my earlier comment). You know, evil scientists and all. As I said in my review of the page, "Just another half-rate magazine trying to make a name for itself through fear-mongering, sensationalistic panic pandering. " I'm proud of that phrase. Hence, I had to put it on wikipedia somewhere so it will be preserved for eternity. My job here is done. POOF *dissapears in a flash of light*--AK7 00:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript of the Speech

The newspaper which covered the event has provided a transcript. --Thorleywinston 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

correct link DLX 06:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Added the link to external and also a sentence about it to the article. Someone should expand this - a lot. DLX 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
For those of you working on this entry, or hopefully the new page to be made out of the controversy part, you must read Mike Dunford's comparison of the St. Edwards talk transcript with the newspaper article about that talk that ran in the Sequin newspaper. [7] Dunford shows in case after case that the newspaper article omitted relevant context, substituted words or phrases, and always did so to Pianka's detriment. Seguin, TX is Mims's home town. Wesley R. Elsberry 09:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Since the Seguin Gazette links have gone down, I've substituted a link from the Pearcey Report.... It's still a partial, but at least it's up (for now). MarcoTolo 00:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student comments

Apparently the professor's students, including the ones who praise him highly, are all part of the vast creationist conspiracy to falsely attribute extreme environmentalist views to Pianka.

Seriously: Isn't it interesting that these comments about Pianka's views are strikingly consistent with the conclusions reached by Mr. Mims? Maybe, just maybe, those conclusions are actually quite reasonable? Mirror Vax 07:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You included only comments that support Mims. How about stop trolling - it has been said several times that those comments are irrelevant - and there is an external link to them, if someone wants to read them.
Also, you removed link to the transcript of the speech - the transcript clearly shows that Mims was dead wrong. I reverted your changes once more. Wikipedia should be accurate - and show the views of both sides. DLX 09:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
How can the comments by "irrelevant" if they support Mims? That makes them highly relevant, doesn't it? The students who take his classes have a lot more information about him than just one lecture.
From reading the transcript, my impression is that Pianka is a misanthrope. People are killing his precious lizards, and things will be better when 90% of humanity is killed by some plague. It is a matter of interpretation whether taking pleasure in the prospect of a depopulated earth is tantamount to advocating it. If somebody says, "Germany would be better off if 90% of Jews were dead", is that advocating anything? Strictly speaking, no. Mirror Vax 10:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but as an evolutionary ecologist, I totally fail to see "kill 90% message". He talks about the increased possibility that sooner or later a disease/virus/microbe evolves that kills lots and lots of people (quote):
"Now it is only a matter of time until Ebola got here evolves and mutates a little and it will be airborne, and then I think we might finally get a take. And when it sweeps across the world — we're gonna have a lot of dead people. Every one of you that is lucky enough to survive gets to bury nine. Think about that. I doubt Ebola is gonna be the one that gets us. I think it will be, uh, something else."
"But did you ever wonder why things like SARS and now what the Avian Flu are continually cropping up? They're cropping up because we were dumb enough to make a perfect epidemiological substrate for an epidemic. We bred our brains out, and now we're being pegged. The microbes are gonna take over. They're gonna control us as they have in the past. Think about that."


Only a person who looks for something "nasty" with will find his speech to be "hello world, I am gonna kill 5.5 billion humans and I am making an airborne Ebola virus to do it with." There is no such message in his speech. His style is joking, yes - read some of his textbooks to understand that - he uses lots of shoptalk shorthands (ie "lizard will choose" not "due to the selective pressure, individuals with this trait are in favorable position" - but in no place whatsoever he doesn't advocate killing anyone. Only a profane can understand that speech like that - or an ill-wishing individual. DLX 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't think hating humanity is nasty? He hates people. He says that things will be better once 90% of humanity is killed by a plague. It is not a giant leap to go from "things would be better if people were killed" to "people should be killed". People who believe the former can reasonably be assumed to believe the latter - even if they deny it. Mirror Vax 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


He hates people??! Sorry, but I totally fail to see this in the speech. I see that he is worried about the environment, worried about the future and most of all, worried about the future of mankind.
As for the "people should be killed"... that is so far-fetched, that it is even not worth commenting. --DLX 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with DLX here. Mirror Vax, you are reading into this speech all sorts of things that simply aren't there. I can't stop you if you really do want to believe that Eric Pianka wants to be a mass murderer, but you attempts to insert that POV into the article are unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furious attempt to forget it happened

