Talk:Rosalind Picard/Archive 1

message: A respected news source, the New York Times, labeled the petition anti-evolution.  This carries more weight than anonymous contributors (like myself and others who have contributed to this article).  It also appears that most of the previous editors of this article seemed to have agends.
 Edit: Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence -Clearly POV, no explanation needed
 Edit: Added POV material: (Note that the biological science signers are the most highly represented group.) -Again, this is POV and actually false since upon further examination lumping people in the "engineering/computational sciences" signers together creates a larger group than the biological science signers.  It is safest to leave this out.
I suggest that all contributors read Wikipedia's Point of View guidelines.  Other comments would be appreciated.128.197.4.36  17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of View Material on the Petition

message: This is the teleological argument that the Discovery Institute's petition was Intelligently Designed to be Anti-Evolution:
This article from the Discovery Institute clearly demonstrates that the petition is being used by the Discovery Institute in its campaign against evolution (it's dated April 1, but although ridiculous, it's not a joke -- they take themselves quite seriously):  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114
The petition and Rosalind Picard's name are certainly being USED by the anti-evolution, pro-creationism movement. There is no question of that fact. So the New York Times is correct in labeling it the Anti-Evolution petition. 
I frame this as a teleological argument just to be ironic (the fact that the NY Times calls it the Anti-Evolution Petition is enough justification already). Countering with the Formal objections and counterarguments against teleological arguments simply raises the question: why don't you apply those same objections to Intelligent Design, which is also a teleological argument? 
On 13 March 2006 18:32, someone edited the heading of this page from "Intelligent Design Support" to "Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence", and removed the word "Intelligent Design" from the text. I ask for a more critical examination of the evidence of that statement! When has Picard ever shown any skepticism about Intelligent Design, or asked for more critical examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design? The petition she signed is one-sided and Anti-Evolution, because it doesn't ask for a careful examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design, only Darwinism. Science demands the critical examination of ALL theories, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Anti-Evolution petition is superfluous and patronising, because it admonishes scientists to do something they were already doing, without asking anyone to apply the same standards to Intelligent Design. 
It's petty for Rosalind Picard or her toadys to engage in an edit war to white-wash the New York Time's term "Anti-Evolition" and all references to "Intelligent Design", instead of standing up for what they believe in and explaining WHY she signed her name and the good name of the MIT to that Anti-Evolution petition. 
The question is not "Is the petition Anti-Evolution?" It certainly is, because that's how it's being used by its designers. The real question I'd like answered is: "Does Rosalind Picard believe in Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Evolution, and is she willing to stand up for what she believes in and signs her name to, or not?" She needs to answer that question herself, and this wiki page should link to that.
It would be interesting to hear Picard address this glaring double standard:
The Anti-Evolution petition urges that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Why just Darwinism? The scientific method has always encouraged careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER THEORIES, including pseudoscientific theories like Intelligent Design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 
The Discovery Institute and their supporters are intellectually dishonest, negligent and close-minded, because they refuse to carefully examine the pseudo-scientific claptrap they call Intelligent Design, which they promote for the reasons outlined in their Wedge Strategy. Where's the careful examination of the evidence of Intelligent Design, and why doesn't the Discovery Institute encourage that too, instead of ignoring the preponderance of the wide range of evidence for Evolution?
In the words of Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute: "It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession." If only Picard were bold enough to step up to the plate and explain her views on Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Evolution, and her dissent from Darwinism, and why she chose to sign her name and MIT's name to the Anti-Evolution petition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.47.110 (talk • contribs) 00:43-23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition intelligently designed to be anti evolution

message: ;The Petition???  Which Petition???
The above discussion refers to a subsequently titled and reinterpreted revision of the original 2001 (untitled) two-sentence petition calling for "skeptical examination of evidence for scientific theories." Since there is no reliable source to legitimize DI's controversial linking of the 103 signers of the original untitled petition to its subsequently titled, reinterpreted, and repurposed version, I propose archiving or deleting the above section (and this one) as it has now been revealed that there is no reliably established legitimate connection between the subsequently retitled and reinterpreted document and the subject of this biography of a living person.  
In view of the "Do No Harm" principle of the WP:BLP I believe the ethical thing to do is to separate the above discussion (which harms the subject and her affiliates) from the subject of the biography.  I also think it would behoove the editors who were deceived by DI's fraudulent linkage to revisit their role in propagating DI's deception, and do what they can to ameliorate the harm already done. 
Moulton 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much Ado About Nothing

message: The entire intro for this article is unsourced, in violation of WP:BLP. I am therefore moving all but the first part of the first sentence here.
Feel free to move this material back into the article if and when reliable sources can be found for it. Hrafn42 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced intro 

message: In their rabid attempts to whitewash Picard's reputation, and hide the fact that she was foolish enough to push her own ill-advised and inexpert "skepticism" over the consensus of hundreds of evolutionary biologists, Moulton is repeatedly restoring this garbled sentence, which clearly involves two completely different sentences being welded together (between "respond" & "Picard"):
This is the level of cack-handed partisanship that Moultan has descended to. Hrafn42 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh. You repeatedly butchered that sentence then, when this fact was pointed out to you, lied about what you were doing when you corrected it (removing "Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the editorial board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the National Science Foundation's division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the Georgia Tech College of Computing." from the middle of a sentence is not adding anything), and when that was pointed out to you, you accuse me of unbecoming "petulance". You really are a piece of work Moulton.  Oh, and could you please stop changing the section titles -- it is very childish. Hrafn42 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Moulton: I think I'll let your immaturity in changing section titles speak for itself. Hrafn42 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled sentence 

message: The Times did report the claims of the DI in that story, along with some remarks by some of the signatories.  The Times neither substantiated nor refuted the reported claims of the DI, but left it to the reader to judge what to make of it.  That is, the Times adopted a neutral point of view.
The main article elsewhere in Wikipedia examines those claims and provides further material that allows a skeptical reader to adjudge whether or not to take the claims of the DI at face value.
I am curious as to whether the editors of this section wish to propagate the reported claims of the DI with a view to persuading the readers that the claims of the DI are either believable or doubtful.  Or do the editors prefer to take a neutral point of view, emphasizing that the claims of the DI are simply being reported here with neither affirmation nor refutation. Moulton 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that no WP:RS has disputed that Picard signed this statement, whether "The Times neither substantiated nor refuted the reported claims of the DI" is not relevant. The standard is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). Wikipedia is full of 'facts', stated as true on the basis of a WP:RS, and the lack of any WP:RS dispute. Hrafn42 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy and Alternative Points of View

message: As part of the unsourced puff-piece glorifying Picard that Moulton insists on restoring repeatedly is the claim that Picard's book is "award-wining". What award did it win? I have seen no evidence of an award mentioned, and the use of this term on Picard's webpage would appear to be mere self-serving puffery. Hrafn42 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Award-winning" book? 

message: This article is a biography of Rosalind Picard.  There is an official MIT Faculty Biography Page (separate from the subject's personal home page) that is the source of the biographical information.  That MIT Faculty Biography website has uniform biographies for all faculty members of the MIT Media Lab.  
I am aware of your idiosyncratic beliefs, Hrafn42.  You are welcome to harbor your personal beliefs.  However your personal beliefs are neither facts nor demonstrated theories grounded in scientific evidence.  You have offered (and published as fact) many of your beliefs, including ones that are demonstrably false.  If you care to write a personal blog giving your opinions, theories, and beliefs, no one is stopping you. However a Wikipedia biography page of a notable living person is not the appropriate place for you to publish your beliefs or theories about the subject of the article, unless those beliefs or theories are known to be accurate and well-sourced.
You have at your disposal evidence to which you intentionally have turned a blind eye and disregarded -- evidence that demonstrates to any impartial observer that some of your theories, beliefs, or claims are dubious at best and demonstrably false at worst.
Professor Picard signed a petition calling for those who are working with theories to examine the evidence for those theories with a skeptical eye.  Yet you persist in failing to apply that sound advice to your own dubious theories, beliefs, and claims.
Now this is Wikipedia, and you are an anonymous editor from New Zealand.  For all intents and purposes you are immune from the consequences of violating the tenets of ethics in journalism.
However, you are not immune from being the subject of an article on ethics in journalism, as practiced on Wikipedia.
In the interests of full disclosure, I will tell you that even as I sit here typing in this window, I am conversing in another window with yet another faculty member who teaches a course on ethics in journalism.  Her class resumes shortly after labor day.  Her students will be doing the usual kind of stories, and publishing them on the university's web site.  I've talked to this professor about Wikipedia on many occasions (not just this one), but this one strikes me as an excellent example of just the kind of story a student studying ethics in journalism might find intriguing.  
My interest, however, is more along the lines of applications of the theory of emotions and learning.  You might wonder why I spend so much time with you, Hrafn42.  It's not really about the bio page of Roz Picard, or the Darwin Dissent Controversy.  Those are only cover stories.  It's your hook, not mine.  My hook is watching how people learn their craft (or fail to learn it).  I frankly don't understand how you go about the process of learning the craft you practice here.
One thing I do note is that you are an expert on the detailed rules of Wikipedia.  You can cite a rule faster than I can click the mouse.  
Now that also interests me, because I am also a student of the dynamics of rule-based systems.  I discussed this interest of mine at some length with Filll last night.  I wonder if you appreciate what theory or assumption you are operating under when you engage in your practice of rule-driven bureaucratic machinations.  I suspect you are not aware of the theory that predicts the behavior of rule-driven systems.  It occurs to me that if you were aware, you might migrate to a more functional method of practice. 
But I digress.
I'm interested in the question, Cui Bono?  Who is served by your obsession here with the biography page of some obscure MIT professor whom you've never met, and whose specialties hold no interest for you?
Tell me, for I am curious.  Cui Bono?  Who is served?
Moulton 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the "official MIT Faculty Biography Page" is identical to "the subject's personal home page". So it seems that if the "MIT Faculty Biography website" has any "uniformity" at all, it would be in uniformly repeating verbatim the subject's personal page. I would be also curious to know how your mythical MIT biographer would know (or be interested in) how "energetic" Picard's sons are. The piece is clearly autobiographical. Hrafn42 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Moulton: I do not give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys for "the best of [your] knowledge" (which is clearly WP:OR). I care about WP:RS. Any piece that includes such fluff is clearly a puff-piece rather than a serious biography and so not WP:RS. Given that you are so familiar with your dear friend Roz, maybe you can enlighten us on who actually wrote this sycophantic piece. Hrafn42 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cui Bono

