Talk:A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism/Archive 2

message: Filll has just eliminated one of the signers from the "see also" section because "articles on individuals who signed the statement should not be here...it will get too crowded" -- quite correctly to my mind. Would it be appropriate to create a Category for 'signers of the Dissent from Darwinism' instead? Hrafn42 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signatories to... and yeah I think a Cat would better than a list. ornis 21:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's alright I've already made it. You just needed to follow the red link and type in a blurb and give it a parent cat. ornis 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been going through the list of signatories, but it's starting to make my brain hurt. I got to: Rosalind Picard. If anyone goes further through the list could you post were you got to here. ornis 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some signatories are listed by their first name (e.g. Michael Behe under M), others by their family name (e.g Frank Tipler under T). Reason? Can anybody fix this? Northfox 03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behe is listed under B on the Category page (between John Baumgardner & David Berlinski currently). The petition-list itself appears to be in no particular order (may be in order it was signed, may be not). Hrafn42 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confucius he fix, and say "piped name put Behe, Michael in order" ..... dave souza, talk 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Very impressive. You are going much faster than I would have imagined. I did check the first page or two and added a few, but you guys are beating me hollow. Wow.--Filll 14:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ornis, have you proceeded further? If not, I volunteer to check from Snyder (page 6 near the top) to M. Harold Laughlin (page 7 bottom). Coordinating it in such a way will prevent us from checking the same names over and over. Other volunteers, announce your search interval and we can process the whole list easily. Northfox 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm? No I haven't but when I do, I'll start from Laughlin then, unless someone goes further. ornis 05:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: finished checking until Laughlin, found two entries. Northfox 07:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As much as I argued against the category and in favor of a list, I think that both would be useful, as I stated at the discussion link above.--Filll 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if both is possible, that would be best. In an either/or decision, I would tend towards a list. Northfox 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they are interested in deleting inappropriate categories in general. Northfox 05:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that would tend to give them a somewhat generic/doctrinaire approach to the matter. A category is largely appropriate according to how notable & useful it is (per FM in the deletion discussion), and those can only be judged by editors who actually work in the area of articles covered by the category. Hrafn42 05:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signers Category? 

message: To my eyes, this is a pretty clear case of OR that we do not need to do.--Filll 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this clearly substantiates the sentence before and after the one Northfox is complaining about, but not for the specific claims in that sentence itself. This leaves us with the question of whether we can use the words of the 'Dissent' document itself as substantiation, or whether this is impermissible OR. Hrafn42 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specifics are readily apparent to anyone with any familiarity with these characters, and other sources make the point which let's forget is accurate, so it needs to stay. Odd nature 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact wording from Forrest article 

