Talk:Stephen C. Meyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Palm Beach Atlantic University???

Dr. Meyer is no longer listed as a faculty member of Palm Beach Atlantic University. http://www.pba.edu/Academic/facultylistings.cfm#M

[edit] Scholarship to Cambridge

I have his dissertation in my hand, and it says that the scholarship he received was from the Rotary Club of Dallas.

[edit] Biased Article

This article needs to be tagged for it;s atheistic bias. There is a mean spirited tone to what is supposibly a neutral article.

Exactly how does it have an "atheistic bias"? The content you insist on deleting it neutral, factual, supported and relevant. It does not assert any facts that aren't attributed or supported. FeloniousMonk 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is Meyer called a theologian? He doesn't seem to have a degree in theology, and his Ph.D. is in history and philosophy of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.251.14 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debates section

This section really doesn't add anything to the article. Is it really necessary? FeloniousMonk 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from Talk:KillerChihuahua

  • Stephen Meyer

I agree that it is relevant, but it is stated formerly in the "Peer review controversy" section. there is no need for duplication, other than to editorially discredit the paper. When listing papers in a "Sceintific Paper" section, it is sufficient to list the papers. Any questions about the quality or validity about the paper are addressed in a previous section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggnate (talkcontribs) 18:33, 19 July 2006

I will take another look. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). KillerChihuahua?!? 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, it is relevant. The reader may not realize this is the paper mentioned in the controversy section above. I would support a re-wording, perhaps, but the way it was without the information, it read as though it had been published. It is misleading to the reader. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would support a reference to the [edit]controversy, i.e. leave the blurb that says "see:Sternberg peer review controversy"

--Diggnate 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • END copied content *

I removed the duplicated info, but left the blurb referring to the Sternberg peer review controversy

You have not gained any support for this change. Please stop making it until and unless there is some kind of consensus for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting internal links and reference tags to this article

Edits I made adding reference tags to external links and internal tags to Wikipedia articles I felt would be helpful in explaining the complicated subjects being discussed have been reverted and called heavy handed and trivial; I will admit I got tired (and perhaps sloppy) after tagging the first dozen primary sources not meeting WP:RS and internal tags to numerous Title Of Something Listed In All Capital Letters But Is Red-Linked Because It Seems To Have No Presence Beyond This Page. Flowanda | Talk 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, links to such mindbogglingly relevant articles as seed money, grant & fellow. I suppose we should be glad you didn't link to the kitchen sink. HrafnTalkStalk 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing what those silly tags and bare external links actually bring up, especially when there's not a kitchen sink in sight. Seriously, though, I'm not a jerk and neither are you...rather than reverting and then redoing the reference tags, it would seem more helpful to either build on what on what I was trying to do or point out ways I could make editing easier for other editors. But, good grief, after adding reference tags to a dozen external links not meeting kitchen sink that would either need to be removed or replaced, I was exhausted barely halfway through the article. Flowanda | Talk 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-ref-ing from scratch was far easier than trawling through your grab-bag of garbage wikilinks & redlinks -- particularly given that your refs didn't bother to include anything useful like title, author, etc. HrafnTalkStalk 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing. Flowanda | Talk 12:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Meyer is

Meyer is current an executive officer of a think tank. He's best known for his ID advocacy. He's also a founder of the ID movement, not just the CSC. Any intro that ommits these three points is simply wrong and lacking. Odd nature (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of him playing a leadership role in the movement prior to becoming co-director of the CRSC in 1996. However I have found (and included in the article) some evidence of his involvement in the movement prior to this. I still think that calling him a "founder" of it is an exaggeration (he was only one of 39 members of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee'), but this new information provides at least some cover for the claim. HrafnTalkStalk 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)