message: Given the degree of controversy over how this subject is portrayed in the article, I think a brief recap is in order.
This is how the subject was portrayed before I started editing:
This is how Moulton originally proposed it be portrayed:
This is Moulton's most recent proposal for its portrayal:
And this is my current proposal:
Hrafn42 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterisation of the petition 

message: A request was posted for a third opinion on three disputes here: 
* The name of the petition 
* Moulton & WP:COI 
* Proposed Intervening Section on "Controversial New York Times Story" 
Because more than two editors are involved and AGF is rather scarce, the request is not within the guidelines for third opinion Wikipedians.  I hope other (including participants lightening up, backing off and cooling down) means of resolving disputes avail.   — Athaenara  ✉  08:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In re 3rd opinion request

message: The article says:
It doesn't say that she signed the petition, just that she is reported as a signer.  I wasn't paying enough attention - I was too busy reading Moulton's deeply horrified language to realise that the actual wording was that weak.  That is what he is wasting everyone's time one?  Ok - I think that language is far too tentative.  Maybe we should just change the article to claim she eats babies.  Then maybe we will have something that justifies Moulton's complaints.  This is just pathetic.  Guettarda 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the person's lawyer should write a demand letter to wikipedia to cease and desist from using the NY Times as a reliable source. ... Kenosis 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even joke about it! ornis (t) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's not a joke. Rather, it is simply unfortunate. It would appear that the issue should be stated as the NY Times has reported it. If there is a counterargument, the place to go is whoever is alleged to have misrepresented Picard's participation or lack thereof. That, in fact, is who the demand letter should be sent to. And, if any additional relevant information is, in the future, published in a notable, reliable source, it would be quite permissible to include such additional information in this article. In other words. the issue is not very complicated. As to the threat of public criticism of Wikipedia's handling of issues like these, well, what would people think if we deferred to threats like that in the section above, insisting that wikipedia participants discard such publications as the NY Times as reliable sources and substitute in its place the demands of someone under threat of public criticism for WP methodology? Submitting that kind of threat, IMO, would be silly and unfortunate. Besides, it wasn't just the New York Times. ... Kenosis 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: ===A section heading that Moulton inserted in flagrant disregard of WP:POINT===
I note that Moulton has restarted making controversial edits to the article in violation of WP:COI guidelines ("Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."). Hrafn42 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not writing about a person here. I am writing about two competing practices.  One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method.  The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of negative reframing which is both dishonest and unethical.  I am utterly appalled that anyone would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of negative reframing, in gross and egregious violation of WP:NPOV.  I have a conflict of interest with the practice of intentional negative reframing for the express purpose of casting a living person in a negative light, in gross violation of WP:BLP.  The protocol on WP:BLP, posted at the top of this page, requires that false and defamatory content must be immediately removed.  There is more than enough time to examine the contentious content in a contemplative and sober manner.  There is no urgency in rushing to publish potentially false and defamatory content that unfairly casts a living person in a negative light.  Moulton 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement which she put her name to was anti-evolution when she put her name to it, and it remains anti-evolution today. No reframing need be involved to reach that assessment. But regardless of that, you violated the WP:COI guidelines by making a controversial edit to the article on her, and none of your hair-splitting can change that fact. Hrafn42 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your personal subjective interpretation, your antagonistic spin, which concords with DI's intentional and nefarious negative reframing of an otherwise innocuous statement regarding the appropriate application of the protocols of the scientific method.  You are free to engage in the insidious, pernicious, and unethical practice of intentional negative reframing if it pleases you, but it would be unworthy of an ethical editor of Wikipedia to adopt that abhorrent propagandist practice.  Since I would much prefer to see you in a positive light than a negative one (and the same for Wikipedians in general), I urge you to abandon the contentious practice of negative reframing in all its guises.  Moulton 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there are now two distinct sections merged into one, I've inserted second-level headings to keep everything straight.  Moulton 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Moulton is in fact doing is inserting a large number of unnecessary headings, which is disruptive editing in flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Hrafn42 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am delighted to accept your wise and gracious offer to decline to engage me further in contentious debates.  Moulton 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section whose title Moulton can't resist changing, in spite of being warned not to 

message: I note that Moulton has restarted making controversial edits to the article in violation of WP:COI guidelines ("Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."). Hrafn42 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not writing about a person here. I am writing about two competing practices.  One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method.  The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of negative reframing which is both dishonest and unethical.  I am utterly appalled that anyone would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of negative reframing, in gross and egregious violation of WP:NPOV.  I have a conflict of interest with the practice of intentional negative reframing for the express purpose of casting a living person in a negative light, in gross violation of WP:BLP.  The protocol on WP:BLP, posted at the top of this page, requires that false and defamatory content must be immediately removed.  There is more than enough time to examine the contentious content in a contemplative and sober manner.  There is no urgency in rushing to publish potentially false and defamatory content that unfairly casts a living person in a negative light.  Moulton 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement which she put her name to was anti-evolution when she put her name to it, and it remains anti-evolution today. No reframing need be involved to reach that assessment. But regardless of that, you violated the WP:COI guidelines by making a controversial edit to the article on her, and none of your hair-splitting can change that fact. Hrafn42 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your personal subjective interpretation, your antagonistic spin, which concords with DI's intentional and nefarious negative reframing of an otherwise innocuous statement regarding the appropriate application of the protocols of the scientific method.  You are free to engage in the insidious, pernicious, and unethical practice of intentional negative reframing if it pleases you, but it would be unworthy of an ethical editor of Wikipedia to adopt that abhorrent propagandist practice.  Since I would much prefer to see you in a positive light than a negative one (and the same for Wikipedians in general), I urge you to abandon the contentious practice of negative reframing in all its guises.  Moulton 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A section heading that Moulton inserted in flagrant disregard of [[WP:POINT]]

message: (I had put a section title in here because Moulton appeared to want a section "continu[ing the] dialogue on negative reframing" - but as he keeps changing the section title, and moving stuff out of this section, I presume he doesn't, so I'll remove it.) Hrafn42 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are now two distinct sections merged into one, I've inserted second-level headings to keep everything straight.  Moulton 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Moulton is in fact doing is inserting a large number of unnecessary headings, which is disruptive editing in flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Hrafn42 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another section heading that Moulton inserted in flagrant disregard of [[WP:POINT]]

message: Moulton: you are a disruptive editor, who apparently cannot contain yourself from repeatedly violating WP:COI. I have nothing whatsoever further to say to you. Hrafn42 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am delighted to accept your wise and gracious offer to decline to engage me further in contentious debates.  Moulton 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further [[WP:DE]] from Moulton

message: Computer science is related to evolutionary biology. Oh, HELLO Bioinformatics Particular in running simulations and AI development. Not to mention the usefulness in providing algorithms for things like BLAST.
*Couldn't find the exact example I was after; involving script modified robots hunting food through LED sensors, I saw it Pharyngula ages ago, and thought I'd reposted it on my blog, but Google is thwarting my attempts to locate it. I did try this search, which does return some interesting Natural Selection simulations.
*Ooh it was via the Loom 
I really am going to require a citation to allow such an inflammatory anti-cross-disciplinary statement to stand (almost all fields of science overlap somewhat these days). Linking to another wiki-article is not the same as requiring a RS.
Additional the comments by Bryant are not directed towards Picard (Nathan Bradfield and Egnor are mentioned). They are directed towards all the signatories without any "training or expertise" in evo-bio. Not only have you not shown (and refused to show) that this is true for Picard; but its inclusion here will require its inclusion on all the relevant signatories' pages. Better to put it at the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism main page if it is such a noteworthy comment.
In order to use Bryant's commentary it will have to be shown that Picard is one of those untrained non-experts he was referring to. Otherwise it is contentious synthetic OR on a very special sort of bio
--ZayZayEM 10:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with linking a Wiki article on a discussion page.  ZayZay's quibble in this case is as specious as his other points. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with linking to a wiki-article at all. There is a problem with using a wiki article to bypass the need for an RS regarding a contentious statement. Nothing in the Fields of science article talks about relatedness or unrelatedness of fields.--ZayZayEM 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're talking the discussion page here, yes?  If so, we don't make edit comments on the article that refer to the discussion page.  You can quibble to your heart's content on said discussion page, but leave it out of your edit summaries on the article. •Jim62sch• 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevence of Bryant's coments 