message: There are 48 emerti on the list, and 5 retired.--Filll 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many others I could include on the list, but I just put a couple of examples in the text as illustrative. We could spend months doing this, but it is not worth it. The fact that these kinds of errors exist, after the DI has been criticized repeatedly for this kind of hanky panky already is a bad sign.--Filll 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As much as an editor here wants to paint Sternberg in the most positive light, the list does not describe his two PhDs. We are not here to give a resume for Sternberg. This is ludicrous. I say we go back to the previous consensus paragraph about Sternberg before I screwed it up. And I add a new paragraph illustrating the point I was trying to make about Bernard d'Abrera.--Filll 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On page 11 of the Feb. 2007 edition of the list, a Richard Sternberg is listed with his two PhDs. Northfox 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If I may disagree with you on specifics, while agreeing with your general thrust Filll, it is clear that not all of signatories have PhDs (d'Abrera serves as a valid counterexample, refuting the claim that they all have PhDs), what is not clear is how many of them lack PhDs (or only have PhDs outside the DI's invitation, i.e. science, maths, engineering). Hrafn42 10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To track all these down would be a gargantuan task. One or two examples will have to suffice. And a reference to the British Center for Science Education which has done something similar. And to an interview with Eugenie Scott where she has done a bit of fact checking as well. It was a huge pain in the butt for me to dig up information about d'Abrera. Still some things about him I do not know. There are some clues that he mainly lives in the UK, some that he mainly lives in the Australia, and some that he moves back and forth. He might also give singing lessons over the internet to young boys, but I am not sure. He was involved in a college stunt to steal an alligator from the Sydney Zoo. This stuff I did not put in his biography article here. They are among the loose hanging ends that I could not resolve.--Filll 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that going through all of them is infeasible. The obvious thing to do is to pick out some low-hanging fruit from the bunch. Those lacking an explicit PhD/DSc mention or Head/Chair/Prof/Lecturer/Post-Doc title would appear to be the obvious candidates:
=== Suspect list ===
* B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada
* David Chambers Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
* David W. Rusch Sr. Research Scientist, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado
* Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
* Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory
* Douglas Nelson Rose Research Physicist United States Army
* Forrest Mims Atmospheric Researcher Geronimo Creek Observatory -- this is one we know doesn't have a PhD: "Mims has no formal academic training in science but has a career as a science author, lecturer and syndicated columnist."
* Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho
* Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK)
* Giulio D. Guerra First Researcher of the Italian National Research Council (Chemistry) Istituto Materiali Compositi e Biomedici, CNR (Italy)
* Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
* Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles -- MD not PhD
* John Brown Research Meteorologist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* John Stamper Research Physicist Naval Research Laboratory
* Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control
* Khawar Sohail Siddiqui Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia)
* M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
* Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
* Martin Krause Research Scientist (Astronomy) University of Cambridge (UK)
* Mary A. Brown DVM (Veterinary Medicine) Ohio State University -- DVM in US = medical rather than research doctorate
* Miguel A. Rodriguez Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada)
* Oleh Havrysh Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemsitry & Petrochemistry
* Patricia Reiff Director, Rice Space Institute Rice University
* Philip S. Taylor Research Fellow, Computer Science Queen’s University Belfast (UK)
* Ricardo Leon Dean of School of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) -- correct name: Ricardo Leon Borquez, MD, not PhD 
* Rodney Ice Principle Research Scientist, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
* Ronald R. Crawford Ed.D. Science Education Ball State University -- this one can go into the non-sci/math/eng doctorate section
* Russel Peak Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems Georgia Institute of Technology
* Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
* Tetsuichi Takagi Senior Research Scientist Geological Survey of Japan
* Thomas C. Majerus PharmD; FCCP University of Minnesota -- professional doctorate
* Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa -- PhD is in Education
* Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory
* Woody Weed Mechanical Engineer, Science & Technology Division Sandia National Labs
I'd suggest anybody who is interested in looking them up cross them out after a doctorate has been found for them.
Hrafn42 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow these are a lot of people. I wonder what format we should report these in? I guess it depends what we find. Just another 2 or 3 examples of "suspicious" listings would really round out our points and make it quite clear that this list is almost meaningless. However, our criticism section is already pretty long. I guess we can have a detailed discussion and make sure we summarize it in another place so people do not have to slog through a lot of detail.--Filll 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is merely a list of candidates who I think have a lower than average probability of having a PhD. We still need to go through them. I've found one to date, Forrest Mims, who definitely doesn't have a PhD, as well as several that, on further investigation definitely or probably do have one. Hrafn42 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. All one has to do is find a couple to cast doubt on the entire list and glorious edifice, to show that it is just probably nonsensical. Even if you find out that their affiliation is wrong, or credentials exagerrated, or they do not subscribe to creationism etc, it is valuable information that can be presented.--Filll 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this gives an indication of problems, enough to encourage someone who is at least a bit doubtful to want to question the list more. After all, we have cast doubt on the credentials of at least 10 or so of the 700 signatories of the list, with only a little effort. I suspect that with a little more effort, this could be much greater. That, coupled with the confusion that NCSE and BCSE found when they tried to interview those on the list suggests that the list is just a sleezy sales job to trick the public. From the Australian radio show, I gather that NCSE tried to contact a few people on the list, and the first 10 or so responses they obtained were that the people all were firmly committed to biological evolution, but did not believe evolution was responsible for the creation of life itself, or some other confusion. They were unable to find a single person on the list that agreed with intelligent design when they were interviewing them. This investigation quickly came to an end when the Discovery Institute caught wind of it and told the people on the list to refuse to talk to the NCSE.--Filll 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find odd is that a disproportionate number of those with irregularities seem to be people that the DI would have some contact with, or at least knowledge of. These cannot be dismissed as merely mistakes in vetting, they are clear indications of purposeful deception. Hrafn42 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Then they're either not listening to their PR-hacks or should fire them. The flakiest few that the allow onto the list (d'Abrera, Mims, for instance) cost them far more in credibility than they add in numbers. If you have 700+ you can afford to lose a dozen or so to make it not quite so easy for nay-sayers such as ourselves to shoot holes in them. As they're going, they may as well put Peter Pan onto the list. :/ Hrafn42 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Today

