Talk:Discovery Institute/Archive 1

message: ::Talking about money, there is interesting controversy surrounding the funding of the Discovery Institute - see below. Ian Pitchford 13:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Billions Behind the Discovery Institute

message: When I wrote this article some months ago I was careful to include the other projects of the DI, I think one was to do with bioethics (don't murder the embryos!) and the importance of the views of the, er, great amateur theologian C.S. Lewis to public life in a country with strict separation of church and state.  Right now it's just turned into a messy summary of ID, for which the Center for Science and Culture article was supposed to be.  And those elements stating the other interests have mysteriously vanished!  Another hint: Howard Abrahamason Jr (spelling?) Dunc|☺ 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The missing content may be my fault ;-) Sorry. Keeping an appropriate level of ID (while keeping in mind the Institute claims 90% of their resources are dedicated to promoting ID) in the article, lets then move any excess to the CSC article. Do you have any suggestions what I should move over, or do you prefer to tackle it yourself? The missing non-ID content will have to be pulled from previous versions. FeloniousMonk 16:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased towards ID in content 

message: The article reads:
 It recently created its own Web site to ensure an individual identity and distance itself from the institute's controversial role in promoting intelligent design.
I don't doubt this is true but without some sort of supporting data/evidence this reads very POV/biased.  It sounds like Wiki is either speculating on the DI's motives or simply asserting what those motives are.  How do we know Cascadia is trying to "distance" itself from the institute's IDC efforts?  How do we know this isn't simply their attempt to better define what Cascadia is about and better focue their Cascadia efforts?  Again, I think this entry either neeeds some supporting evidence or it should be rewritten without what appears to be a biased slant/speculation. Mr Christopher 17:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cascadia

message: [Cut spam from 72.67.20.74.]  --Mr. Billion 16:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that this user has been spamming numerous talk pages, including Talk:Evolution#Where_is_the_Pro.2FCon_section.3F and Talk:Charles Darwin#Where is the Pro/Con section?, in a clear attempt to push a POV. -Silence 15:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory 

message: It's true that they haven't proven Intelligent Design through science, and it's true that they'll never do so because it's just another form of creationism.  But the statement "The central item of this agenda - proving intelligent design by conducting actual scientiﬁc research - has clearly not been achieved" isn't NPOV.  An ID proponent would object that ID hasn't yet been proven.  At a minimum, the phrasing needs to be tweaked. --Mr. Billion 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding the word 'yet' after the sentence? But would that make clear that there is no scientific research actually going on at the moment?  --Kristjan Wager 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral statement 

message: Hi, I am doing research on the Discovery Institute and ran across a few spelling errors in the current Wiki article. I hope nobody has a problem, but just in case you are wondering, here is what I fixed; (1) History section, “institute’s” had an extra “s”; (2) Criticism section, “offices” did not have an “i” and “legitimate” was also missing an “i"; (3) Funding section, “totaling” had an extra “l”, “institute’s” had an extra “s”, and “News asked” was missing a space.Veritasjohn 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor spelling fix

message: In case anyone cares, this article is now mentioned in Portal:Creationism's did you know section. JoshuaZ 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know in in creationism portal.  

message: I added a subsection for the Technology and Democracy cause at DI. It was not previously mentioned in the Wiki, despite being a cause from the founding to the present (involving George Gilder). Veritasjohn 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  technology & democracy 

message: I reverted 's undiscussed changes to the article a second time now. His edits white washed ID's status within the DI by downplaying them and deleting a sourced passage of DI co-founder Gilder on the prominence of ID at the institute. Truthologist's changes also downplayed the conservative sources of funding of the DI while boosting the prominence of that of the Gates Foundation, which only funds work on transportation issues. Since sort of spinning and downplaying of the facts is not going to work when there are so many sources available. Considering the subject of this article has declared war on Wikipedia,  if there are specific things in the article that are inaccurate and need to be changed, they need to be discussed here first. FeloniousMonk 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Demanding that all changes be discussed in advance on the Wiki's talk page is contrary to established WP and therefore unnecessary.Truthologist 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, it's policy: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Major_changes. FeloniousMonk 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya gotta do whatcha gotta do.  Just make sure all yer ducks are in a row. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahem, Chapman, not Gilder:  FeloniousMonk 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the reference--which you recently added.  Like I said, my interest is in improving the current entry, not removing well-sourced information.  As the quote was previously unattributed, according to wiki-policy, it was within my editing purvey to remove it.  Similar edits will follow, though I think the overall structure of the entry also needs some revision to provide the current information more effectively.  See e.g. my edit (reverted by JoshuaZ) here.Truthologist 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing 