message: You need to establish Picard has "no training or expertise" in evo-bio to use Brayton's comments. Simply saying her field is unrelated (which I'm still not satisfied is exactly true) It's overkill. It's synthesis. And it cannot remain on a BLP.
Please wait till discussion is over, and dispute is resolved before restoring contentious material to a BLP.--ZayZayEM 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't! Brayton made his comments in the context of talking about two individuals about whom he had no more information about their precise "training or expertise" than we have here (rather less detail actually, from the context). The context that I am juxtaposing Brayton's comments with Picard's background is at least equivalent to the context in which he originally made them, so the juxtaposition is justified. If Brayton had first established (to the level of painstaking, unachievable detail that you are demanding) their exact "training or expertise", then you would be in a position to demand similar treatment for Picard. Brayton did not, and therefore you cannot reasonably do so. Hrafn42 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brayton wrote on his blog. Not on wikipedia. If he had, I'd be kickin' his ass the same way. Want to write like Brayton, start a blog, don't do it here. WP:NOT. BTW, Saying your source did sloppy research doesn't exactly strengthen the case for its inclusion. (I don't think it's an accurate characterisation, Egnor's lack of evo-bio knowledge has been clearly established)--ZayZayEM 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If I was writing an essay. I would probably juxtapose the two points. But this is an encyclopedia. It's just pushing it too far, and it is unnecessary. All the facts about Picard and her signing are present. Brayton's comments are not notable or relevent to this particular case.--ZayZayEM 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brayton is also expressing an opinion, which is being clearly portrayed as such, not offered as either fact or Wikipedia's own narrative. All I need to do is to justify that I am not taking that quoted opinion out of context, NOT that each and every assumption that Brayton makes in offering this opinion is justified. Hrafn42 04:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is not a relevant opinion. It is out of context. It has not been established that Picard is one of those scientists without "training or expertise" in evo-bio. It's not a giant assumption, but it is an assumption to big for a BLP on wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 05:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No training or expertise" 

message: I accepted the elimination of the Brayton quote immediately that ZayZayEM raised the issue of inadmissibility of blogs under WP:BLP (edit summary of "Final WP:BLP warning" not withstanding), and have now replaced it. I wish that they had raised this matter several sections ago, as I could have avoided the trouble of debating, and providing evidence on, issues that this renders moot. While accepting wikipedia policy, I think I am not being unreasonable in feeling a considerable degree of frustration with perpetually moving target I have been presented on this issue.
On the subject of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, I would ask what the standard is for establishing a prima facie case (i.e. one that "denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact") for the unrelatedness of the two fields, that I would have to make without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. At that point, I would be reasonable in demanding that any rebuttal would likewise need to meet the standards of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. As it is, it seems that I must counter a whole string of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arguments, without violating either rule myself. This would seem to me to be unreasonable. Hrafn42 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Final warnings" and moving the goal-posts 

message: Neutral statement
Concerns have been expressed over the inclusion of a disclaimer stating that Picard's field of expertise is unrelated to evo-bio; making A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism a failed appeal to authority.
Diff 
Concerns state that the section is in violation of WP:OR (bringing in previously unpublished arguments) and WP:BLP. A previous version of the material was referenced to a blog .--ZayZayEM 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not reasonable to expect that anyone should, but we're not really dealing with reasonable editors here, are we? •Jim62sch• 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the biography has multiple fields of study.  To claim that a prominent scientist lacks qualifications in any given area of research, one would have to examine all the scientist's fields of expertise, not just one or two of them that happen to be among the ones for which the scientist is best known.  In any event, the field of computer science does relate to complexity theory, which in turn relates to the complexity of biological systems.  Moulton 23:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I have made a prima facie case that the fields are not related without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. However I cannot rebut the host of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH counter-claims that have been presented without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH myself. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that I should. Hrafn42 10:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not reasonable to expect that anyone should, but we're not really dealing with reasonable editors here, are we? •Jim62sch• 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the biography has multiple fields of study.  To claim that a prominent scientist lacks qualifications in any given area of research, one would have to examine all the scientist's fields of expertise, not just one or two of them that happen to be among the ones for which the scientist is best known.  In any event, the field of computer science does relate to complexity theory, which in turn relates to the complexity of biological systems.  Moulton 23:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have protected this page for 48 hours, until the current disputes and issues with OR etc. are resolved. I hope that the problem will be all fixed by the time the protection expires. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarification, ZayZayEM is noting that the protection is NOT an endorsement of removal of the disputed material – this may seem a violation of the principle that the wrong version always gets protected ;) but since it's a BLP it's the right thing to do. .. dave souza, talk 15:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Enough is enough with the disruptions; this discussion is going in repetitive circles with no additional substance to discuss at this point. The subject of this article is a minor player in the scheme of Things In The World. Perhaps the best claim to notability in WP is Picard's association with Ray Kurzweil. The book Affective Computing presently is ranked over 800,000 in sales rank on Amazon. If one copy sells today, it'll probably move up to the 700,000s -- in other words, it's way out at the thin edges of notability at most. Next thing you know, we'll have a :Category:Published Tenured Professors at MIT, which would be ridiculous at this stage of Wikipedia's growth. The consensus is quite clear as to at least brief mention of the NY Times article and being a signatory of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Time to drop the issue, or alternately, if people don't feel the topic of this article is adequately notable, to put the article up for deletion. ... Kenosis 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion certainly seems reasonable. •Jim62sch• 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it.  An insignificant individual whose total notability is a marginally interesting book and a signature on the DI petition.  Someone googles her will actually think she's an important signatory based on these discussions.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't feed the trolls 

message: In asking this question, I would note:
*that I am only seeking to establish a prima facie basis for this statement, not one that would stand up to every conceivable rebuttal; and
*WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions, to the extent that this may be applicable.
What level of citation does the statement "Neither Picard's original field of electrical engineering nor her current field of affective computing is related to evolutionary biology." require?
*no citation is required, the facts are self-evident
*current citation to NSF schema and science-as-map 
*further citation required
Assuming that this statement can be established, is it sufficiently self-evident that the 'Dissent' is an 'appeal to authority' & Picard's involvement an 'appeal to false authority' from the definitions of these, or is a statement to this effect WP:OR? Hrafn42 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the second part is accepted I will not dispute the inclusion of the first part without any reference or footnote." I respectfully disagree. The "first part" stands on its own and is relevant even without the second part. I see no reason to make the first part's inclusion subject to the second part's. Hrafn42 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the second part, providing context as two why the fact "Picard's field is not related to evo-bio" is relevant to the discussion, the comment is not relevant to the article and just provides an odd hanging (and not-quite accurately worded) non-sequitor. I will discuss this seperately after the discussion of the original RFC is over regarding the second part of contentious OR. If this passes, it gets included. If this fails, I will discuss further why it is an hanging non-sequitor, and why this should be avoided. Again I will abide by consensus, if consensus is acheived either way.--ZayZayEM 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence focuses the first, but its lack does not negate the relevance of the first. The first sentence, on its own, still indicates that Picard was venturing an opinion outside her area of expertise. Hrafn42 05:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'll discuss that later ^_^  --ZayZayEM 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelatedness & appeal to authority 

message: *The second part of this is the major OR issue at hand. I would like to avoid any discussion on the degree of relatedness between scientific fields. If the second part is accepted I will not dispute the inclusion of the first part without any reference or footnote. I will just mutter quietly to myself about things like science not being built of boxes.--ZayZayEM 05:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If the second part is accepted I will not dispute the inclusion of the first part without any reference or footnote." I respectfully disagree. The "first part" stands on its own and is relevant even without the second part. I see no reason to make the first part's inclusion subject to the second part's. Hrafn42 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the second part, providing context as two why the fact "Picard's field is not related to evo-bio" is relevant to the discussion, the comment is not relevant to the article and just provides an odd hanging (and not-quite accurately worded) non-sequitor. I will discuss this seperately after the discussion of the original RFC is over regarding the second part of contentious OR. If this passes, it gets included. If this fails, I will discuss further why it is an hanging non-sequitor, and why this should be avoided. Again I will abide by consensus, if consensus is acheived either way.--ZayZayEM 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence focuses the first, but its lack does not negate the relevance of the first. The first sentence, on its own, still indicates that Picard was venturing an opinion outside her area of expertise. Hrafn42 05:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'll discuss that later ^_^  --ZayZayEM 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Progress... User_talk:Hrafn42#Forget_I_said_anything
Okay. Given it is a connection highlighted by the NYT article, it seems a comment pointing out that Picard is not a biologist, or that here field does not directly relate to evo-bio will not constitute OR.
However, it is still perceivably WP:SYNTH (IMHO, a textbook case) to relate this back to the failed appeal-to-authority value of A Scientific Dissent. Is consensus for or against the inclusion of this? 
Previous text, which may or may not reflect final content:
I will be deleting any off-topic banter or trolling by any party, arguments have been presented numerous times by all parties involved, I don't think it really serves any purpose to continue.
For
#Hrafn42 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a consensus 