message: * B. K. Nelson Research Toxicologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* Christopher Morbey Astronomer (Ret.) Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada
* David Chambers Physicist Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
* David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
* David W. Rusch Sr. Research Scientist, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Colorado
* Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
* Dennis Dean Rathman Staff Scientist MIT Lincoln Laboratory
* Douglas Nelson Rose Research Physicist United States Army
* Forrest Mims Atmospheric Researcher Geronimo Creek Observatory -- this is one we know doesn't have a PhD: "Mims has no formal academic training in science but has a career as a science author, lecturer and syndicated columnist."
* Gary Maki Director, Ctr. for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research University of Idaho
* Geoff Barnard Senior Research Scientist, Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge (UK)
* Giulio D. Guerra First Researcher of the Italian National Research Council (Chemistry) Istituto Materiali Compositi e Biomedici, CNR (Italy)
* Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
* Jeffrey Schwartz Assoc. Res. Psychiatrist, Dept. of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences University of California, Los Angeles -- MD not PhD
* John Brown Research Meteorologist National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* John Stamper Research Physicist Naval Research Laboratory
* Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control
* Khawar Sohail Siddiqui Senior Research Associate (Protein Chemistry) University of New South Wales (Australia)
* M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
* Manuel Garcia Ulloa Gomez Director of Marine Sciences Laboratory Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico)
* Martin Krause Research Scientist (Astronomy) University of Cambridge (UK)
* Mary A. Brown DVM (Veterinary Medicine) Ohio State University -- DVM in US = medical rather than research doctorate
* Miguel A. Rodriguez Undergraduate Lab. Coordinator for Biochemistry University of Ottawa (Canada)
* Oleh Havrysh Senior Research Assistant, Protein & Peptide Structure & Function Dept. Institute of Bioorganic Chemsitry & Petrochemistry
* Patricia Reiff Director, Rice Space Institute Rice University
* Philip S. Taylor Research Fellow, Computer Science Queen’s University Belfast (UK)
* Ricardo Leon Dean of School of Medicine Autonomous University of Guadalajara (Mexico) -- correct name: Ricardo Leon Borquez, MD, not PhD 
* Rodney Ice Principle Research Scientist, Nuclear & Radiological Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology
* Ronald R. Crawford Ed.D. Science Education Ball State University -- this one can go into the non-sci/math/eng doctorate section
* Russel Peak Senior Researcher, Engineering Information Systems Georgia Institute of Technology
* Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry
* Tetsuichi Takagi Senior Research Scientist Geological Survey of Japan
* Thomas C. Majerus PharmD; FCCP University of Minnesota -- professional doctorate
* Tianyou Wang Research Scientist Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement & Assessment, University of Iowa -- PhD is in Education
* Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory
* Woody Weed Mechanical Engineer, Science & Technology Division Sandia National Labs
I'd suggest anybody who is interested in looking them up cross them out after a doctorate has been found for them.
Hrafn42 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow these are a lot of people. I wonder what format we should report these in? I guess it depends what we find. Just another 2 or 3 examples of "suspicious" listings would really round out our points and make it quite clear that this list is almost meaningless. However, our criticism section is already pretty long. I guess we can have a detailed discussion and make sure we summarize it in another place so people do not have to slog through a lot of detail.--Filll 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is merely a list of candidates who I think have a lower than average probability of having a PhD. We still need to go through them. I've found one to date, Forrest Mims, who definitely doesn't have a PhD, as well as several that, on further investigation definitely or probably do have one. Hrafn42 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. All one has to do is find a couple to cast doubt on the entire list and glorious edifice, to show that it is just probably nonsensical. Even if you find out that their affiliation is wrong, or credentials exagerrated, or they do not subscribe to creationism etc, it is valuable information that can be presented.--Filll 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this gives an indication of problems, enough to encourage someone who is at least a bit doubtful to want to question the list more. After all, we have cast doubt on the credentials of at least 10 or so of the 700 signatories of the list, with only a little effort. I suspect that with a little more effort, this could be much greater. That, coupled with the confusion that NCSE and BCSE found when they tried to interview those on the list suggests that the list is just a sleezy sales job to trick the public. From the Australian radio show, I gather that NCSE tried to contact a few people on the list, and the first 10 or so responses they obtained were that the people all were firmly committed to biological evolution, but did not believe evolution was responsible for the creation of life itself, or some other confusion. They were unable to find a single person on the list that agreed with intelligent design when they were interviewing them. This investigation quickly came to an end when the Discovery Institute caught wind of it and told the people on the list to refuse to talk to the NCSE.--Filll 12:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I find odd is that a disproportionate number of those with irregularities seem to be people that the DI would have some contact with, or at least knowledge of. These cannot be dismissed as merely mistakes in vetting, they are clear indications of purposeful deception. Hrafn42 13:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Then they're either not listening to their PR-hacks or should fire them. The flakiest few that the allow onto the list (d'Abrera, Mims, for instance) cost them far more in credibility than they add in numbers. If you have 700+ you can afford to lose a dozen or so to make it not quite so easy for nay-sayers such as ourselves to shoot holes in them. As they're going, they may as well put Peter Pan onto the list. :/ Hrafn42 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspect list 