[8] documents the attempt by the original newspaper to basically avoid being associated with the report. Pretty amusing. JoshuaZ 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Few more links - sadly, I don't have time today to update the atrticle:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/wingnuts_in_ful.html
http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2006/04/seguin-gazette-enterprise-and.html
DLX 08:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The articles are back, see Mike Dunford's discussion of the reappearance of the stories. Wesley R. Elsberry 00:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flashback

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm --Striver 10:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, and what does this have to do with a Rosicrucian wannabe? JoshuaZ 14:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This is another example of people in power advocating mass extinction for some nonsense reason. The guys building that stone monument also advocated a reduction to 500 000 people. This is just a example, its more common than you might think.--Striver 19:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Er, there are pretty good reasons to argue for a reduced population. Certainly, we dont have the resources to maintain 6 billion people at the level of comfort that middle class americans have. And see above, it seems clear Pianka wasn't arguing for large scale extinction anyways. JoshuaZ 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski's Irrelevance

This article mentions that Dembski called the Department of Homeland Security, and it says that this call resulted in an investigation of Pianka. As far as I know, the two events were unrelated. Dembski even says on his blog that the Dept. knew about Pianka ahead of time. So why is Demsbki emphasized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.193.115.82 (talk • contribs)

Dembski has been one of the most notable, vocal critics of Pianka. It's relevant. FeloniousMonk 05:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
While I think it's dubious that Dembski is relevant, that's not what worries me. The quote from the article is "Mims' affiliate at the Discovery Institute, William Dembski, then informed the Department of Homeland Security because he and Mims felt that Pianka's speech fomented bioterrorism.[5] This resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewing Pianka in Austin.[6]". This quote is seemingly untrue, as Dembski said on his blog that the Department of Homeland Secuirty was already aware of Pianka's situation at the time he called. So the question is twofold: (1) Why is Dembski relevant to this specific situation and (2) What reason do we have to think that Dembski's phone call resulted in his investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.193.115.82 (talk • contribs)
It should continue to be noted in the article that Pianka's accuser is an avowed Creationist. I will readd this information after a period of time has elapsed to allow other editors to chime in. Abe Froman 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the timing of events points to a coordinated attack on Pianka by the antievolution community, but I don't know that there is any good way to verify that coordination happened as opposed to simple piling on once one of them started. But I think that it is no accident that the primary agitators throughout this have been high-level antievolutionists. Wesley R. Elsberry 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see a single independent source present at the conference corroborate Mims' version of the Pianka speech. Abe Froman 03:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Wes here nails it. The fact that the two most prominent attackers are fellows at the Discovery Institute pretty much seals the deal; it's definately orchestrated. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with whether Dembski was responsible for the DHS interviewing Pianka? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.193.115.82 (talk • contribs)
The more relevant question would be what did Pianka's speech have to do with Dembski? FeloniousMonk 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't; at least not for this matter. The article says that Dembski's call resulted in Pianka's investigation. As of right now, there is no source saying that this is so, and Dembski's blog indicates otherwise. So, pending an actual source, the statement needs to read differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.193.115.82 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Removed from article

I've removed the following passage. Pearcey, a prominent ID supporter and pal of Dembski is wholly partisan here and adds nothing new to the issue. Her viewpoint, were it to be included anywhere, belongs in the controversy article, not the bio.

According to a partial transcript made available by the Pearcey Report .[1] Dr. Pianka encourages the development of a virus capable of eliminating 90 percent of the population. Moreover, he lauds the Chinese police state and its one child and forced abortion policies.

If it's going to be used at the controversy article, it will need to avaoid presenting Pearcey's assertions as fact. FeloniousMonk 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed from article

Removed a recent edit that included a complete transcript of Mims' account of Pianka's talk. This belongs in the controversy article. The edit expanded the "controversy" section to nearly the length of the biography, which is the primary focus of this article. Moreover, this new text was concluded by an assertion that a web page on Pianka's site advocated a "proactive" approach to population control. This assertion directly followed allegations that Pianka was advocating genocide and/or forced abortions and was used as a counter to Pianka's denial of these allegations, implying further that the "proactive" approach involved these methods. However, the actual article at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html does no such thing, and the strongest "proactive" statement it makes is "We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that." Interestingly, the assertion by the recent editor did not include a citation of the article, probably because the assertion as framed was untrue and potentially libelous. 128.83.54.233 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EricPianka.gif

I have tagged the image for deletion as replaceable fair use of a living person. I have emailed Professor Pianka and hope to get a free use image for this page. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this image from the page. Hopefully someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin can provide a free replacement photo. Richard001 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)