message: Looking at the source carefully, it seems to me that a sentence added after the first sentence in the existing paragraph could summarise the statement in a neutral way:
I did try "The Times noted that more than 350 of the signers, including Dr. Picard, were nonbiologists.", but that seemed to be going a bit beyond the source. ... dave souza, talk 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Given that we appear to be at an impasse on gaining a consensus on disputed content in this article, and given that the non-disputed content is quite minimal, I would like to nominate that this article be merged into Affective computing. I make this nomination on the basis of WP:MERGE and specifically these two "good reasons":
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
Picard is notable for little beyond the field of Affective Computing, so overlap should be obvious. Additionally, there seems little likelihood of much expansion of this article (none at all as long as it remains protected, but much debate for little or no gain even if it is unprotected again). There is quite frankly little further to be said about Picard that could not be better said on the article on Affective Computing. 
This proposal will require getting the template  inserted into this (protected) article. Unless anybody wishes to object to me making this proposal (as opposed to objecting to the merger itself), I will seek a  to get it inserted (alternatively, if an admin wanders in & decides that this proposal is a reasonable one to make, they might insert the template without me having to go through channels). Once we get the template onto this article, I'll place the complementary template on Affective computing . Hrafn42 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:MERGE and point out where it lists notability as an impediment to merger, or where it makes any mention at all on whether or not an article is a stub. Hrafn42 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion the disputed paragraph should be left out unless there's a consensus on the talk page to reintroduce it. My feeling is that she's just about notable enough for an article, but it's not a strong opinion. To allow discussions to progress I've unprotected the page, If edit warring ensues it will be reprotected. .. dave souza, talk 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My main point here there is material that is encyclopedically relevant to Picard that is not relevant to affective computing.--ZayZayEM 01:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Two of your arguments here are based on #1 "Picard is notable for little beyond the field of Affective Computing", so my counterclaim that this is false still stands and #2 "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded", so my counterclaim that neither article is a stub (Rosalind Picard is at least start-class IMO) stands too. This is a really weird merge proposal IMHO.--ZayZayEM 01:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not debating whether she is notable. I am debating whether there is significant non-overlapping notability beyond that of Affective Computing. If, as you appear to be conceding, she is "barely notable" to start with, and if there is, as I contend, a heavy overlap between her notability and that of Affective Computing, then the non-overlapping notability of Picard would be negligible, and not worthy of a separate article. Hrafn42 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: NYT does make a point of her being a non-biologist:
350> vs 128 is majority, so I don't think it is too bad to say that Picard is one amongst the majority of nonbiologists who signed the petition.--ZayZayEM 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what you are saying, but I wanted to note that she works in the field of emotions and intelligence which, even if it doesn't deal directly with biology, is a field that is attached to biology in the same manner that sociology, linguistics, psychology, etc, are attached to biology. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-biologist 

message: Can we start with a version of PelleSmith's sentence:
"In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," which supports intelligent design."  
and possibly expand it somewhat to find a consensus version?  Or perhaps, 
Picard has expressed support for intelligent design theory, and was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."
I'm sure we can find a wording everyone agrees with. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe these versions "explain what might otherwise be a confusing statement," in extreme clairty without delving into what it "has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute," for.  We should not be forcing inferences about petition signers onto our readers based upon what other people or institutions are doing with their signed petition.  If there are reliable sources reporting on such inferences, or making them in a critical capacity, then its fair game, but that appears not to be the case here.PelleSmith (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The DI's petition is used to promote intelligent design, period. It is one of the centerpieces of the Discovery Institute's ID campaign. The article will need reflect this easily verifiable fact or else be under constant attack. Let's not gloss over the facts. Odd nature (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable reference source that specifically identifies Picard as a supporter of intelligent design theory, or is that being extrapolated from her signing of the petition?  Risker (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first suggested sentence makes no such inference, but you make a good point.  The petition itself is not even explicitly in support of "intelligent design" but instead "skeptical" of Darwinism.  Are you suggesting it should be reworded?PelleSmith (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that such nuance in a couple of words is impossible. We don't need the last sentence at all. "Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". should be enough for our purposes. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my above comments, re: whitewashing to remove the importance and notability of the statement. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address the points raised. If by "above comments" you mean "Effectively cloaking the meaning, importance, and notability of that fact that she signed it" - so much more pleasant to hear than "whitewashing", by the way - those concerns have already been effectively answered by the fact that (a) we don't know the meaning of why she signed it (b) its neither particularly important in terms of her bio nor relevant to her reason for notability. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) For the record I agree with Relata above, though am not opposed to a descriptor if there are those who think that "dissent from Darwinism" isn't enough of an explanation in and of itself. I have found this concerning her attitude towards intelligent design from a seemingly reliable source: "But Picard has some reservations about intelligent design, saying it isn't being sufficiently challenged by Christians and other people of faith."PelleSmith (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Because it makes her look bad. And people are attempting to distort the meaning of BLP (which is designed to expiate the removal of libelous content, which this is not) to turn this article into a hagiography. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we're all for hagiographies, us. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is that currently we do not "explain what the petition is."  The disputed sentence discusses what the DI has used the petition for, and not what the petition states.  That is not explaining "what the petition is" and it infers that the person who signed it supports this use without presenting any verification of this fact.  With outside sourcing it would not be a problem, and the fact that a zealous editor here has tried to do his own primary research and infers X, Y and Z from Picard's lack of response to him does not cut it by our standards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PelleSmith is exactly right here. The sentence in question is a broadside against the Discovery Institute and has nothing to do with Picard, nor even discusses the petition. Plus I don't see why people are conducting investigate journalism here by contacting Picard and the New York Times. Unless she files an OTRS ticket or makes her views known via a reliable source, we can assume nothing about what she thinks about this article. And again, it appears we've lost all sense of perspective here - the NYT article mentioned her name in passing, that's it. - Merzbow (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct, as Merzbow has pointed out twice now, her name was only mentioned in passing.  People here keep on discussing the NYT article as if it were primarily about Picard's signing of the petition which it is clearly not.PelleSmith (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Re Raul: if Picard's actions make her look bad, so be it. We can't help that, and we should say she signed the petition.  My impression of the current wording is that it discusses the actions of the Discovery Institute in order to cast a negative light on Picard - that's the BLP issue. The sentences above let the reader click the links and come to their own conclusion about Picard's actions, and that's exactly what we want for NPOV here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When there's more about this evil petition than anything else in her entire career, there's something wrong with the biography. What the petition is used for, is not up to Picard. I agree with CBM - link people to the debate about the petition and let them decide. Anything else is undue weight and coatracking. I'm a strong opponent of so-called "intelligent design" and the Discovery Institute and their tactics, but to rub their tactics all over Picard's bio strikes me as unfair and unnecessary. If there's evidence that she's actively participated in the movement beyond signing this thing, provide it. Otherwise, just say she signed it and leave it at that. FCYTravis (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: But we don't know if she's done any of these things.  We certainly don't know that she has been pushing "to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools," which is what the sentence says about DI and "some of its supporters."  The RS I found earlier even suggests that while she is a skeptic of Darwinism she is not sold on "intelligent design" herself making the inference that she wants to promote its teaching in public schools knowingly borderline libelous.  Again, with sources attesting to such things this would not be an issue.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The way to fix this, if she is so notable for other things as others claim, is to include more material about her other activities. So, if you claim she is notable, then describe it. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We don't need a whole second sentence to tell us what the petition is. That can be folded into the existing sentence - the petition questions the modern evolutionary synthesis. All the rest is politicking. We also don't need to say that the "New York Times reported that she signed it" - that makes it sound like some striking act of investigative journalism. The fact that she signed it is self-evident. FCYTravis (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to Dave Souza: Well, again. That is what other people are saying the petition means; it doesn't actually explain Picard's position. The link above given by Pelle Smith includes direct quotes on her position, and is far more useful than someone else's interpretation of what that petition meant, and whether or not she agrees with how it has been used or interpreted by others. I would have no objection to the use of Pelle Smith's reference, and would suggest it should actually take primacy over the petition since the article includes her own words. Risker (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We are not here to gloss over the facts. The petition is a centerpiece in the Discovery Institute's ID campaign. Any attempt to gloss over easily verifiable facts like this will only result in the article being under constant attempts to update it. Odd nature (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Your re-write is false.  The petition may be part of a "campaign to promote intelligent design," the petition itself is only critical of Darwinism, which may be a prerequisite of belief in ID but it is itself not positive support of that specific theory.  There is no whitewashing going on here.  There was already ample explanation and wikilining before you rendered the sentence actually false.  Ontop of this we have an RS that states that this individual is not in specific support of ID though her perspective may be similar, making the insinuation based on the falsehood a larger problem.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be clueless on the subject. Read the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns articles and try making that claim again. Odd nature (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you don't understand what I said or you're trying to be confusing.  I have read both of those wikipedia entries.  The petition is used in a larger campaign which promotes ID, but the petition itself which I've read several times, and amounts to two sentences, makes no positive claim.  Its only claim is negative, or "critical."  The sentence, as it stood, made the claim that the petition itself promoted ID.  Do you understand the difference?PelleSmith (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote from the entry you have linked yourself: "The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint."  The petition supports the negative claim, against Darwinism but not the positive claim, for ID.  Now if other documents, programs, or what have you that the DI uses along with this petition in various ways promote ID then that is another matter, but that's not what I objected to.PelleSmith (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course, Picard's only claim to notability is simply the fact that she is part of DI's campaign to discredit science.  Otherwise, I doubt she'd rate an article.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. She has been the subject of at least two article-length profiles in reliable sources. The ID petition, judging by Google News, is a fractionally small proportion of her notability. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mistaken because ????  I don't know science?  I'm not well educated in this area?  Because I'm not a scientist?   This article was mostly edited because of her ID position.  There are thousands of other scientists who do not have articles on here, and the fact is they have done much more than this Creationist has done.  Especially since her work isn't science, it's more applied engineering.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only claim for her to have an article is that she was one of 514 people who signed something, then she shouldn't have an article at all. Please stop reverting legitimate edits with the claim that it is "whitewashing." You are assuming bad faith and refusing to engage in good-faith consensus editing efforts. FCYTravis (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh give me a break.  I have made one edit in language and one edit in MOS today.  Where do you get off making that attack??? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because every time you revert someone's rewrite, you scream "whitewash" - which is neither true, nor helpful. It serves to entrench positions and fuel the flames. I could just as easily accuse you of single-mindedly attempting to portray this person in as bad a light as possible - something which policy and good practice frowns on. Are you here to stop the evil whitewashers, or are you here to work in good faith on this article? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SPADE. Odd nature (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, if you want to go there. If I'm here to whitewash, you're here to smear, making this biography as negative as you can possibly make it, using her signing of the petition as a coatrack to hang all manner of inferences and speculation on her. So I guess between my whitewashing and your smearing, we'll find a balance. FCYTravis (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: That is a matter for us to determine by way of WP:ACADEMIC.  The very context in which the NYT mentions her name is one of notability.  As in she is one of a very few notable academics who signed this petition, so I doubt this assertion very much.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Last go round it was hard to find much to support her notability, but enough was found and added. Glad to see more being added. The petition is obscure in itself, her significance was that she continued to give it tacit support at a time when it was being used in campaigning, as shown in the news article. Her statement of November 2007 sort of distances her from ID, and it is appropriate to show that.  .. dave souza, talk 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The version as it stands here is acceptable to me. It's one sentence, accurately states that the petition is used to promote intelligent design, but doesn't make any allegations or conclusions about her thoughts on how the petition has been used. FCYTravis (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworded sentence 