message: It is quickly becoming apparent why "Felon" is in the handle "Feloniousmonk".  This user will not allow any changes to this article, regardless of sourced information, or the inaccurate nature of some content (See e.g. .)  Furthermore, there is no "Whitewashing" taking place--and no information about "Gilder" was removed in that edit.  If this rampant and biased behavior continues, I recommend this matter be referred to Wikipedia for appropriate arbitration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.139.168 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 October 2006
:Ya gotta do whatcha gotta do.  Just make sure all yer ducks are in a row. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem, Chapman, not Gilder:  FeloniousMonk 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the reference--which you recently added.  Like I said, my interest is in improving the current entry, not removing well-sourced information.  As the quote was previously unattributed, according to wiki-policy, it was within my editing purvey to remove it.  Similar edits will follow, though I think the overall structure of the entry also needs some revision to provide the current information more effectively.  See e.g. my edit (reverted by JoshuaZ) here.Truthologist 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feloniousmonk's whimsical reversion of edits

message: *TVW - Event with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez  The Discovery Institute hosts a program with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez in Seattle. (Also available IN SPANISH)
*TVW - Authors Hour with Jonathan Witt and Benjamin Wiker - The Discovery Institute hosts a release party for "A Meaningful World" with authors Dr. Benjamin Wiker and Dr. Jonathan Witt in Seattle.
*TVW - Former U.S. Senator Slade Gorton event Mr. Gorton talks about the nature and ideals of public service during a summer lecture series named in his honor.
*TVW - Cascadia Center holds a conference co-sponsored by Microsoft  Future Trends in Energy, Technology, & Transportation Conference: Welcoming remarks, discussion on "Maritime Security and Real World Implications," panel discussion on "Existing and Future Technology"
*Seattle Channel - Dr. Steven Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Reviews the current state of the climate change debate and provides a critique of former Vice President Gore's recent documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
*Seattle Channel - From Congressman to Ambassador: The Skills One Needs for Each 6/16/2006 John R. Miller, whose work combating slavery and sex-trafficking was recently profiled by The New York Times, speaks at the Discovery Institute.
The above were removed in this edit by Jim62sch citing this reason: "Wikipedia's purpose is not to be an outlet for DI sponsored events -- that [sic] what  DI has its own web site for."  I disagree, and believe the more information about the Institute and its program and events in this entry, the better.  Please provide other justification for such a major deletion, and cite appropriate established WP if applicable.  Truthologist 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim was right to remove them. Wikipedia is not a link farm or alternate channel for promotion of their viewpoint for the Discovery Institute, please read WP:NOT. FeloniousMonk 19:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Wikipedia is not: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
Truthologist added an excessive number of links to DI material:  He then restored it when Jimsch62 rejected it as link spam:   restored the links in the form of links to archives/search results:  User:216.163.84.151's IP just happens to be that of the Discovery Institute. Having the DI restore Truthologist's questionable edits calls into question whether there are editors here working on the Discovery Institute's behalf  or that its PR firm, Creative Response Concepts. WP:AUTO provides for preventing editors from editing articles in which they are directly involved, particularly when done in a biased manner, as have been seen here. To avoid future conflict and disputes, anyone editing here who is an involved party with the DI should limit themselves to participating on this article's talk page and refrain from editing the article directly. FeloniousMonk 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to light, FeloniousMonk.  Simply fascinating. Mr Christopher 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is horribly depressing, but thanks as always for your perceptiveness. --Davril2020 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now we know that Truthologist has been less than truthful.  