message: I wrote to the University of New South Wales to verify d'Abrera's lack of PhD, and this was confirmed:
--------------------
Confirmation of Qualification - Mr Bernard D'Abrera 
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:13:29 +1000 
     
 
Dear XXX,
 
I am writing in reply to your email dated 7 August 2007 requesting confirmation of the qualification of Mr Bernard D'Abrera.
 
I can confirm that we have a student by the name of Bernard D'Abrera.  He is a graduate of the University of New South Wales and was admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts on 21 April 1965. 
 
Regards,
Laura Chan
 
Laura Chan | Client Services Officer | Student Administration and Records | UNSW Student Services | The University of New South Wales SYDNEY NSW 2052 | Phone+ 612 9385 2433 | Fax + 612 9385 1252 | CRICOS Provider Code 00098G 
----------------------
--Filll 13:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bernard d'Abrera]] 

message: An editor is attempting to whitewash Picard's signing of the dissent, and is repeatedly attempting to restore unsourced POV 'puff piece' material on her. Any assistance would be appreciated. Hrafn42 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moulton: Your tendentious attempt to disassociate the original title from the original petition is spurious and uncompelling. She is a signatory to a petition that has, since its first publication, been entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". She was stupid enough to venture outside her area of expertise to put her name to a petition announcing her "skepticism" of a (strawman version) of a widely accepted scientific theory. The difference between "dissent from darwinism" and "skepticism of ... random mutation and natural selection ... Darwinian theory" is insufficient to claim that the title misrepresented her views. She has further made no attempt to distance herself from or disavow the 'dissent'. So why should we take your unsubstantiated word that it is nothing to do with her? Hrafn42 10:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Moulton, I suggest you read WP:NPA and then seriously consider striking through some of your remarks above. I'd also recommend a consideration of the letter and spirit of WP:3RR in light of the article history, and a revision of your strategy. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not only are Moulton's claims a violation of WP:NPA, but they are a gross distortion of what I have said, as well as what the 'Dissent' statement actually says. As such, I don't really see any point in talking to Moulton further -- it would merely give him more to distort. Hrafn42 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section whose name Moulton keeps changing to "[[User:Hrafn42]]", but is really about [[Rosalind Picard‎]] 

