Talk:Jerry Coyne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Recent Anon Edits[edit]

I have reverted a few anon-edit deletions and pointed the editor to this talk page. I hope they can provide appropriate reasons for removing substantiated work from the article. Kyle(talk) 21:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

New Draft[edit]

I have prepared a new draft of this article and will be posted soon. Reviews are warranted and appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamar (talkcontribs) 01:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. Definitely an improvement. Thanks for mentioning the categories of evidence for Evolution in WEIT. --Javaweb (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Javaweb
You are welcome. I found some upper case titles and small words which have been corrected (I hope.) Coyne deserves an objective summary; I hope I have achieved that. Kyle(talk) 05:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

The Bell Curve[edit]

I removed a bit stating that "Professor Coyne is also an opponent of scientific racism, stating that the The Bell Curve was inaccurate in his review of Darwin's Black Box." The source which was used to substantiate this claim cannot support this sentence. All it does is indicate that Professor Coyne most likely does not like the book. It gives no explanation of why he does not like it. The question of whether The Bell Curve is at all an instance of scientific racism is by no means resolved, and to state such a thing amounts to a clear breach of NPOV policy. Szfski (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Why does this guy have an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:PROF to see why this subject easily warrants an article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Undoing unjustified deletion[edit]


Recently I commented about criticisms regarding Coyne's advocation of atheism by putting that his views on the field are criticized about people such as William Lane Craig (philosopher). After that, though, Mr. Johnuniq deleted the edition claiming that "this article is about Coyne, not Craig". I would like to advise that I'm now undoing his deletion under the claim that his justification for that is unsificient and, well, simply bad. If we can't talk about revisions of someone's work in his page, than there are a lot of pages in Wikipedia that have extensive material that should be deleted - but its not what is happening, and it seems that it will never happen. More than that, in no way the two lines of text that I wrote are trying somehow to tell something "about Craig"; by the contrary, it's all about Coyne, more specifically about his justification of atheism, and the criticisms he recieved from other people.

If someone has something more to add about this case, please tell me here, but if Johnuniq don't present any better reason for deleting thoose lines or convince me that I'm talking "about Craig" (and if anybody do so), than I think we have good reasons to not aprove Johnuniq's act.

Thank you.

Momergil (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this article is a biography of Coyne, and material here should assist readers wanting information about Coyne. The article says "He claims that religion and science are incompatible", and all readers would immediately understand that this claim is hotly disputed by people with a different outlook. Adding a link to William Lane Craig with a redlink to an article on Craig's website, with a reference that leads to Craig's website does not help this article, and may be regarded as WP:REFSPAM: a promotion of Craig by mentioning him and his website on any possible page. What might be helpful would be a link to an article about the concept of "religion and science", where the views of proponents on both sides would be explored, and where it would be appropriate to include a discussion of Craig with links to his website. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The book "Why Evolution is True"[edit]

I think there needs to be more about Prof. Coyne's role as a popular writer and a short outline of the case he makes for evolution. Here is are References for working on the article:

--Javaweb (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Link to review[edit]

The external link section contains a link to a book review in Intelligent magazine. This review is very uninformative and unstructured. I would like to see justification for its inclusion or it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It says virtually nothing about the book and not much about Coyne. It adds nothing and should probably be removed. AIRcorn (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

photo: can we please get a better picture of Coyne?[edit]

can we please get a better picture of Coyne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, replaced photo with one of better quality. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done

Section on Coyne's support for antipsychiatry?[edit]

Coyne, although a critic of pseudoscience in some forms, is a supporter of anti-psychiatry (, going so far as to claim that "medical psychiatry is largely a scam, a rotten-to-the-core coalition between psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies". How could this best be organized? New section on "criticisms" maybe? EmilKarlsson (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Secondary sources to show notability would be needed before this could be added. de Bivort 14:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
*I agree that secondary sources will be needed; but Coyne is often the subject of secondary commentary. I suspect we will not have to wait very long for substantiation. The question of organization will largely depend upon how secondary sources quote Coyne on this subject. They may choose to focus on the lack of root-cause for depression, lack of controlled studies regarding drug effectiveness, or something else. Kyle(talk) 16:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

celebratory article[edit]

Sorry... But , as a simple wikipedia reader,I can say that this article seems a little celebratory... On the web I can find so many articles against Coyne's thought even in scientific community . Why on wiki it's not the same? No criticism at all and this is always a bad move for wikipedia. Maybe due to lazy authors. Only my opinion of course

Your anonymous opinion is valuable. It is better when not anonymous. I think the comment deserves a reply however. Information regarding living persons is held to a very high standard on Wikipedia. Proper citations, from neutral secondary sources, can easily be added to articles about living persons. Kyle(talk) 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
My name is Matteo and I'm an italian sociologist. Tnx for your reply.. I hope that people with an interest in the issue can read the talk and improve the Coyne's page (if I will have time I will provide on my own ;)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You are taking the right first steps Matteo. Starting a conversation on the talk page is a good way to discuss additions to the page and discuss citations for inclusion. Remember to add four '~' to the end of your comment; to automatically sign your reply. I suspect that the controversy you mention above is related to a belief system and not the publication of scientific findings. Can you elaborate on what you feel is missing from the article? Also, I have corrected only the formatting for your previous comment. Kyle(talk) 21:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article seems biased. In order to achieve balance I have added a short statement about a thoughtful article written by two Phds.Jimjilin (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules: Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.Jimjilin (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but you don't do it by pushing your own POV, by stating "misunderstanding the relationship between science and religion" as fact and linking to a primary source. You should be able to achieved balance by finding a secondary source and avoiding a POV statement. Mosmof (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
And what you posted was a blog post. Can you find a WP:RS on the subject? Say, a mainstream subject-matter news source? Given Coyne's recent book, there should be reviews in respectable sources that address the matter in question - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a biographical article. It presents the person's work that justifies an article on them. All substantiated arguments against any of Coyne's positions should be mentioned in the appropriate articles on that topic (for example, on Intelligent Design). The demand for a NPOV in biographies is protection against libel, not to balance out opinionated views. @Jimjilin: You can always find two PhDs who have a different opinion about any position ever held. --Arno Matthias (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)