Editing all the Discovery Institute related articles, while moaning how POV they are, violating every policy, and hiding the fact you are associated with the Discovery Institute is not a good example of Christian truthology.   Mr Christopher 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I havn't been at this page for a while. I'm glad to see that the DI IP was caught and properly reverted. However, I don't see why Truthologist has been also declared to be from the Discovery Institute. He made a lot of changes, and then the DI IP reverted some of his link changes - once. I don't think it is right to just declare that editor to be from the Discovery Institute. It doesn't even appear that he was asked on the discussion - someone just added the tag at the top of this page.Veritasjohn 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm curious where you get the info that his IP is the same as the Discovery Institute's? A simple WHOIS turns up that DI's IP is 64.246.188.3, and the 216.163.84.151 is owned by a webservices company so who knows what it's used for. Granted DI is probably using other IPs for their user machines, and you could be right, but I'd like to know how got that info. Headlouse 22:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering DI's efforts here, the number of WP:SPAs participating and the nature of their participation, there's consensus that WP:BEANS prevents us from going into too much detail. But I can say for certain that 216.163.84.151 is the Discovery Institute, you're simply not using the right sort of lookup. Everything you need is on 216.163.84.151's talk page, try a little harder, you'll figure it out. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Headlouse, an NSLOOKUP command from my desktop turns up 216.163.84.151 = firewall.discovery.org  which is of course the Discovery Institute's network (www.discovery.org).  Mr Christopher 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My goodness, I should hope Headlouse and Veritasjohn are not considering engaging in computer security as a vocation.  Virtually every event on the internet is tracable, you see, given the proper tools of course. Lord Henry Wotton 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually their response is to be expected.  One day you return to the article to see the tag(s) above without any explanation as to why.  Their questions make perfect sense to me.  Mr Christopher 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The same methods for fighting sockpuppetry work just well ferreting out those with a conflict of interest. Inevitably it's their own actions that ultimately give them away: no matter how carefully they try to cloak the motive for their actions, the act of incessantly deleting only criticisms itself demonstrates their intent. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about if this truthologist person just works for the discovry institute as a clerk or something?  I work at Wal-Mart, does that mean I can't edit the Wal-Mart artical?  It don't make sense. Alethos Logos 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alethos Logos, I believe bubba speak would be more like "It don't make no sense"  Try that.  Also you'll do well to read these policies prior to editing the Walmart article - WP:AUTO and WP:COI.  Mr Christopher 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Felinious - thanks for the explanation, but I'm still unclear on how we know that Truthologist is from DI. I just assued (it turns out correctly) that the 216.... IP was the DI's. Also, I see in the discussion that Truthologist clearly posted, under the heading "Feloniousmonk's whimsical reversion of edits" that the unsigned comment was from the 24.113.139.168. That's not the 216 IP. I read the WP:BEANS thing, and it didn't make any sense to me.Veritasjohn 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His editing from the DI has been confirmed by a neutral 3rd party. Editors generally have more than one IP associated with their account, for example, one each for home, work and/or school. WP:BEANS is being invoked because we don't want to give scofflaws any ideas on how to further circumvent policy. FeloniousMonk 03:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I just didn't understand how it was known that the user was from DI when there wasn't anything explaining such in the page. I'll take your word for it.Veritasjohn 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spamming & involved parties 