message: The present opening paragraph seems to me to be rather vague and uninformative:
It seems to me to miss the point that the statement signed is vague to the point of not actually disagreeing with the principle of evolution, and is presented with an interpretative statement which creates a particular impression of how they want readers to understand the statement. Here's a proposal for a more informative intro:
The changes are sourced from the Skip Evans NCSE article. I'd suggest that the Discovery Institute usage section should set out the misleading nature of the introductory statement, as discussed in that article. .. dave souza, talk 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not a bad idea at all. Other comments?--Filll 19:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This looks good, except that I'd change the first sentence to "the ability of mutation and natural selection", in line with the 'Dissent' statement. Hrafn42 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Which revised wording? In my opinion the proposed wording in the box I added above fully meets the points you're making, and is more informative. Do you consider it a good way forward? .. dave souza, talk 23:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: The above revision to the opening sentence then makes it possible to augment the second paragraph along these lines...
<Blockquote></Blockquote>
A key observation, which a little research should be able to confirm, is that the original petition, as signed by the first 103, only carried the two-sentence quote.  It did not carry any of the other text of the ad, including the headline.  I learned this a year ago from Roz Picard, who was one of the original 103 signers.  She was miffed that the sentence urging skepticism was spun into "dissent."  It may be a subtle point, easily lost on a gullible public, but it's a point that can be verified factually, and then tacked onto Skip Evan's comparable analysis of the spinning of the PBS portion of the ad.
I was frankly astounded to discover that this point had not come to the attention of the editors here, especially since a careful examination of the ad makes it clear that the headline and PBS attack are not part of the material in the gray box.  I thought the NY Times article did a fair job of casting doubt on the ad, especially with the quotes revealing the signers had never heard of DI or its agenda.
As it happens, Roz Picard's research projects (and those of her colleagues at the Media Lab) are frequently featured on PBS programs such as Scientific American Frontiers.  It is absurd to believe that a faculty member would knowingly endorse an ad attacking a PBS science series.  And it's reasonably clear that the signers of the statement in quotes had no inkling that DI was going to abuse and distort the quote in such an unethical and reprehensible manner.  This is the kind of bad faith behavior on the part of DI that needs to be exposed.  
I was frankly chagrinned to observe that some of the editors on this project bought into DI's mischaracterization and repeated it in Wikipedia as if it were demonstrated fact.  Now it's time to fix that regrettable mistake.  I believe you already have sufficient evidence to proceed.  But Filll also may be able to dig up further evidence above and beyond what is already at hand.
OK.  I've vented my spleen enough on the unfairness issue.  Now let's roll up our sleeves and do some proper science here to shore up the evidence required to establish the facts as I've outlined them.
Moulton 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Paragraph

message: A bit further on, we come to this proposed augmentation:
<Blockquote></Blockquote>
We are driving the same point home, perhaps to the point of overkill.
But DI is a hardy horse.  Mebbe it needs a good thrashing.
Moulton 22:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be all reverted. There is too much WP:OR in it.--Filll 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do an experiment and find out. Moulton 21:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would violate WP:POINT. Odd nature 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So you went ahead and did it  even though you knew doing so violated WP:NOR and WP:POINT? You won't get far at Wikipedia with that method and attitude. Odd nature 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beating a Dead Horse Even More

message: Check these out: 
*
*
*
If you can get past the crappy graphics and production values, the content makes for excellent primary source material. Have fun with this, kiddies:  Odd nature 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are from 1996.  I don't see anything there connected to the 2001 statement.  Moulton 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, other than it's the same organization, the DI? Odd nature 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah that is the original 2001 version, with Davidson removed. They clearly scrubbed the versions which he was included in quite vigorously. I keep hoping to find a version that still includes Davidson's name, but so far, no luck.--Filll 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was the result of a court order can you find any citations to the case?  Or do you know if it was negotiated out of court?  Moulton 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Court order? What are you talking about? Do you even bother to read the article? Odd nature 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if there was a court order involved or legal action. It does not say so in the newspaper article. I vaguely remember someone threatening legal action to get off the list, but I might be misremembering. There is no indication that Davidson did, as far as I know.--Filll 22:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Davidson is the only one who ever got off the list, then either he is the one who had to resort a lawsuit (or threat of lawsuit), or else someone else who tried the legal route failed to get off using that method.  Do we have any information on how long it took for Davidson to reach his goal?  Moulton 23:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be about four years.  Not all that encouraging, eh?  Moulton 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm frustrated and dispirited.  I had a long talk with one of the better known 2001 signers a year ago, and also long talks with her husband, with the MIT Police, with the US Postal Inspectors, and with other authorities.  In the end nothing really changed.  The harassment just eventually died away after about a year.  I have plenty of information, but there isn't anything usea lotful I can do with it.  In the end it comes down to what it takes to craft a functional society -- a goal that I once believed was possible.  Now I'm much more cynical about it.  There just aren't enough influential systems thinkers on the planet to achieve a paradigm shift to a functional system.  Moulton 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The December 10, 2005 version of the Petition I dug up has Davidson's name on it. The others obviously were sanitized. We might be able to find more. Sa loto roll up your sleeves, and start working, and stop complaining.--Filll 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing left to do.  The cause is hopeless.  Leonard Cohen was right.  Everybody knows that the good guys lost.  That's how it goes.  Everybody knows. Moulton 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I now have 9 different versions of the petition. I could get more I think, but I have some gaps I want to fill. I even have at least one that has Davidson on it. So instead of whining, try to contribute something constructive. The only way to win here is to produce. When Hrafn42 and I started here, we only had 2. Now we have at least 9. And we might get more. We need versions of the list from 2002 and 2003 in particular. So keep your eyes peeled!!--Filll 03:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version I'd really like to see is the 2001 pre-publication version bearing the signatures of the 103 scientists.  I'd like to establish, once and for all, that it had only 32 words on it, not 37.  I'd like to establish, one way or another, if it bore any disclosure of sponsorship. Moulton 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: All I've found is oral testimony from one of the 103 scientists.  I dunno what to do with that.  Moulton 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't tape it.  I just listened to it with an attentive ear and a compassionate heart.  Moulton 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In traditional journalism, reporters often get information they can't print (for one reason or another), but which helps them get the part of the story they can print right.  A reporter might learn something that, while itself unprintable, alerts him to the awareness that he may have been mistaken about something else that could nonetheless be printed, if there were no caution regarding factuality.  Moulton 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:NOT. It's tempting to use Wikipedia for campaigning journalism, but it's simply not built for that, for very good reasons. From what little I know, the NCSE could be expected to offer a sympathetic possibility, and they'd surely welcome evidence that undermines the credibility of the "petition". My recent investigations into the Majerus case at Peppered moth evolution#Criticism and controversy suggests that they'll just keep using discredited claims regardless, but an open statement goes a long way to stopping unwelcome speculation from the uncommitted. Of course, if a signatory agrees with the DI's viewpoint, they'll provide a ready platform to publicise the plight of their martyr, and would be the first to complain if those wicked evolutionists censor them by deleting their Wikipedia biography. I'm an outsider to all this, but the BBC programme A War on Science caught the mood pretty well. .. dave souza, talk 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone comes out and affirms that the DI's version is theirs as well, that's fine.  If someone is silent, you cannot assume assent, especially since you know that people are generally urged to work quietly behind the scenes rather than challenging their antagonist openly, as that is likely to start them down the path of a contest.  Moulton 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at Wikipedia silence is often taken for if not assent, at least an admission of having no viable reply. Odd nature 00:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that silence is taken for assent in areas of your legal system, for example in trademark law where trademark holders have to quickly assert ownership when others pinch the trademark. If someone's name is repeatedly published on a petition, the natural assumption would be that they assented to the petition as published in the absence of any evidence that they'd objected to that inclusion. Assuming that everyone should expect everything put out by the DI to be a pack of lies seems like a pretty weak legal position to me. .. dave souza, talk 09:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that opining on the legal rights of people who been subjected to affronts, torts, or fraud is an insufficient basis for condemning them in an encyclopedia.  More to the point, assumptions are not verified facts by any stretch of the imagination.  They need to be examined with a skeptical eye in light of the evidence.  Moulton 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: <later insertion> That's the point.  Just because some party may have committed an affront, tort, or fraud, Wikipedia should not amplify or ratify that affront, tort, or fraud, or otherwise elevate it to any status of legitimacy.  Moulton 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Notice that the opinions that didn't seem to be controlled by the DI were those of the handful of 103 scientists whose comments variously emerged either in Chang's own article (Tour and Salthe with technical quibbles), other articles (e.g. Davidson in the Seattle Times), or in independent publications (e.g. Skell's article in The Scientist).  Moulton 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moulton, please don't break up other people's comments as it confuses the thread. Notice also that by not objecting the remaining signatories are giving de-facto public support to the DI, and while you may harbour suspicions of tort, fraud etc., unless such suspicions are published we can't report them. Your effort would be better directed to looking for published information and accurately summarizing it in the article. .. dave souza, talk 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Are still at it with the tendentious objections? This is becoming disruptive. You've made your points many times over and no one here agrees with you and you've presented absolutely zero sources to support your opinions, and now you're taking to breaking up the comments of others to get noticed. You've failed to gain consensus and have no supporting evidence that the article is in anyway inaccurate. It's time for you to drop this and move along to another topic, I think. Odd nature 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Memory Lane