message: This is the source mentioned above, in case anyone is confused: http://news.therecord.com/article/264978.  In this source she says she's not happy with Intelligent Design though her own perspective is certainly similar.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've incorporated it along with revisions to clarify the petition situation – the petition doesn't say anything about modern evolutionary theory, but makes a vague expression of skepticism about "Darwinism". Glad to see more sources and information being found, previously it was hard to find much to confirm notability. ... dave souza, talk 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your rewrite brings us back to pretty much the same situation we were in before it was cleaned up.  Again we have the actions of the DI reported here as if by inference she supports them through her signing, yet we have not verified that this is true, and in fact we have reason to believe that she does not support specifically the teaching of ID.  So good job bringing the BLP problems back full swing.PelleSmith (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misrepresent the petition, and my edit does not say she supports ID. Read it carefully. .. dave souza, talk 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We can't infer anything from her "opportunity to distance herself from the petition." We can't make any inferences. This is like the whole phony Obama/Rev. Wright debacle - just because you're associated with someone at one time, doesn't mean you automatically support everything they do or say. The fact that she has not necessarily chosen to speak out against any particular example of Discovery Institute's work, does not mean that she supports the Discovery Institute's goals and aims. She's signed the petition, which has been used to promote intelligent design. Those are facts. Anything beyond that, is speculation and inference, which obviously we cannot do, especially on a BLP. FCYTravis (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And if she does support all of their goals we have to wait until such a time that we can provide verfiable proof of this, otherwise we're just courting BLP trouble.  How hard is it to understand this?PelleSmith (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap13/thirteen1.html
Something about this chapter might be useful in the article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writings 

message: It is complained that for this biography, there are two parts:
*A, about Picard's career
*B, about Picard's signature of a petition
and that B is too large compared to A. The only reason that there is an article here is because of B. Others claim that A justifies the article, even if B was not true. 
To make A larger than B, either B can be reduced, or A can be increased. For those who claim that there is plenty of A to justify an article, they should be able to expand A. Stop complaining about it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for months on end and just do it. Just do it. Is that so hard? Do it.
And so instead of attacking the two sentences of B, add to A. The reasonable way to increase the ratio of A/B is to increase A, not decrease B. If you claim there is not enough A to use to increase A/B, then lets just get rid of this waste of time. And set the size of A and B equal to zero. 
This is not rocket science here. Just stop whining and work.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that straw man.  It is complained here that the nature of B (in the version you prefer) makes inferences about the subject that are not correct.  The way to fix an error is not to add more unproblematic text as if pilling on the roses makes the shit stink any less.  No offense but this is getting a bit tiresome.  Can you at least stick to the actual complaint, and stop telling people that things they consider important simply amount to "whining."PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Your repeated insults about "nonsense" and "whining" are not exactly understood as "warnings" of a legitimate nature. This latest "warning" amounts to nothing but a "threat."  Please do try to report this somewhere, I'm fairly confident I'm not the one who would get banned as a result.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Baseless accusations, especially when mixed in with clear insults, are themselves text book violations of WP:NPA.  Feel free to read the policies you are slinging around.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Forking the above discussion to divert attention to the fact that consensus was not going his way, I'd say. Odd nature (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue complaint 

message: Maybe link the top Affective Computing to the relevant article?
Although Fill, Jim and OrangeMarlin seem to have done what is best described as "revenge editing" there...
/sigh 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please AGF. They're all mature individuals, I'm sure they wouldn't do anything so painfully juvenile. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm its been done jumped the gun. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, its lousy, especially after being torn apart :) however that is most likely going to be discussed over there. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is crap and needs fixing, or rather, major reconstruction.  The English is poor, numerous claims are unsubstantiated and uncited, much of it is vague, etc.  In essense, in reading the article one learns nothing. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I did, I went through all the sources after my interest had been sparked ;) The article described (past tense) the field rather well, now its a pain to read. I just wonder that you went over there after being rebuffed here, to tear it to pieces, and then expect others to fix the shambles. ALSO: YOU are the only one claiming the japanese did research, so why should I bother to find the sources? I claim the sky is green, now you find me the sources for that kk tx bye. (oh, and I have an account, I just don't use it cause hiding behind a screen name when editing an "Encyclopedia" is... odd 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Affective computing? 

