Talk:Rosalind Picard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Point of View Material on the Petition

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.

136.167.158.77 (talk · contribs) Edit: Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence -Clearly POV, no explanation needed

209.6.126.244 (talk · contribs) 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)

Petition intelligently designed to be anti evolution

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) and 22:56-23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing

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)

Unsourced intro

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.

Rosalind W. Picard is founder and director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Laboratory and is co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, the largest industrial sponsorship organization at the lab. She holds a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering with highest honors from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Masters and Doctorate degrees, both in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, from MIT. She has been a member of the faculty at the MIT Media Laboratory since 1991, with tenure since 1998. Prior to completing her doctorate at MIT, she was a Member of the Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories where she designed VLSI chips for digital signal processing and developed new methods of image compression and analysis.

The author of over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in multidimensional signal modeling, computer vision, pattern recognition, machine learning, and human-computer interaction, Picard is known internationally for pioneering research in affective computing and, prior to that, for pioneering research in content-based image and video retrieval. She is recipient (with Tom Minka) of a best paper prize for work on machine learning with multiple models (1998) and is recipient (with Barry Kort and Rob Reilly) of a "best theory paper" prize for their work on affect in human learning (2001). Her award-winning book, Affective Computing, (MIT Press, 1997) lays the groundwork for giving machines the skills of emotional intelligence. She and her students have designed and developed a variety of new sensors, algorithms, and systems for sensing, recognizing, and responding respectfully to human affective information, with applications in human and machine learning, health, and human-computer interaction. She was named a Fellow of the IEEE in November 2004.

Dr. 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.

Picard works closely with industry, and has consulted with companies such as Apple Computer, AT&T, BT, HP, i.Robot, and Motorola. She has delivered keynote presentations or invited plenary talks at over fifty science or technology events, and distinguished lectures and colloquia at dozens of universities and research labs internationally. Her group's work has been featured in national and international forums for the general public, such as The New York Times, The London Independent, Scientific American Frontiers, NPR's Tech Nation and The Connection, ABC's Nightline and World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, Time, Vogue, Voice of America Radio, New Scientist, and BBC's The Works and The Big Byte. Picard lives in Newton, Massachusetts with her husband and three energetic sons.

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)

Rosalind Picard & A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎

Could people please stop removing Picard from Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and removing the brief mention of the fact (and the fact that her 'dissent' is an opinion volunteered well outside her field of expertise). The first is a matter of unambiguous fact. The second is clearly notable, given its mention in the NY Times. Hrafn42 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: Please arrange to talk to me by telephone. Your edits are a gross and egregious violation of WP:BLP:DNH policy. You are not a subject-matter expert on the subject of this article, and your edits are doing harm. Please cease and desist. Moulton 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: I am under no obligation to "talk to [you] by telephone." If you have something to say, say it here. As I presume you are not a professional biographer of scientists, you are not a "subject-matter expert on the subject of this article" either. Far more likely you are an associate of Picard's and thus subject to WP:COI (as well as WP:NOR). Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant clause of the WP:BLP:DNH...

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulton (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 August 2007

Moulton: The New York Times is not a tabloid! Picard's signing of this misleading, anti-scientific, creationist-inspired 'dissent' is a matter of public record within the mainstream media. It is neither "tabloid" nor "titillating". DNH is therefore completely irrelevant to these edits. Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Look: this is not rocket science. Did Picard sign or not? She clearly did. Her name is on the petition and it is mentioned in the New York Times. She went out of her way to ANNOUNCE this to the world. Ok fine. So she is in this category, correct? Well here, we have a category for people who have done that. To some people this is a positive thing, to others it is a negative thing. You seem to think it is negative. I do not care. What matters to us is, is it true? And is it notable? And is it verifiable and particularly, is it verifiable using a reliable source? All these requirements are met here. So she is in the category. Fair enough? Stop using your own biases and POV to get in the way! She signed, and we can verify it in a WP:RS source. It is not up to you or me to judge if it is good or bad. I do not know. It just is. This has NOTHING to do with "doing no harm". Some might feel it is "doing harm" by not focusing on this aspect of her life- ever consider that?--Filll 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: You are publishing false information. The document which Picard signed was not entitled "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." That title was added later by the Discovery Institute. It is false to claim that the signatories of the originally circulated document (which bore no title at all) were "dissenters" of Darwin's theory or its modern sequels. Please cease and desist from publishing false and misleading material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moulton (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

This is what she signed titled or not:

“ 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. ”

What it was called at the time is of no consequence, if she wasn't a "dissenter" she shouldn't have signed it. ornis (t) 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: It has been called 'A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism' at least since 2001, shortly after it started. In any case the contents of this spurious dissent ("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.") is just as deceptive as the title -- "random mutation and natural selection" is neither Darwin's original (which did not include mutation), nor the modern (which also includes recombination, genetic drift and gene flow) theories of Evolution. Hrafn42 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it false? It is verifiable. It is in a WP:RS source. If Picard was tricked into signing something else that was relabled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, show us documentation of this and we will include it. How do you know this? You cannot just claim that she was mislead and fraudulently induced to sign this petition without evidence! It might offend her to hear such things. So you are claiming that she signed some document with no title, no statement? Seems a bit hard to believe someone with her background would be naive enough to sign a petition that didnt have a title or a statement attached! And if she signed a statement saying she was a "Dissenter" of Darwin's theory or its modern sequels, then that is enough, as far as I can tell. And sign your posts why dont you for a change? --Filll 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You are unaware of the facts, Hrafn42. The document which Picard signed did not bear the title "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." That title was added later, and dramatically changed the way the public viewed and interpreted the document. You should be more skeptical of what you read, especially when it comes to titles and headlines added after the fact. The original statement has been criticized as vague and ill-worded. Not everyone who signed it considered it a dissent from anything. To characterize the signatories as dissenters is therefore false and misleading.

The fact that the NY Times also got snookered is no reason to further propagate their error or pillory other people. Please stop victimizing people that way. It is an unbecoming practice. Moulton 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She signed the document. It doesn't matter what it was called, she should probably have been a little more careful about signing strange petitions, particularly ones that mention "Darwinian theory". ornis (t) 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I know that the original document (as circulated for signatures prior to publication) had no title is because Roz told me that some time ago. I've known Roz both personally and professionally for 27 years, and I'm familiar with her views. Please stop propagating false and misleading information.

Please arrange to talk to me by phone. I'd like to discuss this with you voice-to-voice, if not face-to-face. Moulton 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How did the NY Times get snookered? How do we know that the title and/or the statement was not on the petition? You mean to tell me that an MIT professor would sign a blank petition, and the words could be added later, and would not threaten legal action to get her name removed if she disagreed? Others have had their names removed. She didnt? She disagrees? Where is your proof? How do you know this? How is this victimizing people? People are proud to be creationists. What is wrong with that? Let them stand up and be recognized for it. We are not to be skeptical about stuff in WP:RS and WP:V sources. We are far more skeptical of you. If you are in the USA, I will call you. And try to expain this to you. If not, well I wont offer.--Filll 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers often get the story wrong. Even the NY Times. If you are skeptical of me, come out of anonymity and call me on the phone, so we can discuss this like gentlemen. I have much more to tell you, but I am not a young man, and I don't care to type long tracts here. Moulton 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I made my offer. If you accept, email me.--Filll 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I made my offer. And now no comments? Did I call your bluff?--Filll 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. I keep colliding with your edits.