message: I believe we should start compiling diffs etc for an RFC. I have not much experience in this, so I need some assistance. I believe that the issues include WP:COI, WP:DE, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV,  WP:3RR and possibly others. Comments?--Filll 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps

message: She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.
There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the next section, below.  I have asked Orangemarlin to provide evidence and reasoning to defend the theory that Picard "totally lacks any scientific knowledge about it [evolution]." Moulton 11:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: [[Rosalind Picard]]

message: Sorry if I didn't make my reasons for including the tag on this page clear.  The template for the tag says it "is suitable for other articles containing information on living people, such as lists."  So it seems to me that it is very suitable for this article which is about a list of (as far as I know mostly) living persons. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that whether they are on the list or not is not a matter open to questions of subjectivity, or other issues likely to involve WP:BLP. Your sole reason for including the tag would appear to be that you tried and failed to put it on the Category talkpage & you are continuing your WP:POINT here. Hrafn42 13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, the article is about living persons and it is covered by WP's policies on living persons. Steve Dufour 06:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludicrous. The article is about a petition. ornis (t) 07:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening sentence of the article says it is about "is a list of signatories." Steve Dufour 07:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a list, obviously not a living person, a least not last time I checked. ornis (t) 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The signatories are living people, unless some have died. Steve Dufour 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What would be the problem with putting this tag on them to remind people of an important WP policy? Steve Dufour 07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for one thing, it erroneously puts this talkpage into :Category:Biography articles of living people. For another thing, you keep on spamming other article talkpages with it as well:  Hrafn42 10:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of it putting the article into a category.  In adding it to the other articles I was following Filll's suggestion.  I still think that every article on WP needs to follow the BLP policies. Steve Dufour 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am 100% in favor of evolution.  Without it we wouldn't be here. I also happen to have strong personal feelings against bullying and personal attacks on people. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not object if some tag reminding editors about WP's living persons policies were included on every article that mentions a living person. Steve Dufour 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, opinions are relevant when attributed to a reliable source dealing with the subject of the article. See WP:BLP. .. dave souza, talk 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, sorry, I mean that contributors' personal opinions are not relevant. Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course ALL policies apply to ALL Wikipedia articles on ALL subjects ALL the time. And your point is? And you disagree that it is appropriate to  warn a fellow editor in a friendly way about the appearance of their behavior? What about warnings about WP:DNFTT, and WP:NPA? It is your opinion that editor should never use these on talk pages? I suppose that is one point of view for editing behavior, but I wonder how many would subscribe to this viewpoint if we asked them? Care to poll a sample of the editors ? I would be most interested to know that WP:DNFTT, WP:NPA, WP:DE and similar violations are not to be discussed under any circumstances since they might be associated with actions of an editor, and not with the article itself. Perhaps this is already in the relevant WP policy manuals and I have missed it. Please be good enough to link me to the appropriate relevant sections. Thanks.--Filll 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point is that I am prepared to enforce the policy on blp on this page. Are there concerns that the article includes controversial unsourced material about living people? Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is that some of the individual articles on the signers (Category Talk:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism") give undue weight to the fact that they signed this petition and that this could be harmful to them in their careers. Steve Dufour 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an issue to be discussed on those articles' talkpages. It is no excuse whatsoever for spamming the template here (or any of the other non-biography articles you've been inserting it). Hrafn42 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no question that BLP should be carefully followed wherever relevant, but this seems to be a proposal that public statements by people attributed to reliable sources should be censored as it can be speculated that these public statements might conceivably result in harm. Not how I read BLP. ... dave souza, talk 14:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at James Tour, that does dominate the page, but it doesn't look terribly controversial. The articles will probably have to be considered individually. It doesn't seem like a huge deal that Steve Dufour put the blp template on some pages where others don't want it. I came here from the noticeboard, made a couple of pretty bland comments, and was met with something like full-on attack mode. Having worked in difficult areas before I understand that, and have probably done it myself, but it's not really helpful. Tom Harrison Talk 14:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom: if you wish your comments to be perceived as "bland" then I would suggest that you don't phrase them in the imperative voice -- that tends to get peoples backs up. It doesn't help that you appeared to be defending Steve's ongoing campaign (it started nearly two weeks ago) to insert BLP tags where they were neither particularly relevant nor welcome, which [insertions] stikes a number of editors as being a low-level campaign of WP:DE. Hrafn42 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reception here as an uninvolved admin who you think chose the wrong 'side' makes me more inclined to consider there may be widespread blp violations about people who take the 'wrong side' of creation vs. evolution. I hope that does not turn out to be the case. Tom Harrison Talk 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem remarkably pugnacious & quick to take offence for an "uninvolved" admin. As far as I know, no issue of violation of WP:BLP has been raised. There is nothing therefore for an uninvolved admin to adjudicate upon. Hrafn42 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP tag

message: I have tagged several statements in the article as original research because they are not supported by the source given.  For instance, the lead states, "Therefore, the document gives an inaccurate impression of the situation in the scientific community."  It is followed by soure eight.  But source 8 is talking about ID in general.  It is not referring to this specific issue at all.
Also, the entire article suffers from undue weight given to criticism of the document.  This is very striking in the second section, "Statement", where the number of words devoted to criticizing the statement are many time more than the statement itself.  This is also evident in the "Critical response" section, which is completely critical, with no attempt made at counter-arguments or balance.  This section also picks at the qualifications for a small subset of the 105 signors.  Yet, it ignores the fact that this is a small subset of the whole.  This is a serious problem of undue weight.  These sections need re-balancing to comply with WP:NPOV. Johntex\talk 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect and do not understand WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.--Filll 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You offer no basis for your assertion.  Could you please attempt to point out where you feel I am mistaken? I offer a very specific example of how a claim in the article is not supported by the given reference. Johntex\talk 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having had a look at the points raised, I've added an inline reference to a source making the specific point above, and have reworded a summary of sources to paraphrase the original more closely – that may also answer concerns about any signatories who didn't expect to be associated with the DI campaign. Regarding undue weight, that refers to opinion in the relevant area of expertise, and see also NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity"..... dave souza, talk 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You appear to have undue weight exactly backward. ID and this list are an extreme minority view in the field in which they stake their claim, biology. Whereas the scientific community is the majority view there. And the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected ID. Now Wikipedia's core content policy WP:NPOV says specifically "article[s] should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." Hence the majority of the views here are from the majority view on the topic, that of the scientific community, and in the proper proportion. Odd nature 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that proportion's not a question of the number of words. ID proponents have a tendency to produce concise statements that take a great deal of disentangling so sort out the layers of misleading meanings. ... dave souza, talk 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this article