message: Every time there is some complaint about this article, and it finally gets answered, then some new complaint "magically" appears. Makes me think that we have some who are being disingenuous, or who are only here to fight. For example:
*At first it was claimed there was a problem with WP:UNDUE after we removed violations of copyright. That is no longer a problem but people continue to fight even after there is a lot more material about the main part of her career in the article. I guess that really was not a concern after all, was it? 
*It was claimed over and over that Picard did not really subscribe to the statement on the petition, because she had been tricked into signing a blank petition, or a new header was used to frame it, or it was used for purposes she did not agree with. We were bullied because we did not write material attacking the New York Times for bad reporting or incompetence or lousy investigation or being dishonest etc. It was claimed that Wikipedia was therefore violating "journalistic ethical standards". Surprisingly, one dufus after another bought into this ridiculous argument. The proponents of this view were offered the opportunity to find us another source correcting this and balancing things for months and months, by at least 3 Wikipedia editors. There were at least 10 emails and several phone calls exchanged trying to encourage some information that corrected this. Nothing was forthcoming for months and months. All we had were complaints and whining. Now finally we have a partial statement satisfying our request, many months later. And so we include it. Does that satisfy those who are complaining? No, of course not. I guess that really was not a concern after all, was it? 
*It was claimed that intelligent design was a completely reasonable approach and therefore Picard should not be vilified for subscribing to it. But if it is reasonable, and there is no shame associated with it, why fight so hard to keep all mention of it out of the article? Makes ZERO sense. Now again we have hordes of editors who claim that they do not believe in ID and ID is crap, but why is ID crap? Why is it a bad thing to subscribe to? We have only a minimal statement from Picard to go on that she disagrees with some of it. Ok fair enough, we report that. But somehow people want to have it both ways; that ID is reasonable and one should be proud of supporting it but arguing at the same time that ID is not reasonable and it is embarassing to be associated with it. Sorry people, you cannot argue both at the same time. It really makes no sense. Why not just report it as it is, and leave the value judgements about whether ID is good or not to someone else, like our sources? 
* We have people misinterpreting sources like the New York Times, over and over and over for months. It was claimed that tne New York Times never reported that Picard signed, but it did. It was claimed that the New York Times never described what the petition is or what it is used for, but it did. It is claimed that no sources describe the petition as being part of the Discovery Institute campaigns against evolution, but we of course have hundreds if not thousands of such sources. It is claimed that the petition is not used as an attack on evolution, when of course when it was first announced it was titled as a Dissent from Darwinism, where Darwinism is the Discovery Institute (and creationist) name for evolution, and even, thanks to Phillip E. Johnson, all of science and engineering since the Scientific Revolution (that is, methodological naturalism and materialism). This is the same game your ideological cousins who made Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed want to play. Make one sort of statement to the base, and then deny it was said. Well that won't fly here. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. And buying into propaganda and obfuscation does not serve our readers well. We will not be just quoting the Discovery Institute or Premise Media or the Swift Boat Public Relations firm for our sources. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it impacts the article. It describes the viscious fighting that is going on to obscure the truth and whitewash the situation. And puts a spotlight on some of the activities of editors here who should know better than to engage in this sort of behavior.--Filll (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You know, you are not editing this article in a vaccuum. There is a history. You might want to read it and see why it was created and how it evolved over the months and what the arguments were about and why it was written the way it was written. Since you want to fight and fight and fight, maybe you should know some background, don't you think? And actually when some editors here make the exact same edits as departed editors and banned editors, appearing to engage in proxy editing for banned editors (which is grounds for immediate banning), and we have substantial evidence of recruiting of meat puppets (which again is grounds for banning of the puppets), then this is a matter of concern for the writing of this article. So this is relevant. Quite.--Filll (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the answer:  NONE CURRENTLY HERE IS MAKING ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS.  Are you accusing anyone currently here of editing by proxy or as a meat puppet btw?  I'm truly sorry if you had editors here making the claims that you have highlighted, but if those editors have now departed and those issues have now been dealt with then your history lesson is not apropos, and it is disingenuous since it suggests that your current interlocutors are making these claims.  Of course, given what you want to keep in the entry, I don't find it particularly surprising that you would employ such tactics.  Anyone who signs the petition is a pawn of the DI, and anyone who opposes your edits must also subscribe to the above ludicrous claims.  Please take Relata's advice and remove the history lesson unless it has some relevance to the current discussion.PelleSmith (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have argued over and over and over and over and over for months on end that the signing was not a bad thing. And for people who want to hide it, they seem to be doing it because they believe it is somehow shameful or embarassing. So they are trying to whitewash this. That is just nonsense. As I said before, you cannot have it both ways; it is something to be proud of and something to be ashamed of, at the same time. She is not being ridiculed. As I said before, who is to say this is a shameful thing or a bad thing? Who is to say she is wrong? You are assuming I and others disagree with Picard. Why do you think that? I am not the one broadcasting my beliefs on this page over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum, even though my personal beliefs are irrelevant here. That is just nonsense. We are not going to war with Picard. We are trying to summarize an article in the New York Times that mentioned her. And many others want to use every means at their disposal to distort the record in the media, or to misrepresent it. And I am trying to prevent that distortion. Is that so hard to understand? I am also the one who has asked for months and months and months for more content about her career that is not plagiarized or cut and pasted from something protected by copyright. If this was so all fired important to people, they would have actually written something about her in the interening 9 or 10 months, don't you think? Instead, we get fighting. And as I pointed out, the complaints have been answered. And still we get fighting. Because clearly, the complaints were not the issue. There is something else going on here. Hmm....I wonder what?--Filll (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, CoI, and proxying for a banned editor. Have I left anything out? You're the expert. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Look WP:UNDUE has been answered, but you still fight. A personal statement from Picard has been included, but you still fight. There is continued misrepresentation of sources. And yes, we have reason to believe there is at least one here who is proxy editing for a banned user. And we have plenty of evidence of recruiting of meat puppets. We have some evidence of sock puppetry as well. So, if you fall in any of these categories, it is just a word to the wise. Watch your Ps and Qs. --Filll (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered where? Misrepresentation where? -- from the well-known meatpuppet and proxy for a banned editor  Relata refero (disp.) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Would you care to substantiate those claims: Which editor do you believe is proxy editing? Which editor do you believe is a sockpuppet (apart  from the IP editors)? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process  by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable. (Someone needs a refresher.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Mr. Filll, I'd suggest walking away for a while. Maybe having some tea. I'm not involved with your dispute here, I'm just watching the page and don't think that being here is healthy for you right now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And now you're issuing threats. Keep escalating, Mr. Filll. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Please stop the veiled threats; nobody has mentioned KTC's anonymity, so it's very strange to see you bring it up out of the blue. Unless you have evidence to present about sockpuppetry of meatpuppetry, or proxying for banned eidtors, let's focus on the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You have commented several times about proxying for banned editors, sockpuppeting, etc. and how this could result in banning. These things are irrelevant to this talk page; if you have evidence about them, please take it to ANI or Arbcom. Similarly, KTC's anonymity is not relevant here, nor are arguments made on other forums. We all need to focus on the content here, and on the arguments being made here, not on the people making them or on people who have contributed here before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If you wish to caution them, it would be preferable to use their individual talk pages rather than making generic warnings. In the meantime, please either present evidence or change the subject. We all need to focus on the article, not the editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I welcome your efforts, sir. Please take this to ANI, please. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The method recommended by 4 out 5 dramamongers. Odd nature (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Now that's laughable.  I see no administrative scrutiny here regarding anyone's behavior.  Editors arguing points of content who happen to be administrators ... that's an entirely different matter.  If you are not planning to take any of this AN/I I suggest you stop with the accusations and the insinuations.  You're running yourself in a very obvious circle.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilarious 

message: I do congratulate those who have expanded the article greatly using reliable sources. Kudos to all. At least something positive is happening here. spryde | talk 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Although many are extremely angry about the progress, clearly. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I try. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I didn't notice. Odd nature (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As much controversy that has been generated by this article... 

message: We could just link or add a box that says "signed Dissent from Darwinism", and then have a mile long article there. Oh, we already do. Right. So to save duplication of effort, link once and leave it at that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite as short, but still a one-liner - "Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," a controversial petition which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution." KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support KillerChihuahua's version and point. Odd nature (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The petition's facial wording says it questions the veracity of the theory of evolution. Thus the article's wording, as is, reflects that. It questions evolution and has been used to promote intelligent design. There is a subtle but important semantic point here. We don't know that Picard intended to promote intelligent design. We know that she signed a petition which says, in plain, uninterpreted wording, that, We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. That is not, on its face, a promotion of intelligent design. What the Discovery Institute has used the petition for, is beyond the scope of Picard's biography. FCYTravis (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're asking us to ignore the Discovery Institute petition's context (promotion of ID) and repeat the same rhetorical shell game the institute uses in this article? Er, no, I don't think so. Odd nature (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you're the one using a rhetorical shell game. The plain wording of the petition is clear. It does not mention intelligent design. Anywhere. If it does, show me. Now, you and I agree that it has been used by the DI to promote intelligent design. But that is not the same. The petition, in and of itself, is not a promotion of intelligent design. FCYTravis (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? Obviously you can promote something without ever mentioning it. Present Z, an alternative to X, then harp on the failings of X. Z is the beneficiary. By going on about whatever is wrong about Ding Dongs I can promote Twinkies if I've presented Twinkies as an alternative elsewhere. A classic left hand/right hand PR tactic. Read A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Stop wasting your time and ours. Odd nature (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Harping on the failings of X can be used to lend authority to alternative Z but harping on the failings of X is quite clearly not the same as alternative Z.  We've all read those entries, entries which clearly differentiate between the campaigns of the DI and what the petition itself promotes.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Wikipedia articles are not just a list of links.--Filll (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: KC's suggestion is an accurate NPOV summary based on what is at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Still don't agree with that being the choice here. Hypothetically, if we cannot summarise a nuanced situation without violating NPOV, why should we try? --Relata refero (disp.) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nuanced"? Oh come on.  •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain it to most readers, who don't have your knowledge of ID. it's certainly a concise way of covering the essentials, explaining without going into detail. .. dave souza, talk 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Who says we haven't summarised a nuanced situation without violating NPOV? "(T)he Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution" does just that. Show us specifically were it doesn't. Odd nature (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "...which has been used by the Discovery Institute to promote intelligent design..." would be better, if it is necessary to mention ID at all. The petition itself doesn't promote or even mention ID. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I would argue that line is backward, too. The plain wording of the petition does not, in and of itself, promote intelligent design. If the petition said "We believe intelligent design to be true, and Darwinism to be false," you would have a point. But it doesn't. It is a statement of skepticism and request for further inquiry. Of course, the petition has been used to promote intelligent design by its creator, but that is not the same. FCYTravis (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ignoring the context of the petition; it was created to promote ID, period. Just because you chose to ignore the petition's context you shouldn't expect others here will as well. Read the article. Odd nature (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to whoever called me out: please don't, I'm already terrified. I would merely like to point out that the petition is used to promote ID and expresses "skepticism" about evolution. If we can't agree on wording, I don't see the need to put an explanation in there at all. The "we need to be printable" reason is still a pretty poor argument, and I don't care if I get blocked for saying that. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By saying "used to promote" you imply that the petition was created for some other purpose, which it was not. The petition's creator has been conducting a long PR campaign to lead the public to believe evolution is the subject of widespread doubt in the scientific community, which it is not. We need to be precise here and avoid weasely terms like "used to promote" in order to not repeat their message through Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comment below and please have a closer look at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.PelleSmith (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Terrified of or by what?  The petition was crafted by IDiots: saying it is used to support IDiotism is like saying that the Communist Manifesto was used to support Communism.  •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree completely. To respond to Jim's point as well, a hypothetical Intelligent Design Manifesto would obviously promote ID in and of itself, and anyone who would sign such a document could be said to support such without reservation. In contrast, the petition here says nothing about ID, and we have to be careful to not imply that its signatories necessarily supported ID. That is why "used to promote" is more appropriate. Maybe they were idiots for not realizing how it would be used. Certainly many who signed appeared to be aware of how it would be used. But for some, like here, we have no information either way, and shouldn't imply things we can't prove. - Merzbow (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for a hypothetical example, there is a real ID manifesto, the Wedge Document. I would think, and I'm sure the community expects, anyone who edits ID-related articles to already know this. Ahem. Odd nature (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the first 100 or so signatories might have been idiots. But then some realized the problem and removed themselves from the petition or distanced themselves from ID and the petition. Everyone after the first 100 has no such excuses. And everyone after the first 100 who has stayed for a few years also has no such excuses. But in any case, we now have a clarifying statement we can rely on. So what is the problem?--Filll (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained above exactly the issue I am concerned about. I believe you are reading more into the fact that she hasn't denounced the petition than our article should. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think you quite get it. I am not advocating stating any of that in the article. That is just talk page discussion. The basic facts are (1) she signed (2) she was asked for clarification several times and refused (but we will not mention that) (3) she remained on the list for years (for whatever reason, but we will not speculate why) (4) She issued a statement partly clarifying her position. So what is the problem?--Filll (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: KillerChihuahua's brief statement avoids going into the speculation about the timing and implications of her signing, makes a simple statement of fact, and as suggested below can be followed immediately by her statement about her position. .. dave souza, talk 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to agree to that as long as we add another source that specifically says the petition promotes ID, because I still don't think the NYT article says that (as opposed to saying DI promotes ID, which it does). I've been told there are many sources for this, I'm just asking for one. I looked through the first three at the SDFD article, but got lost. - Merzbow (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, wait. Are you saying that the Discovery Insitute source of ID, hub of the movement, and author of the petition did not create the petition to promote ID? Odd nature (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to go on more than "no duh" common sense here.  Since the petition's language does not promote ID we don't have a way to verify this through the primary source.  Do we have another source?PelleSmith (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I am sure they did. But whether or not this is obvious from the petition itself is a key BLP point; by saying the "petition promotes ID", we're also very strongly implying its signers knew this too. And given Picard's subsequent statement skeptical of ID, this is far from clear. I'd like to see a reliable source make that specific point; otherwise I think "used to promote ID" is the wiser choice. - Merzbow (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Suppose we move the "Though some of her beliefs are similar, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, ..." sentence to immediately after the one about the Dissent petition, and move the DNA sentence further down the paragraph. The juxtaposition will clarify her position. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: She signed a petition promoting ID, that's a verifiable fact. It's also a verifiable fact that she said she doesn't support ID. The article needs to present both facts and let the reader decide. Odd nature (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should portray her as a confused person. "I only signed it becauase I was clueless, but it sounded good, or maybe it was bad, I dunno". •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  very short 