message: In 1971, Chapman was elected to the Seattle City Council. His best known accomplishment on the council was spearheading a campaign to save the Pike Place Market from destruction.
 	Co-founder and Senior Fellow George Gilder proceded to write several books addressing culture, technology, and poverty. The issue of poverty dominated his early work, starting with his 1978 book, “Visible Man,” which critiqued American culture for its failure to promote the ideals of the traditional nuclear family. Gilder’s next work, “Wealth and Poverty,” 1981, was widely cited by President Ronald Reagan. Gilder’s later books have dealt more with developments in technology, such as “Microcosm” (1990) and “Life After Television” (1994).
I've reverted them: They seem appropriate for a biography, but I can't at all see how they deal with the Discovery Institute. Correct me if I'm wrong? Adam Cuerden talk 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for questioning their relevance, but I think that they are just as relevant as the rest of the biographical content on Chapman. Either we should remove that bio stuff, or add the stuff on Gilder to balance the presentation.Saint-George 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Looking it over, I'd say the Seattle City Council work is irrelevant, but the Gilder biography is much more relevant. Sorry! But I think we should cut the Chapman biography down: He has his own article, after all, and so only things directly related to the aims of the Discovery Institute or controversies surrounding it should appear here. I'm not quite sure what to cut, though. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't apologize, I think that you make a fair point. The Gilder stuff goes back in and we look for ways to pare down the Chapman stuff. Cheers. Saint-George 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copy-edited the Gilder stuff as it was too long and too much like a PR bio.  Also, citations are needed to support the paragraph.  They need to be supplied, or the paragraph will have to go. •Jim62sch• 09:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added citations for the paragraph, after making a citation format mistake on a first try.Veritasjohn 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say you're correct on both points. •Jim62sch• 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this relevant?

message: I think the lead, by sidestepping all the controversy until the last sentence, may be NPOV, but I'm not sure. Does anyone else think so, or is my vague dislike better off suppressed? Adam Cuerden talk 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, I think. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As it happens, I was able to do a first draft. However, it really should be longer: Anyone else have ideas? Adam Cuerden talk 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I removed the wiki link inserted for Nina Shapiro. The writer does not appear to be a candidate for a wiki biography, and thus I do not think a red link to no page is appropriate.Veritasjohn 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki link

message: It appears that the DI has now added global warming skepticism to their list of causes: . JoshuaZ 02:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me or does anyone else roll their eyes and snicker when they read something like this from the DI link above "compile peer-reviewed data from scientists all over the world"  Now, are they real scientists or gym teachers?  And are those papers really peer reviewed, or nonsense like the intelligent design "peer reviewed" papers.  Mr Christopher 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Avery is an economist by training. What think is actually going on here is twofold 1) as ID becomes less viable post Kitzmiller the DI trying to branch out to other conservative(for lack of a better term) causes 2) in some of the recent legislative attempts to "teach the controversy" legislators have included global warming as something they are explicitly skeptical about presumably to help mask the religious nature of the anti-evolution material. Having the DI  get involved in that helps matters. At this point the DI is now involved in not only creationism/ID but also global warming skepticism, AIDS denial (two senior fellows) and arguably Holocaust denial (one of their token Muslims). JoshuaZ 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing.  Well from a DI perspective it makes sense that an economist is considered an expert on global warming, much the same that they promote english majors and and lawyers as experts in biology.  I'll admit I have not paid as close attention to the DI's non-ID related efforts as I have their creationist agenda.  Interesting how they trump up the "peer review" buzz words as a means of lending credibility to their ideas on global warming.  I wonder how long until they start promoting opinion polls and signatures from gym teachers, lawyers and book keepers as evidence that global warming is a myth.  I doubt they get too carried away with global warming since there's nothing there to lead people to Jesus.  The notion that global warming is a myth primarily benefits commerical interests (I suppose that includes commercial financial donors) and does not create an obvious path to salvation so it will be interesting to see how deep they dive into the subject.  What a fascinating group of people. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, JoshuaZ.    Mr Christopher 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DI doesn't have a problem with evolution in particular; it's main goal has always been to alter the way all science is done to include their theological beliefs. The idea that scientists are an identifiable elite with a particular set of values and a religion (atheism, usually coupled with a form of left-wing social liberalism and sometimes economic socialism) has always been a key plank of this. Trying to argue that scientists working on global warming are trying to control society with scare tactics feeds into this, in the same way that claiming scientists working on evolution miss blatantly obvious evidence that evolution is impossible does.  It's not a particularly surprising move since creating the sense that scientists are partisan and biased erodes all scientific claims made in any scientific field since any particular claim can be dismissed on the basis that said scientist is biased. --Davril2020 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent analysis, that. Would you mind contributing to the Denialism article? FeloniousMonk 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Discovery Institute and Global Warming 

message: More DI "legal" antics   Mr Christopher 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to mention the Judge Jones thing, I think we should mention that as well. Adam Cuerden talk 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The law review editors say that the mass copying thing was just a problem with communication among the editors. The real copying issue involving the DI is that of how much of Stephen C. Meyer's "peer-reviewed" article was copied from previous versions, including previous published versions. Note that the "Complete List" section of the DI's "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications article lists three published versions of the very same article, with a 72% match between the 2003 and 2004a versions, a higher match than I found between the Jones decision section on whether ID was science and the plaintiffs's brief that the DI complained mightily about.  --Wesley R. Elsberry 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ouch!