The fact that you don't know about the issue of the title of the document further illustrates why Wikipedia should not publish claims about someone signing a document bearing a purported title. Since you don't know that, and you should now be skeptical of any previous assumptions about that, I propose you revise your publications to remove the false claim about "Dissent". The word "dissent" does not appear in the document. Perhaps if you cared to do the research, you might find out the truth here. In the meantime, I am advising you that your publications on the matter are false and misleading, and are doing harm to the subject of this article, with whom you are entirely unfamiliar. Moulton 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moultan: you have provided no evidence that an "issue of the title of the document" actually exists, let alone evidence from a reliable source -- which is the standard for inclusion in wikipedia. Hrafn42 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll: Where do I find your E-Mail? I'll send you my phone number as soon as I cand find the page with your e-mail on it. I'm in the USA. Moulton 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It has had this title since 2001. The Discovery Institute is well known to be a creationist hotbed for at least as long. If someone signed it by mistake and disagreed with it, they could get off the list by threatening legal action, as several have already done. Also, who (especially an MIT professor) signs a blank petition? And almost 800 people have signed the list. If what you are claiming is the case, why has not one of the other 800 people said something? Why is this not in the press or at least on the blogs? Believe me, there are zillions of people who would love to get their hands on this sort of information, particularly if it could be substantiated. For example, the National Center for Science Education. Plenty of lawyers as well, in the legal matters associated with this; people would pay for this kind of testimony, believe me. And in spite of this, you want me to believe that she signed a blank petition, and did nothing about it for several years? And others did too, and the story has not come out? With millions of dollars spent in legal fees? And investigative journalism? And by lobbying groups like NCSE? This is a bit hard to swallow, frankly.--Filll 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To find my email, go to my user page, and look on the left hand side for "email this user"--Filll 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it and sent you my phone number. Moulton 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just visited the NSCE page and it seems to support the claim that DI played fast and loose in more ways than one. The ad, as published, contained a lot more gratuitous interpretation than just the misleading title of the page. Two additional paragraphs appeared in the ad, supplying further interpretation that spins the meaning of the two key sentences which the signatories were asked to sign. The same NSCE article reveals how DI conflated Darwinian theory with the totality of evolution models.

The NSCE page concludes:

It is regrettable that the public is likely to be confused by these advertisements and be misled into thinking that all of these scientists reject evolution, or that there is a groundswell of scientists rejecting evolution. Neither is true.

To call it "regrettable" is an understatement. What troubles me, gentlemen, is that your team at Wikipedia seem to have bought into the DI's stronger interpretation of the statement, rather than the weaker one suggested by NSCE.

That's why publishing a claim that all signatories are "Dissenters" is unsupportable at best and harmful at worst. It not only harms the scientists who interpret the meaning differently from DI, it harms your own project by alienating the very scientists who could most help clarify the subtleties outlined in the NSCE page.

But take a good look at the ad, as reprised on the NSCE site. Clearly the signatories were not asked to sign the extra paragraphs that precede the two sentences in the gray box. And the title of the ad precedes those two gratuitous paragraphs. It occurs to me that there is ample evidence that the title of the ad was crafted along with the other two paragraphs that precede the two sentences.

Is this not strong (and reliable) evidence that the label "Scientific Dissenters from Darwinism" was coined specifically as spin for the ad, and was not part of the petition that circulated beforehand?

Finally, note that Roz is one of 105 signatories on this maiden appearance of the ad, which supports the claim that she is being unfairly labeled (first by DI, and now by your group) as a "Dissenter" from Darwinism. This claim cannot be sustained for the first 105 signatories unless they expressly affirm it.

Therefore I beseech you to remove the label "Scientific Dissenter from Darwinism" as there is insufficient evidence to establish that for the first 105 signatories on that maiden ad. Moulton 08:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton (aka Rosalind Picard's press officer):

• If Picard wishes to make a press release or other public statement disavowing the 'Dissent' we will mention it in the article. Unless and until she does that, she continues to implicitly endorse the use that her name is being put to by the DI. We have WP:RSs for this, so will continue to include this in the article.
• The "harm" was done by Picard herself -- inadvisedly venturing an opinion, outside her field of expertise, that contradicted the consensus of the genuine experts in the field. How would Picard feel if a bunch of biologists came along and started spouting that "machine recognition and modeling of human emotional expression" impossible?
• By calling her "Roz", I take it that you are closely associated with her? I would therefore suggest that you observe WP:COI.
• You can "beseech" all you want. It will not change the facts.

Hrafn42 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid to say you are not aware of the facts in this case.

And I worry that you may similarly be clinging to an ungrounded theory in as many as 102 other cases.

But Filll is now aware. I suggest you take a deep breath and wait until you hear from him. Moulton 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I await the outcome of Filll's divine revelation at your hands with bated breath.</sarcasm> Hrafn42 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've heard back from Filll. He shares my skepticism as to some of your unverifiable claims, but is willing to indulge in some unusable original research in an attempt to check them out (though I suspect with little chance of finding out anything that would change anything even if it wasn't OR). For myself, I take a harder nosed attitude: if it can't be used, it may as well not exist. Status quo ante. Hrafn42 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

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"):

The Affective Computing Research Group develops tools, techniques, and devices for sensing, interpreting, and processing emotion signals that drive state-of-the-art systems which respond 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.

This is the level of cack-handed partisanship that Moultan has descended to. Hrafn42 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that Moulton has finally realised that the stuff they were restoring was nonsense, so has removed the offending interpolation, while describing this action as "Add back missing material."[4] Such honesty! LOL Hrafn42 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: I have written you a long essay or two on the main discussion page for the Darwin Dissent soap opera.

Your petulance is unbecoming. I suggest you join with Filll to assemble the evidence he now seeks, to shore up the theory I presented to him and to you.

Moulton 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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[5][6] [7]-- it is very childish. Hrafn42 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're projecting, Hrafn42. I appreciate that you have an issue with immaturity. If you'll settle down, I'll help you develop some usable skills at evaluating material for accuracy and scientific soundness in a more mature and professional manner. Then we can proceed to cooperate to expose DI for the unreliable source that we both know it to be. That's Filll's goal too. I think you have at hand more than enough evidence already to make a damn good case. The 2006 NYT article (which DI objected to) reported the fact that DI published an arresting claim, and then, instead of substantiating DI's claim, the NYT article went on to cast doubt on it. Good for them. A skeptical reader of the NYT would come away with good evidence that DI had just published a pile of horse dookie. Now what we need to do here is to reinforce that view with some defensible evidence. NSCE has already provided an excellent critique of DI's original ad, revealing DI's shameful duplicity in the case of their mischaracterization of PBS. At least two of the original 103 signatories cited in the NYT article registered parallel complaints about how DI distorted, mischaracterized, and relabeled their two-sentence quote. NYT and NSCE hiked the ball to you guys. I don't understand why didn't you run it into the end zone way back then.

But it's not too late to repair the damage and do this right, using proper tools of science. Are you game to play chess against the real enemy now? Moulton 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Controversy and Alternative Points of View

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)

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)

There is no WP:RS to affirm the veracity of DI's doubtful claim either. That is, you have no WP:RS either way. Therefore it is not a verifiable fact that Picard (or any of the other 103 original signers) consented to or agreed with the DI's published interpretation or political position vis-a-vis PBS or any other subsequent political purpose regarding what should or shouldn't be taught in school.

All you have on verifiable record is that the 103 original signers called for skeptical examination of the evidence for scientific theories. DI's unverifiable claim which fraudulently spins that into consensual agreement or support for their interpretation or political agenda is not a fact under the rules of Wikipedia.

All the rest of DI's propaganda is utter hogwash fraudulently perpetrated by the DI without the verifiably demonstrated consent of the original 103 individuals.

In view of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause, the unverified claim of the DI must not be promoted to fact and any content to that effect must be immediately expunged, per the WP:BLP:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

Moulton 16:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Award-winning" book?

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)
I also draw Moulton's attention to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, which specifically restricts information from self-published sources (like Picard's webpage) to information that is "not unduly self-serving" & "does not involve claims about third parties" and that the article cannot be "based primarily on such sources". I believe that this excludes most of the puffery from Picard's webpage. Hrafn42 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (Incidentally, the Edit Summary of my latest reversion of this material is inaccurate - it should have said "self-published puff-piece" instead of "unsourced puff-piece") Hrafn42 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cui Bono

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)

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.

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)

I'm rather well acquainted with her energetic children. I can assure you that, to the best of my knowledge, the elements of her biography are quite accurate.

I wish I could say the same for your remarkable theories about the subject of this article.

Moulton 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Common Interests of Troubled and Conflicted Souls

I see that you're idly theorizing again, with another of your legendary flights of fancy. Rather than speculate without the benefit of evidence and reasoning, why don't you interview me to discover the nature and extent of my interest in uncaring (and uncared-for) individuals such as yourself.

Are you a curious and courageous enough adventure writer to discover the truth, or do you prefer to remain safely ensconced in your cocoon of self-delusion, anonymity and utter indifference to the tragic harm caused by blindly acting out one's innermost fantasies?

Rest assured, I am becoming increasing familiar with your legendary and oft-disclosed lack of caring, which seems to be a recurring issue in your life and recently published remarks.

And I appreciate that your dreadfully provocative remarks elsewhere are a transparent attempt to solicit the kind of caring that you apparently crave in your real life outside Wikipedia and the Internet.

You have a keen sense of awareness of those who respond with a small measure of empathy and compassion to your desperate cries for attention.

So you've chosen me as your antagonist, respondent, and mentor. So be it. I'm flattered.

Not that I'm necessarily up to the task, but I'll give it a decent college try.

Let's begin by crafting a mutually-agreeable social contract setting forth the protocols of our budding and potentially troubled relationship.

What are your desires and objectives for this unfolding relationship?

Do you prefer comedy, tragedy, or bildungsroman?

Do you prefer functional or dysfunctional relationship?

Do you prefer highly emotional or emotionally subdued scenes in our continuing soap opera?

Moulton 11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A serious young man found the conflicts of mid 20th Century America confusing. He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled.

One night in a coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go to the dilapidated mansion you will find at this address which I have written down for you. Do not speak to those who live there; you must remain silent until the moon rises tomorrow night. Go to the large room on the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast corner, face the corner, and meditate."

He did just as the Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would fall from the second floor bathroom to join the pipes and other trash he was sitting on.He worried how would he know when the moon rose on the next night. He worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him.

His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him. At that time two people walked into the room. The first asked the second who the man was sitting there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is a shithead."

Hearing this, the man was enlightened.

Hrafn42 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As poor Moulton seems incapable of getting the joke, to the point of repeatedly 'correcting' my attempt at reproducing the formatting of the original,[8] and "adapting" what he thought was my work,[9] I will strike it and merely include this link to page 5 of the work I was quoting. Hrafn42 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Adaptability is a highly functional character trait.

See, there you go again, publishing yet another theory without a shred of evidence and without bothering to examine your theory with a skeptical eye. I know full well that you did not write that Zen story yourself, but imported it from somewhere else. But you republished it here, so you are immediate source of the version I adapted. Neener.

But I confess I don't get the point of your perplexing formatting.

Moulton 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you abandon the adversary's territory, resign." Hrafn42 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that the name "Satan" comes from the Greek satana which means adversary? In ancient stories, the adversary (or antagonist) was sometimes called Satan. In one of Shakespeare's plays, the heroine (who is mistakenly presumed to be dead during much of the play) is named Hero.

Who is the hero and who is the villain is sometimes just a matter of one's point of view. See, for example Wicked by Gregory Maguire.

A more interesting kind of tale is the Greek Tragedy, or Hero-Goat Story. The would-be hero suffers from a character flaw (hubris or arrogance). He stumbles and fails at his quest and then becomes the scapegoat, blamed for everything that went haywire. At the point where the fallen protagonist realizes he is his own worst enemy, he becomes remorseful and sings the Dithyramb, a lament that basically goes, "What kind of fool am I?"

Moulton 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From Go to Woe in one quick jump. LOL! Hrafn42 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, I'm afraid I need to correct you on your etymological musings. Satan is from Hebrew (see the triliteral stn), not Greek.

As for the rest of your rather odd musings, I'd suggest that you seek help. I'm very concerned: whenever I see someone in obvious mental torment and disarray I can but hope they seek proper treatment. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I am seeking help from a referee, mediator, or ombudsman to help resolve a vexing conflict with a combative and confused adversary.

Moulton 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of the petition

That Picard has signed a petition that states:

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.

...has never been in dispute.

• However, given the extremely vocal sensitivity of a single editor over whether it was called this at the time she signed this, I have changed the section title to "Anti-Evolution Petition Controversy" to reflect this sensitivity.
• But we need to call this petition something, and the title that the DI gave to it is the name by which it is now generally known, so we use this. There is widespread precedence for such nomenclature decisions, e.g.: none of the kings of the House of Plantagenet used the surname Plantagenet. The first descendent of Geoffrey of Anjou (from whom the name originates) to use the surname was Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, father of the House of York kings Edward IV and Richard III.
  • Especially, we do not have the power to change the name of the category for the signatories of this petition. Picard is legitimately in this category, and if somebody don't like the category's name they must take that to a higher forum.
• Finally, any attempt to argue that, simply by putting a name to, and originally (but no longer) a couple of paragraphs in front of, this petition, the DI turned it into a new and unrelated document, is entirely spurious.

Hrafn42 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just call the section "Controversial Petition" without adopting any of the DI's preferred labels or characterizations? The section title need not favor DI's POV regarding the interpretation of the otherwise unnamed petition that Picard signed in 2001. Calling it "Controversial Petition" is factually accurate and NPOV. Can you agree to that?

Regarding the Category issue, what Picard signed was a predecessor to the petition that was eventually offered for signature under the name that DI later gave to it. To put any of the original 103 signers of the untitled petition into the existing category unfairly links them to the successor versions where the sponsorship and title were fully disclosed to potential signers. Even though the body of the petition bears the same text, the addition of a politically loaded title strongly biases the meaning and interpretation of the text. More importantly, disclosure of the identity and political agenda of the sponsor significantly changes the essential character of the successor versions relative to the original.

You might want to create a separate category for the first 103 signers of the untitled petition that circulated through academia without disclosure of sponsorship and without disclosure of the sponsor's political agenda or intended use. It is unfair to the 103 scientists to link them to the later signers who clearly knew what the DI stood for. As the NY Times article sought to point out, most of the subsequent signers were pro-DI evangelicals with a sympathetic religious/political agenda. Many (if not most) of the original 103 scientists had a science/educational agenda. Just because DI managed to conflate the two demographic groups into one merged list, Wikipedia should not aid and abet their deception. Additionally, a WP:BLP "Do No Harm" ethic would suggest not tarring the first 103 signers with the same brush as for those who signed the subsequent versions that carried the politically loaded title, full disclosure of sponsorship, and full disclosure of agenda.

I propose we invite the WP:MedCab to help us on these disputatious issues, if we cannot come to a meeting of the minds here.

Also, is there a protocol for tagging an article section as disputed? Presumably we don't have to jointly agree to insert such a tag, but that is what I propose to do.

Moulton 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Characterisation of the petition

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:[10]

Darwin dissenter

Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". This petition has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and mandate the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, and it has it has been the subject of criticism and parody.

Although some of the signatories of the Dissent from Darwinism petition hold doctorates in science and engineering disciplines, only about one quarter of the signers have biological science backgrounds, and at least one signatory has abandoned the list, saying he felt mislead. By comparison, during the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of people who were verified to be scientists. During the four days of the petition, it received 20 times as many signatures at a rate 690,000% higher than the Discovery Institute can claim.

This is how Moulton originally proposed it be portrayed:[11]

This is Moulton's most recent proposal for its portrayal:[12]

Darwin dissenter

In February 2006, the New York Times ran a story reporting an ongoing claim by the Discovery Institute that Dr. Picard was one of 300 professonals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". This two-sentence petition has been widely exploited by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. While the Times did not independently substantiate the reported claims of the Discovery Institute, the story included comments from some of the signers, letting the readers judge for themselves what to make of it.

And this is my current proposal:[13]

Anti-Evolution Petition Controversy

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Picard was one of 300 professonals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". This two-sentence petition has been widely exploited by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. It has it the subject of criticism and parody.

Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology. Writer Ed Brayton, co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the The Panda's Thumb website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."

Hrafn42 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton & WP:COI

I put it to Moulton (when he is unblocked again), that he has co-written a number of articles with Rosalind Picard (the subject of this article), is a friend of hers, and thus has a "close relationship" with her (per WP:COI#Examples), and thus a conflict of interest. "Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace." I would also suggest that he reads WP:SCOIC.

As it has been "most strenuously pointed out that potentially conflicted editors do not lose their rights to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously, and that outing editors in terms of their real names is in all cases against basic policy", I have no intention of revealing Moulton's identity, and have in fact watered down my first sentence to avoid doing so, even indirectly. Hrafn42 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly a relief that it is a mere COI as the other option was far more disconcerting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My conflict is with the unjustified elevation to "facthood" of unverified theories and speculations extracted from the elements of the controversy. Nor am I concerned about my anonymity. It is trivially easy to look me up, and I presume that most interested parties here by now know my real name, credentials, and affiliations. I have used the screen name "Moulton" since 1990, when I began developing science education resources on the Internet as a member of an educational technology research group funded by the National Science Foundation. The articles I co-authored with Professor Picard were also funded by a grant from the NSF. My allegiance is to the cause of science and science education, and that is the role I propose to play here.

To keep the peace, I will propose below the insertion of an intervening section between the biographical material and the disputatious "Darwin Dissent Controversy" that some editors here wish to retain on this page with appalling disregard for the ground truth.

My concern is that some of the existing material is based on unwarranted assumptions regarding people whose names appeared on the original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition. My concern is that the unwarranted assumptions constitute a potentially libelous violation of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause by propagating dubious claims of the DI as if they were established facts. Elsewhere I have managed to highlight the passages where Wikipedia articles have blithely adopted the DI's view of the controversial petition without first examining the evidence for their dubious view with a sufficiently keen and skeptical eye.

Please bear with me and extend to me the courtesy of patience and good faith, as I am not conversant with all the Wikipedia conventions regarding resolution of disputatious content appearing on the biographies of living persons. Please understand that I am here to work for the betterment of Wikipedia, in the name of science, science education, and science journalism.

Moulton 13:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: WP:AGF is not an unlimited blank cheque, but a starting position in the absence of evidence to the contrary. By repeatedly edit-warring on an article where you have a clear conflict of interest, and by your often intemperate language, and unsubstantiated accusations that are themselves in violation of WP:AGF, you have used up a substantial portion of the assumption of good faith initially apportioned to you. The benefit of the doubt that is accorded henceforth is therefore likely to be considerably narrower. If you want to be allowed time to substantiate your claims then I would suggest that you:

1. cease directly editing this article (as per WP:COI guidelines); and
2. refrain from making accusations, unless and until you can substantiate them with hard, WP:V & WP:RS, facts. Particularly, the repeated, unsubstantiated accusations of "libel" (which you have made in both your text and in your edit summary) need to stop right now!

Hrafn42 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I reaffirm my position that the irresponsible publication of the unverified claims of the DI as if they were established facts is potentially libelous and a prima facie violation of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause. There are 102 other people who are in a similar situation.

The analysis of the 2001 ad by Skip Evans establishes reasonable doubt that the claims of the DI are factually correct.

Moulton 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton:

• Accusations of "irresponsible publication" are violations of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA
• The claims are not "unverified", they have been verified as coming from a WP:RS, namely the New York Times
• They are not "potentially libelous" as the combination of a WP:RS for the claim, combined with a lack of repudiation from Picard, is easily enough to disprove libel
• As all of this has long been in the public domain, it is in no way a violation of WP:HARM. I would suggest that you read it, instead of merely assuming what it says
• Evans' analysis applies to paragraphs since deleted from the 'Dissent', so are inapplicable to its current version.

I regret to see that you are unable to refrain from using intemperate language and making unsubstantiated accusations. Hrafn42 15:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I reaffirm my concern that it is irresponsible to publish false and defamatory content, and a violation of the WP:BLP to do so.

I propose we invite WP:MedCab to help us resolve this issue.

I do not dispute that the claims of the DI are unsourced. The NY Times did report that the DI had indeed fronted those claims. But reporting that DI had fronted a set of claims does not makes the claims themselves true facts, nor did the NY Times affirm that the claims of the DI were factually true. Rather the NY Times counterbalanced their report of the DI's newly launched website with quotes and other information that cast doubt on the veracity of the claims of the DI. A fair reading of the story by a skeptical reader would confirm that.

I propose we invite a neutral referee to review the NY Times story and opine as to whether or not the NY Times story independently affirms the claims of the DI as factually true.

Falsehoods of many sorts have been in the public domain since the dawn of civilization. Myths abound. That doesn't make them true. For example, most people still believe that rule-driven systems are inherently orderly and stable. But mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are generally chaotic. Any attempt to prove as a theorem that rule-driven systems are orderly and stable would fail. Modern Chaos Theory reveals that it's quite easy to give a set of rules that produce all manner of chaos, ranging from gorgeous fractals to occasionally interesting dramas, present case included.

If you would like to be apprised of the harm caused by the content which I have objected to here, I will be glad to communicate it to you in private and in confidence. I am not at liberty to publicly disclose the harm.

Moulton 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Intervening Section on "Controversial New York Times Story"

Rather than argue over the title or contents of the disputed second section regarding the pertinence of the controversial petition itself, I propose to insert an intervening section about the controversy stirred up by the appearance of Kenneth Chang's 2006 story in the NY Times, wherein Picard's name is mentioned. The reason I find it necessary to do this is because some elements of Chang's story, which report claims of the DI have been blithely elevated to facthood, without benefit of a critical examination of the reported claims.

Here is my initial draft for the new section, to appear below the biography and above the discussion of the controversial DI petition.

Controversial New York Times Story

In February 2006, the New York Times ran an investigative story by Kenneth Chang of the New York Times Science Desk, reporting that the Discovery Institute had launched a new website to promote their expanded public relations campaign regarding how theories of evolution should be taught in public school. The new website included a list of signatories to an earlier petition which the Discovery Institute had termed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." The petition dated back to 2001 when it was first published by the Discovery Institute beneath an ad criticizing a forthcoming PBS series on evolution. The headline on the Discovery Institute's 2001 ad was also "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," although the petition itself, embedded at the bottom of the ad, did not carry that label (it bore no label at all). The untitled 2001 version of the petition simply read, "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."

Chang's story disclosed that Professor Picard's name appeared on the petition cited by the newly launched Dissent From Darwin website, but the Times article did not distinguish which version she signed. Indeed, Professor Picard's name first appeared on the original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition and her name remained on the subsequent controversially yclept versions, including the most recent one appearing on the new website. Chang's story neither substantiated nor refuted the claims of the Discovery Institute that the two-sentence petition supported or endorsed DI's slant on its meaning, but the story did include a mixture of quotes from some of the people whose names appeared on the list at different times, including some quotes that cast doubt on the Discovery Institute's characterization of all the petition signers as variously "dissenters from Darwinism" or "anti-evolution." Chang's story, in conjunction with the Discovery Institute's website and its attached list of petition signers left a wake of confusion over who among the list of signers of the earlier versions of the petition agreed with or consented to the Discovery Institute's characterization of the petition signers as "anti-evolution" "dissenters" who presumably supported the emerging and evolving agenda of the Discovery Institute. It is at present unknown to what degree, if any, Picard agrees with or supports the Discovery Institute's controversial interpretation of the petition as "dissent." It is also unknown whether Picard has ever supported any or all of the ongoing political agenda of the Discovery Institute.

The last two sentences of the proposed new section reflect the absence of verifiable published information regarding the attitude of most of the original 103 signers. So far, Wikipedia has only managed to obtain a reliably sourced comment from Stanley N. Salthe, who disputed DI's characterization and supplied his own salty attitude, "A plague on both their houses."

Skip Evans of the NCSE similarly casts doubt on the DI's interpretation, saying

The Statement

The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to "account for the complexity of life" - in other words, a statement about how evolution takes place. Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the advertisement might well assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself, rather than to the universality of natural selection as its mechanism. But did the scientists themselves object to evolution? Any of them? All of them? Or were some of them only questioning the importance of natural selection? Many scientists - including many associated with NCSE - could in good conscience sign a statement attesting to natural selection's not fully explaining the complexity of life!

It's unclear to me which of the editors here are persuaded by DI's interpretation, which ones are persuaded by the NCSE's point of view. But it occurs to me that a neutral point of view requires Wikipedia to avoid elevating DI's POV to facthood. All that can be stated reliably is that Picard put her name to the two sentences back in 2001, before the DI decloaked and published the original anti-PBS ad. It cannot be reliably established that she attested to anything more, notwithstanding DI's claim to the contrary, and notwithstanding Changs' story reporting that dubious claim.

A neutral point of view and a cautious application of WP:BLP "Do No Harm" therefore requires an abundance of caution when it comes to presenting DI's views, controversial labels, and interpretations as if they were established facts per Wikipedia standards (not to mention the standards of ethical journalism).

More importantly, it's essential to heed the exhortation found in one of those two sentences to examine the evidence for one's beliefs with a keenly skeptical eye. My skeptical eye happens to agree with Skip Evans and not with others who favor the characterization of the 2001 petition as "anti-evolution" or "dissent from Darwin" or as implicit support for DI's political agenda regarding PBS or DI's more recent agenda regarding the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

Moulton 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see a number of problems with this "proposed intervening section":

• There is no WP:RS for the claim that the NYT piece was "controversial"
• The "proposed intervening section" is longer than the section on Picard's signing of the petition -- this seems grossly disproportionate
• The description of the petition gives the impression that it was in abeyance between 2001 & 2006, when we know for a fact that it was gradually being expanded in the intervening years
• The statement contained in all versions of the petition are the same, so it is immaterial "which version she signed"
• The originally published petition was not untitled, so referring to "original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition" is misleading
• To state "Chang's story neither substantiated nor refuted the claims of the Discovery Institute that the two-sentence petition supported or endorsed DI's slant on its meaning" is WP:OR that casts WP:POV doubts on Chang's story, where none exists from a WP:RS
• The claim that "Chang's story, in conjunction with the Discovery Institute's website and its attached list of petition signers left a wake of confusion over who among the list of signers of the earlier versions of the petition agreed with or consented to the Discovery Institute's characterization of the petition signers as "anti-evolution" "dissenters" who presumably supported the emerging and evolving agenda of the Discovery Institute. It is at present unknown to what degree, if any, Picard agrees with or supports the Discovery Institute's controversial interpretation of the petition as "dissent." It is also unknown whether Picard has ever supported any or all of the ongoing political agenda of the Discovery Institute." is unsourced and POV.

I therefore cannot support this section's inclusion. Hrafn42 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion on the proposed intervening section is to illuminate the controversial conclusions and impression that readers took away from the story, because they conflated the reported claims of the DI as described in the story with independently verifiable facts. The analysis by Skip Evans illustrates this confusion and provides a reliable source that the claims of the DI are not necessarily valid. That's one way to establish the controversial nature of stories about the DI which contrast the published claims of the DI to published remarks by signatories like Salthe and Davidson ridiculing the DI's interpretation.

If you want a reliable source that the article by Chang is controversial in its own right, on multiple points, you can take a look at the article's Ask Science Q&A page on the NYT wherein Chang responds to commentary and criticisms of his piece, and admits that parts of it are slanted toward highlighting the anti-evolution signers and not the pro-evolution ones. Chang says, "This article focused on Discovery's petition and thus I did not interview evolution supporters."

Moulton: you are grossly misrepresenting Chang's statement. He was not talking about "highlighting the anti-evolution signers and not the pro-evolution ones" (within the 'Dissent'), but why he didn't interview signers of a completely separate pro-evolution petition. This renders moot most of your claims below. Hrafn42 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The error is mine.

Elsewhere, you have good evidence that there are evolution supporters among the 103 initial and subsequent signers, notably including Bob Davidson, whose story came to light and is featured in the main Wikipedia entry on the Darwin Dissent Controversy.

But no evidence whatsoever that Picard is one of them. We know that Bob Davidson is an evolution supporter, because he has declared his support and made efforts to get off the list. Picard has not done this (or anything else to distance herself from the 'Dissent') to date. Hrafn42 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. You have no direct evidence upon which to adjudge Picard's reasons for signing the original untitled petition. Chang's article only reports that he found her name on the list, along with two other eminent scientists, one of whom is a member of the National Academy of Scientists, and one of whom had previously published on the subject, in which publication he winds up his technical criticism about the wretchedly excessive genuflecting toward Darwinism by saying, "None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false." Reading between the lines, one gathers that Chang considers Skell, Picard, and Tour to be of common stripe in terms of scientific credentials, and of those three, one has published the nature of his complaint, which isn't about the theory itself, but about the tendency to invoke it ritually as a sign of respect, even when the research subject at hand doesn't rest on any of Darwin's work. Now I will grant you that Skell's beef isn't a headline grabber. But neither is it fair grist for DI's mill. By implication, one can suppose that other scientists may well have similar obscure technical reasons that don't make very good newspaper copy. Does Picard sign because she wants students to learn how to examine the evidence with a skeptical eye? You might discover the answer to that by reading some of her papers or some of her students' papers, or by reflecting on what I keep needling you about. Does Picard sign because she wants students to discover Complexity Theory? You might find the answer to that by looking up Picard's earlier research interests before she started up on Affective Computing. Chang's story doesn't say. You might have a personal interest in knowing (as I did). Do you think I'd be here trying to warn you off propagating a mistaken implication if you had made the correct guess about her reasons?

Moulton 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This intentional snubbing of evolution-supporters among those interviewed by Chang for comments misleads readers about the statistical mix of those who signed the petition, giving some people the impression (per the desires of the DI) that all signers are variously "anti-evolution" or "Darwin dissenters." The contemporaneous analysis by Skip Evans reinforces that element of the controversy.

When one realizes that Chang focused the story on the anti-evolution signers (many of whom joined after DI went public, and when one observes that Chang fails to solicit a quote from Picard (even though he mentions her name), one is left wondering which side of the fence she (and others of the 103) reside on. The purpose of all this is to cast doubt on the unverified presumption (suggested by the existing section which I am forbidden from touching) that Picard belongs to the anti-evolution dissenters. In other words, I am saying that some of the Wikipedia editors evidently fell into the trap which the DI set, luring readers into believing that all 103 scientists adhered to DI's dubious characterization of them.

The length of the intervening piece needs to be longer than the section it precedes, because the current section adopts without proof the thesis that Picard is among those belonging to the anti-evolution dissenters. The proposed intervening section is designed to examine the evidence for the unproven thesis adopted in the existing section and determine whether the evidence for it is credible or conclusive. As you well know, a proof is typically longer than the theorem. What's in the proposed intervening section is an examination of the omitted proof, in which the outcome appears to be that the missing proof does not seem to exist, and in fact there is good evidence at hand that the dubious thesis adopted by the existing section is simply false (and therefore unprovable). If it is false, then it is also potentially libelous. Therefore, establishing the truth or falsehood of the thesis is crucial in order to protect Wikipedia from inadvertently publishing false and defamatory material that slipped through the filters intended to examine the evidence with a keenly skeptical eye.

What any Wikipedia editor happens to know for a fact about the status of the petition in the intervening years is not evidence that anyone whose name appeared in nationally printed ads back in 2001 had the slightest inkling of what the DI was up to in the meantime. Perhaps Wikipedia editors found this out by doing painstaking research on the DI. Stanley N. Salthe said in 2006 in the Times article we are examining that he had never heard of the DI. That's well-sourced evidence that some of those who signed had no clue that the DI even existed, let alone was maintaining a growing list of names. Therefore one cannot draw any verifiable conclusions about what most of the 103 original signers knew of the DI prior to the 2006 Times story.

One of the reasons the story is controversial is because it fails to point out that the DI had reprised and evolved a 2001 petition that predated any of the disputed assertions regarding its inherent meaning or its re-interpretion as a testimonial in favor of DI's political agenda.

The two sources which establish the controversial nature of the story are the above mentioned Ask Science Q&A page, supported by the parallel NCSE analyses and rebuttals (as mentioned in the story itself) which dissect the claims of the DI which the NYT story reports on.

Now that you are aware that at least one Wikipedia editor challenges the neutrality of your POV, I ask that a neutral party come in to mediate the disputed issues outlined here.

Moulton 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that Skip Evans' comments refer to an earlier version of the 'Dissent', that interpolated commentary about the PBS documentary above the statement and its signatories, which interpolated commentary is the subject of Evans' criticism. The current version of the 'Dissent' does not contain this interpolation, so Evans' criticism does not apply to it. Hrafn42 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point to be examined, regarding the controversial interpretations of the NY Times story is the interpretation of this key paragraph, where Picard's name is mentioned, along with two other scientists:

A Web site with the full list of those who signed the petition was made available yesterday by the institute at dissentfromdarwin.org. The signers all claim doctorates in science or engineering. The list includes a few nationally prominent scientists like James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University; Rosalind W. Picard, director of the affective computing research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Philip S. Skell, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Penn State who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

The unspoken and unexamined implication or assumption in the disputed section of this biography is that scientists such as Tour, Picard, and Skell are accurately described by the DI's claim that they are anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin and also supporters of the DI's political agenda, deserving negative publicity for taking such a laughable position. Did Chang intentionally put that paragraph into his story to affirm the DI's characterization of those three scientists? Or did Chang put that paragraph into the story to cast doubt in the reader's mind on the DI's incredulous claim that all signers adhered to the DI's characterization of the signers?

Skell has a long history of promotion of ID, most recently writing a highly favourable review of Behe's Edge of Evolution that can be found on the book's Amazon listing. He can most certainly be described as an "anti-evolution dissenter[] from Darwin". Tour is less activist (and does not consider himself an ID proponent), but given comments like "Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them." & "When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?", his characterisation of the evidence accepts the DI's "evidence for and against evolution" meme and his skepticism of it is at a level that the scientific consensus would consider unreasonable and unsupported by the facts.[14] This is the company in which you have chosen to place Picard. She has signed an anti-evolution statement, she has not disavowed it. Therefore, as with any other signed statement, we (and Chang before us) are justified in characterising this statement as reflecting her views, unless and until she repudiates it. Hrafn42 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tour's comments appear in the NY Times article. He says he respects the work of the evolution theorists, but wonders about cell mechanics. I wonder about that too. How did something as complex as DNA and the DNA code arise? Once you have a cell, it can replicate, per the known mechanics associated with DNA. But Darwin's theory is silent on how DNA and the DNA code arose in the first place. That's hardly anti-evolution or anti-Darwin. It just recognizes that Darwin's work does address the origin of life, including the origin of DNA. It's not entirely impossible that some intelligent non-DNA based life elsewhere in the cosmos constructed the first DNA using techniques reminiscent of Tour's amazing work. There's no evidence that DNA-based life sailed to Earth aboard cosmic dust. But I wouldn't rule it out, whether DNA arose by some as-yet-unknown natural process in organic chemistry, or as the laboratory product of some alien life form that lived six billion years ago on a neighboring solar system. It's fun to imagine the possibilities and to wonder what kind of evidence we'd need to sort out the plausible possibilities from those can be ruled out. What any of that has to do with the political agenda of the DI eludes me. If I were more involved with molecular biology, I might well be tempted to encourage students to explore beyond the frontiers of Darwinian models to address some of these open mysteries. And if a respected scientist said that to someone, I wouldn't jump to the ridiculous conclusion that they believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or voting to end the war in Iraq. It's just not possible to draw any conclusions like that. Publishing a biography which claims to so characterize anyone would be laughable at best and irresponsible at worst. You can entertain any kind of speculative personal belief you like. But publishing such speculative personal beliefs as if they were facts is a big no-no, even if you have it on good authority from the DI. I dunno about you, but I take what they say with a large tablespoon of salt.

Do you honestly believe that urging students to look beyond Darwin to find the answers to the origins of life is anti-evolution? If I see you eating Australian Kangaroo Steaks day after day, and I say to you, "Try some New Zealand Leg of Lamb for a change," would you brand me as Anti-Kangaroo? When they ship out some NZ Leg of Lamb to the US, do they promote it as "The Anti-Kangaroo Brand of New Zealand Leg of Lamb?"

Moulton 02:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given that Tour is a Chemist not a Cell Biologist, his "wonder[ing] about cell mechanics" is simply an argument from ignorance. "When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?" is "anti-evolution or anti-Darwin."
• Evolutionary biologists have been "look[ing] beyond Darwin" for a century or so (which is why we have a heavily expanded Theory of Evolution today). The statement that Picard signed does not encourage this, it encourages turning back the clock before Darwin (by pretending that natural selection is not the main driver behind "the complexity of life", and that "careful examination of the evidence" will turn up evidence against "Darwinian theory"). Your analogy is also way off point.

Hrafn42 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that Chang reported both the DI's claims and the string of quotes revealing a mix of support and disdain among the petition signers, a neutral point of view requires that anyone reading Chang's article with a critical eye would ask the obvious question: Is the reader supposed to take at face value the DI's naked claim that scientists such as those three are anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin who support the DI's political agenda? Or is the reader supposed to take that paragragh as startling evidence that the claims of the DI stretch credulity.

The fact that others have repudiated the statement, and thus indicated that it no longer reflects their views, does not provide any probative evidence of the views of Picard (who has not repudiated it). Hrafn42 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The way the article is written, a casual reader could draw either conclusion. A skeptical or fair-minded reader could also draw the conclusion that no firm conclusion can be drawn as to whether any of the signers fit the DI's characterization of them as anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin who support the DI's political agenda.

What conclusion did the various Wikipedia editors draw, and how do they justify treating any such conclusion as an established fact for the purpose of crafting authentic biographies of figures such as Tour, Picard, or Skell?

Moulton 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in

Having looked over the talk page, I'd like to weigh in.

On the issue of the petition, its existence is well established - the Skip Evans article states that DI placed ads in "at least three periodicals, including The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard." So this wasn't a stealthy issue. Anyone who was misled into signing the petition has had adequate opportunity to distance themselves from it. As of today, Picard's signature remains on the petition. Yet Picard does not appear to have issued any statements distancing herself from it. Unless Moulton can come up with a source to support his position, there is no way that we can act upon his suggestions.

In addition, since there are no sources that call the NYTimes story controversial, there is no way that we can call it controversial. As for the "do no harm" issue - all indicators are that Picard does not consider this harmful - regardless of what she signed, she appears to have no objections to having her name on the petition in its current form. It isn't our job to protect people from themselves. Guettarda 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The ads appeared after 103 academics signed an untitled petition that neither disclosed the identity of the sponsor nor the sponsor's intention to relabel, reinterpret, and repurpose the petition and to apply it without consent to attack PBS and to promote other odious political agendas.

I would drop the word 'Controversial' and just call the section New York Times Story. The story itself presents the controversy, since the whole point of the story is to illuminate the disparity between the claims of the DI and the views of the people whom the DI claims as their supporters.

Moulton 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, you need a source to support the assertion that it was an untitled petition, and that they had no ideas whose petition they were signing. It strikes me as highly implausible - I would never sign an unknown petition. While what you say may be true, you can't seriously expect anyone to take your assertion seriously without some sort of evidence. Have all these people who were duped been silent all these years? You say know know Picard - she could easily make a statement to this effect somewhere semi-official. That would be extremely helpful.

The source to establish the observation that the 2001 statement was untitled is the facsimile of the 2001 anti-PBS ad in which you can look at the gray box bearing the 32-sentence statement, surrounded by the names of those who signed it and count the words. There are 32 words there. The 5-word title, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is absent from the grey box wherein the signed statement is exhibited.

The source that the 103 scientists had never heard of the DI is the NY Times article, in which Kenneth Chang quotes Nathan Salthe as saying that he had never heard of the DI.

Moulton 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, as I said before, remains on the petition. Has she attempted to get it off? If so, have the refused to remove her name? The evidence as it stands at present strongly suggests that Picard is happy to be associated with the petition. Someone who wasn't would have done something to distance themselves from it. Your assertions contradict all available evidence. Obviously that doesn't mean that they are false, but you can't expect anyone to take what you say at face value. Guettarda 13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The names of the 103 scientists appeared on a 32-word petition signed on a piece of paper in 2001. The 103 scientists did not put their names on any of DI's websites. You have no evidence, one way or another, of anyone's affective emotional state regarding what the DI did with their name, with the exception of a few whose stories have been published. Salthe expressed disdain. Davidson expressed a negative-valence affective sentiment as well. If you want to take someone's affective state at face-value, you have to observe the expression on their face. Perhaps I'm the only one here who has actually observed the facial expression of one of the 103 scientists. I may not be an expert at reading facial expressions, but I did not observe happiness or delight or any other recognizable positive-valence affective state. Moulton 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In re 3rd opinion request

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)

See also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To others looking in

There is a large amount that is going on behind the scenes. If you want more details, please feel free to email me.--Filll 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that part of what is going on behind the scenes is an urgent effort to discover how to demonstrate or explain, within the crippling rules of Wikipedia, that the disputed content is false, defamatory, and seriously harmful -- not merely to Picard, but to many other people including many who did not sign any petition at all. I have no idea how to work this issue but it's urgent and needs to be worked somehow. I am profoundly frustrated by my inability to discover a way to work this issue in these pages. Anyone who is involved in publishing material on this issue should talk (preferably by phone, but E-Mail is a poor second choice) to both User:Filll and to me to learn why publishing as fact any material sourced from DI is problematic. I have filled in User:Filll on parts of the story, but there is much more to understand. Moulton 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While private conversation may be useful in getting people to communicate more freely, nothing said privately can be used in the article. Guettarda 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to excise from the pages of Wikipedia false and defamatory material which is erroneously believed by some editors to be factual. Moulton 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the helpful nature of private conversations is to quietly raise to the attention of would-be editors that notorious published claims of unreliable sources may not be independently verifiable facts. The only verifiable fact is the report that an otherwise unreliable source has indeed published a (notorious or dubious) claim. Private conversations make it possible to alert potential editors so that they can retreat with dignity from inadvertently elevating notable and notorious published claims to the status of facthood without losing face within the Wikipedia community.

Moulton 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So...are you saying that you have nothing new to add, but people should still contact you via email? I see. Nah, I'll pass. I rather doubt your arguments are any more convincing via email. Guettarda 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was that I had something old to substract -- something erroneously believed to have been a verified fact, but which had since been demonstrated to be a calumnious falsehood. Almost all of it has been subtracted by now. Moulton 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive tagging

By my count, Moulton has just introduced nine tags into this article. Whilst I would normally not dispute an editor's (even one in which I am in disagreement with) right to tag an article whose wording they disagree with, this does seem excessive. In particularly, his tags seem to indicate that he is claiming that the following is unverified:

• That "New York Times reported that Dr. Picard was one of several hundred professonals[sic] who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition". As far as I know, it is indisputable that the NYT made such a report.
• That it was this "two-sentence petition [that] has been widely exploited by its sponsor". As far as I know, there has only ever been one "two-sentence petition" throughout the DI's campaign.
• Further that its sponsor exploited it. I don't see how publishing it in major newspapers, etc, doesn't count as exploitation.

I would inquire what, if anything, should be done about this. If nothing else, it certainly seems to be a violation of WP:POINT. Hrafn42 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Kenneth Chang's article with a keenly skeptical eye. Chang reported that the names of several prominent scientists appeared on a list published on the DI's new website. Chang did not report (nor could he even know) that everyone on that list actually signed what the DI had published over their name. The only source of information that anyone actually signed the document as presented on the website is DI itself. And that claim is not a verifiable fact; it's only a claim of DI. Moreover, you have good reason to doubt that what DI claims is anywhere close to the ground truth. In the wake of that doubt, you have an ethical obligation (which is not prescribed in any set of rules) to examine the evidence with a skeptical eye. Notice that the rules of which you are so fond do not provide a reliable paradigm for arriving at the ground truth.

Please go back and look at DI's Website. The original 32-word untitled petition looked like this:

"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."

But DI's website presents this 37-word document:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"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."

Adding those extra five words changes the POV, scope, and meaning of the remaining 32 words, by establishing a selective contextual framework by which DI wishes the public to interpret the remaining 32-words. The DI is exploiting a notorious feature of word-based languages that the meaning of words and sentences depends on their context. If you change the context, you can change the meaning.

Can you see the difference? 103 scientists signed a 32-word document. DI published a 37-word recontextualized document and represented that the 103 scientists had signed that.

Consider this similar unauthorized alteration:

Scientists Quibble Over Relevance of Darwin to Research on Molecular Biology and the Origins of DNA-Based Cellular Life
"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."

Now you have the same two poorly worded sentences, but framed within the context of whether or not Darwin's notions are helpful when working out how DNA-based self-replicating structures emerged from basic organic chemistry. Tour, for example, says Darwin's model doesn't help solve the question of how complex molecular structures arise. Skell complains that people invoke Darwin's model even when it's not particularly helpful to employ it. Perhaps Picard agrees. How would you know?