message: Doing something like KC proposes would look roughly like this:
Placard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution. More recently, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement, saying that it deserves "much more" skepticism, and hasn't been adequately challenged by Christians and other people of faith. She argues that the media has created a false dilemma by dividing everyone into two groups, supporters of intelligent design or evolution. "To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice," she said. Picard sees DNA as too complex to have originated through "purely random processes" and believes that it shows "the mark of intervention," and "a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are."
I think this is fair enough. Putting it all in context, we can honestly say what the petition is about, but still provide proper balance about her position. PS et al, please consider now the entire paragraph again, is it really that unfair? I think it's balanced and accurate wrt most reliable sources on this topic. Merzul (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The para above seems to me to imply that Picard had some sort of change of mind about ID, at one time supporting it and then distancing herself. But I don't think it's clear that she supported ID when she signed the petition, only that she supported what the petition says, which is that people should evaluate evolution skeptically. Maybe I am overlooking the reference where she says that she intended to support ID when she signed the petition? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to source the idea that the petition promotes intelligent design.  The primary source does not support this, and the main entry itself differentiates between what the petition promotes and what the DI promotes.  Please see my post above.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "...a controversial petition which questions evolution and has been used by the institute to promote intelligent design." That wording says what Picard endorsed - the wording of the petition which questions evolution and never mentions ID - and says how it has been used, which is by the institute in its ID campaigns. We can allow readers to draw their own conclusions as to what that means, and we can Wikilink Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to "promote intelligent design." Readers can click on that link and decide for themselves how to interpret her signature. FCYTravis (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have some source for claiming the petition "has been used by DI to promote ID" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to stipulate that as a fact. The petition pretty clearly has been used by the DI to promote ID. I'm sure there are sources for that. What there aren't sources for is connecting Picard to support of ID. FCYTravis (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Travis, don't be so sure about that.  I'm having the shocking revelation presently that finding a source even for what we have all taken for granted, that the DI uses this petition to push its ID agenda (as one would obviously assume it would) is extremely difficult.  No such source exists, for instance, on the entry for the petition.  I had to tag the one sentence that makes this claim emphatically with a ((cn)) tag just now.  I mean don't get me wrong, I truly believe this to be the case, but it amazes me that the people who keep on claiming to have hundreds of sources for everything haven't even added a source for this on the relevant pages.  I'll keep looking.PelleSmith (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm at a loss.  It seems obvious that this is part of their larger strategy, as laid out in their "wedge document" but I can't find a good source.  Hopefully someone will get the source into the other entry at which point we would have it here as well.PelleSmith (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KC's version: Putting it all together...  

message: Wow. A lot of activity on this page in a brief span of time. I'll add just one comment to the mix right now: we cannot use the DI, or any highly partisan source, for anything other than what they say. Guettarda stated it clearly: "Like any political organisation, the DI is an unreliable source, but they are a useful corroborating source. Primary sources are useful for corroboration, but they shouldn't be taken as reliable, especially when the contradict reliable sources.". We have tons of sourcing which makes it clear the document was created and used for promotion of ID. No one is arguing that Picard did not sign it. Are we all in agreement on those points? If not, please provide your (concise) reasoning below, thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think we all agree about the fact that she signed and about the intentions and actions of the Discovery Institute.  That said ... "was created for," and "is used to promote" do not equate to "the petition promotes."  In both of those former cases we have human agents (at the Discovery institute) about whom we can impute first intent ("was created for") and second action ("is used to promote").  In the controversial language I and others don't agree with it is wished that we impute the intent and actions of these human agents onto the petition itself--the petition "promotes intelligent design."  But the petition does not clearly show any such intent on its own, nor can it act by itself to promote anything other than what it says.  Then we have a situation in which other human agents who agree with this petition are implicated not in the language of the petition but in the intentions and actions of these original human agents (the Discover Institute).  We simply cannot do this without some verification that the human who signed the petition agrees with the intent and actions of the people who created a petition, the language of which does not make either those original intentions or those subsequent actions self-evident.PelleSmith (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Where is the original research exactly?  Diffs or quotes would be nice as I mentioned above.  And please do refactor your commentary so as to remove the irrelevant link spam you have posted here.PelleSmith (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Fill making baseless accusations is entirely unhelpful and entirely against Wikipedia policy.  Hiding behind ... "i'm not going to spoon feed you" is a cheap ploy that is disingenuous.  I am aware of what the policy says, and do see the immense irony in someone who refuses to produce any sources for his claims linking to a policy about sourcing.  For the last time, I didn't bring this source here, FeloniusMonk did.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps one of you should open a case with one of the mediation pathways. This is getting circular. And please, dear god, think of the windmills! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tilting at windmills is a time honored tradition. Oh Sancho! When will you learn to just accept. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Right when I asked "where is the original research" I did so on a whim ... PelleSmith (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, may I suggest bringing your case to one of the mediation pathways, medcab perhaps? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I am confused here. Could you summarise what the PSTS error that is being made is? I'm usually so good at spotting it... --Relata refero (disp.) 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'm aware of the policy, I enforce it almost daily in various contentious situations. I was asking how, specifically, it is being violated here. Relata refero (disp.) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely false and in fact tendentious interpretation of WP policy. Nice but not the smartest thing to try.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the Skip Evans piece (this one?) confuses me quite a bit.  Evans basically says that we can't be sure if signatories of the petition even, in our words, "question evolution," and that there is a vast range of beliefs represented in no small part because of how deceitful the language in the petition is.  His argument makes a very strong case for Relata's original suggestion to simply link the DI and to link the petition ... drawing no conclusions as to what it promotes, or how it has been used.  I'm confused as to how you suggest we read Skip Evans here.  Particularly I'm confused as to how we are to use his article to promote more definitive and leading language about the petition like ... "the petition promotes intelligent design."  Please help me understand.PelleSmith (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evans: Under close examination, the text of both the leading paragraphs and the statement attested to appear to be very artfully phrased. He explains how ambiguous the statement is, and how meaningless a "plain reading" of the text would be.  Which is why we can't rely on it as a primary source that can be reliably interpreted by the average "educated person".  Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem arises with this view in that it becomes hard to claim that anyone can interpret this document then, especially given that the source claims that there are clearly various interpretations floating around amongst those who signed it.  Without knowing what Picard's particular interpretation was, to say that the document means X or promotes Y becomes even more difficult, again given what this source tells us.  I prefer at least being able to say that the petition "challenges evolution."PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you can quote Travis here, or at least paraphrase the interpretation that you think he is taking from the document.  I see no objection on his part, or anyone else's to the idea you have outlined here that "the petition is used as part of the DI's campaigns to undermine evolution and promote ID."  We are all comfortable with the language that is presently in the entry stating that the petition "is used by the institute to promote intelligent design."  In fact I believe Travis authored this very language, or something very similar at least.  The fact that the secondary sources state this is obvious and acknowledged by all.  What we don't understand is where the secondary sources state that the "petition promotes intelligent design."  So please tell us what the faulty interpretation is so we can take it from there.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , for example.  Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok the example states that a plain reading, according to Travis, allows us to write that the petition "challenges evolution," but nothing else.   Are you saying that we should not include this?  So the primary source is entirely useless and we cannot use it to say that the petition challanges evolution?PelleSmith (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In other words it would help if you state clearly what his "misinformed reading" is so that we can at least understand what the debate is about.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that phrases like "plain reading" are unhelpful. I think a useful mental exercise here, for all participants, is to treat the petition as opaque. We should make no reference to its language at all in our discussions here, and simply point to what secondary sources claim about the petition. Given that, my issue is still that I haven't seen a secondary source claim the petition inherently promotes ID, only that the DI uses it for such purposes. - Merzbow (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not that artfully posed, nor is it all that vague.  The use of "random" in the first sentence, and the entire second sentence itself leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the petition. If the signatories didn't catch the drift of that purpose, it just means that they are idiots who should not enoble themselves by claiming to be scientists.  •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is clearly anti-evolution?PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Clever.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There is indeed no rush; in fact I was going to suggest that we slow down the discussion a bit so that everyone has more of a opportunity to respond to points before they get buried too deeply. - Merzbow (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I just spent the last hour or so putting this together - I didn't notice your suggestion to slow down.  Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing, etc. 