message: Though first a reminder: this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for telling each other ghost stories. Anyway, if raspor's correct about the "citation" from the wedge document, that's a valuable point and the statement should be revised to match what the document actually says. Thanks for picking that up, raspor. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks dave, are you serious are they going to change it? i done good, huh?? and seriously if i am supposed to be a stupid noobie why does fill keep taunting me? isnt he supposed to be the mature, experienced scientist here? why doesnt he stop his taunting? raspor 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure looks like you're right, and it will be changed, or properly cited if someone did say it. If you'd raised the point without all the drama and pantomime it would probably have been changed quicker, but in the end verifiable accuracy is what it's all about. Ta, dave souza, talk 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Raspor's point was inaccurate. Nevertheless, I've reworded it to more accurately reflect the actual source of the controversies it describes, which is the institute's goal of defeating the materialist worldview and "to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I've used direct quotes and cited the sources for this. Back to Raspor's point, Wikipedia articles do not need to always use direct quotes, in fact our guidelines are that summaries of views are preferred. FeloniousMonk 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back on topic

message: I found it on a parody of Barbara Forrest on the DI site:
:The wedge is really a stake about to be plunged into the heart of the scientific process. here
From a book by Barbara Forrest:
:Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, to be published next year, cites a widely circulated 1998 internal memo laying out Discovery's ambitious plan to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientiﬁc materialism," found here
Other people might have picked up on Forrest's wording. It might be in other DI materials: I am not sure.--Filll 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well fel***** changed it and 'you are welcome' it is fortunate you have me around to point out these inaccuracies. there are dozens of them. what is with this thing that fel***** seems to be able to change anything any way he wants. is he the boss? well the ID, evolution and discovery articles are bobjobs. frankly the intro paragraphs on all of them should be scrapped and started over. who wrote those fel****? raspor 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, gee, thanks. Please read WP:POINT and WP:V next time before you decide to help. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it was from a WP:V source, Chris Mooney no less, we could have just cited it, but I've already rewritten it to better reflect the issues. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  bobjob  raspor 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well you cant believe everything you read on the internet. look at the wiki intelligent design article. its a bobjob. so fill you tink fel******* is bobjob or not? raspor 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  why cant you use colons? are you above that. and see you just 'fed a troll' just stick to the subjects instead of all this petty stuff. i got that horrible quote out of there. i am for the truth. i wish more here were raspor 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, until you wrote that, I did equate science with truth.  I may still do so internally, but this really makes sense.  But now I have to ask a more important question.  If we are supposed to add only verifiable information, who defines the veracity of the verifiable?  Or does 10,000 verifiable articles about evolution trump 1 marginally verifiable article about ID?  I think I know the answer to that, but when someone lectures another person about WP:NPOV, what is the "right" answer?  In the end does verifiable science beat Genesis?  I wish we could come to a consensus of the rules--then put it up on every controversial page from the Historicity of Jesus to Abortion.  I think the current rules mean different things to different people, and in the case of Evolution, the consensus is usually the last person to revert a page!  Orangemarlin 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wedge into the heart

message: This section looks like it could use some more sub-headers or something that logically organizes the flow of information a little better.  Opinions? Mr Christopher 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: See the quote by the DI about itself at the end of this article  JoshuaZ 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant quote/source for religious nature of the DI? 

message: Why is this page in :Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors? The discovery institute is not fellow or advisor in itself. Should perhaps a :Category:Discovery Institute be created to go between :Category:Intelligent design and :Category:Discovery Institute fellows and advisors.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories