Talk:Jerry Coyne

message: I am adding information from a Chicago Maroon article about Jerry Coyne. Suggestions welcome and appreciated!  I will be posting additions soon.  Alhill42 (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Added information

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Anon Edits 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Draft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Bell Curve 

message: Why does this guy have an article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.227.209 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:PROF to see why this subject easily warrants an article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  why? 

message: Hello.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undoing unjustified deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The book "Why Evolution is True" 

message: 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 178.191.247.132 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link to review 

message: can we please get a better picture of Coyne?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.180.51 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, replaced photo with one of better quality. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo: can we please get a better picture of Coyne? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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 95.237.42.200 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  celebratory article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerry Coyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150306213612/http://atheistallianceamerica.org/articles/jerry-coyne-receives-2015-richard-dawkins-award/ to http://atheistallianceamerica.org/articles/jerry-coyne-receives-2015-richard-dawkins-award/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've deleted a sentence in the 'Pseudoscience critic' section about Coyne's views on the neurodiversity movement. He has posted only a single piece on the topic, and it isn't an area that he has any expertise on or notability in. JezGrove (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How many pieces are needed? More than the number of times he mentioned Steve Bannon (see Politics and free speech section)? Isn't a comment on neurodiversity more notable than his hobby of feeding ducks (noted in Personal section)? Martindo (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on neurodiversity movement 

message: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21029
This article from 2016 discusses reproductive isolation and notes:
the large X-effect (also known as “Coyne’s rule” or “large Z-effect”) refers to the disproportionally high impact of X or Z chromosomes, compared to autosomes, in driving hybrid dysfunction
''
But I can't find any mention of this notable "rule" here on his bio page. I hope someone familiar with the field can add it.Martindo (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coyne's Rule 

message: This article has not kept up with Jerry Coyne's alignment with the far-right. He is obsessed with "woke" - just see his blog:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/?s=woke&orderby=relevance&order=DESC&post_type=post
And although he claims to be a liberal and a Democrat, he constantly promotes right-wingers like Bari Weiss, and the racist rag Quillette - both funded by far-right Republicans - Harlan Crow, in the case of Weiss and Peter Thiel, in the case of Quillette. He wrote an op-ed promoting far-right racialist Bo Winegard. 
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2023/06/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology/
If none of this is mentioned in the article, it represents a white-washing of Coyne's political views and activities. Nancygerette (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, you need to provide reliable sources to support these claims. Coyne (justifiably) being critical of "woke" ideology does not change the fact that his political positions are generally left-leaning. It is a common tactic among proponents of these sorts of ideologies to label anyone opposed to them as being "alt-right" or "reactionary". Partofthemachine (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coyne's reactionary views