message: I've created this subheading for transparency.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the original research exactly?  Diffs or quotes would be nice as I mentioned above.  And please do refactor your commentary so as to remove the irrelevant link spam you have posted here.PelleSmith (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Fill making baseless accusations is entirely unhelpful and entirely against Wikipedia policy.  Hiding behind ... "i'm not going to spoon feed you" is a cheap ploy that is disingenuous.  I am aware of what the policy says, and do see the immense irony in someone who refuses to produce any sources for his claims linking to a policy about sourcing.  For the last time, I didn't bring this source here, FeloniusMonk did.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps one of you should open a case with one of the mediation pathways. This is getting circular. And please, dear god, think of the windmills! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tilting at windmills is a time honored tradition. Oh Sancho! When will you learn to just accept. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Right when I asked "where is the original research" I did so on a whim ... PelleSmith (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, may I suggest bringing your case to one of the mediation pathways, medcab perhaps? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I am confused here. Could you summarise what the PSTS error that is being made is? I'm usually so good at spotting it... --Relata refero (disp.) 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'm aware of the policy, I enforce it almost daily in various contentious situations. I was asking how, specifically, it is being violated here. Relata refero (disp.) 15:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely false and in fact tendentious interpretation of WP policy. Nice but not the smartest thing to try.--Filll (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pellesmith's failure to understand policy

message: *Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.  What conclusions are "evident" in the source, and what conclusions aren't?
What conclusions are evident from the source?  That depends on your underlying knowledge base.  To a child starting school it would probably be evident that there are two sentences, thirty-two words.  To someone who had something less than an high school-level understanding of evolution (assuming that evolution was actually covered in their class) it would seem to be saying "we are skeptical of claims that {evolution, Darwinism, Darwinian evolution} can account for the complexity of life, and that the evidence for {evolution, Darwinism, Darwinian evolution} should be carefully examined".
To someone with a slightly more complete understanding of evolution, it would be evident that the petition is saying "we are skeptical that two elements of evolutionary theory can explain the diversity of life, and that the evidence for evolution should be carefully examined".  Someone familiar with the creationist movement would read it as "we are skeptical of claims that [a common creationist caricature of evolution] can account for the complexity of life (duh), and that the evidence for [a common creationist caricature of evolution] should be carefully examined (standard creationist talking points which are meant to sow disinformation)".
All conclusions beyond the first are "not evident".  This is a case where secondary and tertiary sources are especially important.
* Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.  And these have been provided.  The Skip Evans article is a good starting point.  
* To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
With an intentionally ambiguous document like this, there isn't a single standard for what an "educated person without specialist knowledge" would make of it...It is designed to feed off of misunderstandings.  Someone with a basic understanding of biology would see through this document, someone with major misconceptions would fall for its disinformation.  So the question is - did their education help the "educated person", or did their prior misconceptions prevent them from learning?  From the studies I have read, a substantial proportion of American students emerge from intro biology courses with their misconceptions firmly in place (and I'm not just talking about creationist ideas, but a broader misunderstanding of what evolution is.)  I haven't seen comparable data for Europeans, Canadians or Australians (where creationist ideas are held by a much smaller minority), let alone data for people elsewhere in the world.
* Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
The problem we have had here is that several editors (Travis most notably) want to replace secondary sources with their own interpretation of this primary source material.  The document is intentionally ambiguous - there is no such thing as a "plain reading".  There is an informed reading, an uninformed reading and a misinformed reading.  All of these are interpretations of the text.  The misinformed reading (which Travis called a "plain reading") is, in fact, the most problematic.
The fact that the petition is part of the DI's campaign to undermine evolution and promote ID is well established.  The fact that the petition has been used as part of the DI's campaigns to undermine the teaching of science in schools is well supported.  (Chang, for example, opens with that statement.)  Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to the Skip Evans piece (this one?) confuses me quite a bit.  Evans basically says that we can't be sure if signatories of the petition even, in our words, "question evolution," and that there is a vast range of beliefs represented in no small part because of how deceitful the language in the petition is.  His argument makes a very strong case for Relata's original suggestion to simply link the DI and to link the petition ... drawing no conclusions as to what it promotes, or how it has been used.  I'm confused as to how you suggest we read Skip Evans here.  Particularly I'm confused as to how we are to use his article to promote more definitive and leading language about the petition like ... "the petition promotes intelligent design."  Please help me understand.PelleSmith (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evans: Under close examination, the text of both the leading paragraphs and the statement attested to appear to be very artfully phrased. He explains how ambiguous the statement is, and how meaningless a "plain reading" of the text would be.  Which is why we can't rely on it as a primary source that can be reliably interpreted by the average "educated person".  Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem arises with this view in that it becomes hard to claim that anyone can interpret this document then, especially given that the source claims that there are clearly various interpretations floating around amongst those who signed it.  Without knowing what Picard's particular interpretation was, to say that the document means X or promotes Y becomes even more difficult, again given what this source tells us.  I prefer at least being able to say that the petition "challenges evolution."PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you can quote Travis here, or at least paraphrase the interpretation that you think he is taking from the document.  I see no objection on his part, or anyone else's to the idea you have outlined here that "the petition is used as part of the DI's campaigns to undermine evolution and promote ID."  We are all comfortable with the language that is presently in the entry stating that the petition "is used by the institute to promote intelligent design."  In fact I believe Travis authored this very language, or something very similar at least.  The fact that the secondary sources state this is obvious and acknowledged by all.  What we don't understand is where the secondary sources state that the "petition promotes intelligent design."  So please tell us what the faulty interpretation is so we can take it from there.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , for example.  Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok the example states that a plain reading, according to Travis, allows us to write that the petition "challenges evolution," but nothing else.   Are you saying that we should not include this?  So the primary source is entirely useless and we cannot use it to say that the petition challanges evolution?PelleSmith (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In other words it would help if you state clearly what his "misinformed reading" is so that we can at least understand what the debate is about.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that phrases like "plain reading" are unhelpful. I think a useful mental exercise here, for all participants, is to treat the petition as opaque. We should make no reference to its language at all in our discussions here, and simply point to what secondary sources claim about the petition. Given that, my issue is still that I haven't seen a secondary source claim the petition inherently promotes ID, only that the DI uses it for such purposes. - Merzbow (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not that artfully posed, nor is it all that vague.  The use of "random" in the first sentence, and the entire second sentence itself leaves no doubt as to the purpose of the petition. If the signatories didn't catch the drift of that purpose, it just means that they are idiots who should not enoble themselves by claiming to be scientists.  •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is clearly anti-evolution?PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Clever.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There is indeed no rush; in fact I was going to suggest that we slow down the discussion a bit so that everyone has more of a opportunity to respond to points before they get buried too deeply. - Merzbow (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I just spent the last hour or so putting this together - I didn't notice your suggestion to slow down.  Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PSTS and OR