What should be done about it, in my opinion, is to take the disputed material off the page in an abundance of caution and sort it out in the discussion pages. In the end, I believe you will agree that it does 103 scientists a grievous disservice to elevate to facthood a notorious and deceptive assertion whose only independent source is the DI.

Moulton 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

--WP:V Hrafn42 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times is not the publisher of the DI website. The NY Times published a story about the appearance of the DI website but did not affirm that anything appearing on the DI website was factual. The DI website (which is not a RS of anything beyond its own existence) claimed that 103 scientists supported their dubious framing and interpretation. The unanswered question of whether any or all of the 103 scientists in fact agreed with or supported the DI's reframing was partially answered by the story. The NY Times story offered quotes from a small number of people whose names were found on the list. The quotes, taken as a whole, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the DI's sweeping claims. In addition you have other sources besides the NY Times story reinforcing the skepticism regarding the factual accuracy of DI's representations. Therefore you do not have a verifiable source that what appears on the DI website is itself factual. You only have that there 'is' a DI website with some dubious and contentious claims on it. That's all that can be gleaned from the NY Times story. You do not have that the dubious and contentious claims themselves are elevated to the status independently verifiable facts.

Moulton 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags alerting to disputed content.

I have added some tags (please help me ensure the ones I have chosen are the most appropriately selected tags) to highlight the nature of the dispute, down to the detail upon which the dispute pivots.

I do not dispute that the NY Times published an article about the DI's (dubious) claim that hundreds of scientists had (allegedy) signed a petition as they characterized and interpreted it. What is unverified is the DI's reported claim that the signers (specifically the first 103 scientists who signed something prior to first publication) signed the precise document that the DI subsequently represented to the public. For example, the document the DI presented to the public bears a deceptive title and is further enrobed in interpretive commentary. The petition which circulated in academia in 2001 was untitled and was not enrobed in any interpretive commentary. Nor did it carry any disclosure of sponsorship, or any disclosure of the political purposes to which it would later be used. Adding a deceptive title that was not on the original petition and claiming anyone signed that is a potentially fraudulent act of deception. Further enrobing the altered document in gratuitous interpretive commentary compounds the deception by making it appear that the original signers subscribed to the retitled, repurposed, and reinterpreted version that DI presented to a gullible public. A careful reading of the NY Times article reveals that the NY Times did not report that everyone on DI's list signed the altered version that appeared on DI's web site; the NY Times only reported that the names of some prominent scientists appeared on the list published by the DI. Before you can publish as verified fact that the names on DI's list actually signed what DI says they signed, you have to get a reliable source to verify that. The only source you have is the DI itself, which is a notoriously unreliable source.

It may be a subtle point, but it's a crucial point, and the difference between accurately characterizing a living person with verifiable facts and mischaracterizing a living person by publishing as fact material whose validity relies on a single dubious source.

Moulton 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What you forget is that you are the only source of this information, and you are not a WP:RS and WP:V source. So as far as WP is concerned, this information does not exist.--Filll 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

DI is also the only source of information about what those 103 scientists put their name to. Are they a reliable source? Moulton 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No they are not, but the NY Times is, and they are our source for this information, not the DI. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hrafn42 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can verify that someone reported a suspected falsehood, does that entitle you to include that dubious falsehood in the biography of a living person, in reckless disregard for the truth? Does the stricture on WP:BLP carry any weight to filter out suspect material that liable to be factually untrue, even though it weaseled through the WP:V filter? What is your ethical obligation, above and beyond the joy of WP:Point#Gaming_the_system? Moulton 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times is your original source for the independently verifiable fact that the names of Skell, Picard, and Tour appear on a list published by DI. The verifiable fact that their names appear on a list published by DI means nothing, unless you can verify that what the DI publishes is itself an independently verifiable fact. I challenge you to produce a verifiable source to establsh that what DI publishes is itself factual. Moulton 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I am not mistaken, it was previously determined on WP that the DI is a reliable source of who signed the DI petition. Did this not come up in the case of d'Abrera?--Filll 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There was more than one version of the petition. Which one did he allegedly sign? Was it the 32-word (untitled) petition that circulated in academia in 2001, without disclosure of sponsor, etc? Or was it the later 37-word version carrying both a title that framed the meaning and the imprimature of DI disclosing the purpose to which it would be put? Moulton 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have many other sources who share or overlap my POV. You have Davidson, Tour and Salthe, who are on record as differing from the controversial framing and interpretation suggested by the DI. You have the article by Skell, whose beef reframes the meaning yet another way. What I'm saying is that the selective contextual reframing offered by the DI is one of many that span a broad spectrum. On one end of the spectrum you have the fundamentalist creationism framework. A pox on their house. On the other end you have the arcane technical quibbles among scientists working in recombinant DNA, genetic drift, biochemistry, nano-technology and general science education who have their own selective contextual frameworks. The complexity of the molecules of life and the question of how they arise and change is a serious (if uncelebrated) field of scientific investigation. Two of the original 103 signers are known to be working in those arcane technical fields. One says Darwin's model is fine, but it doesn't help explain how complex molecules arise. One says that Darwin's model is overhyped, and has little or no bearing on how complex molecules morph from one variation to the next. And many general science educators are on record as wanting students to learn how to scrutinize the evidence for any theory, and to learn how diligent scientists sift through alternative theories looking for the best model to fit the evidence (I happen to be in that camp). Those points of view make a lot more sense for scientists like Tour, Skell, and Picard than the dubious reframing suggested by DI.

Be ye not deceived. Ask yourself what evidence and reasoning you are using to justify your beliefs. And then ask yourself a complementary question: What kind of beliefs emerge from a rule-bound system such as the one employed by Wikipedia? How reliable is it at arriving at the ground truth. The tags I inserted alert you to the observation that the procedure you are adopting is not the scientific method and is therefore not the best practice when it comes to arriving at the ground truth. And there is good evidence that the rule-based method you have adopted is notoriously unreliable if the objective is to publish nothing but the ground truth when it comes to crafting harmless biographies of living people.

Moulton 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She signed. We have plenty of RS and V evidence for it. And you have said she signed, although that is OR and we cannot use that. So we report; she signed. Period. Done.--Filll 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have as a verifiable fact that she signed anything, let alone what the DI says she signed. I will give you (although it means nothing) that 103 scientists (Picard included) signed something that had no identifiable connection to any sponsoring organization. You have no verifiable source that any of them signed what DI claims. You have no verifiable source that any of them agree with or support the DI's notorious assertions appearing on their ads or web sites. The only source for any of that is DI itself, and that's not a reliable source of anything approaching a verifiable fact.

To present any of that as an independently verifiable fact risks publishing a falsehood about 103 living persons. All you can safely publish is what Ken Chang found: The names of 103 scientists appeared on a list published by the DI.

Moulton 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are incorrect, in addition to contradicting yourself--Filll 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a "request for whitewash" does not constitute a neutrality dispute. Guettarda 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

You don't have as a verifiable fact that she signed anything

DI says she signed it. No one has contested that fact, not even you.

DI refers to it as if it were one unchanging thing. But it is a reference to a series of documents, versions, and websites that evolved over a five-year period. As soon as DI changes even one word, that makes it a new and different document. In the versions that appeared on their website, they added 5 words not on the original 2001 prepublication petition. Those extra 5 words reframes, recontextualizes, and therefore changes the import and meaning of the remaining 32 words. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

[L]et alone what the DI says she signed"

I hate to go the "silence is consent" route, but if someone had a petition posted online with my name on it that I hadn't signed, I'd make it clear that I hadn't signed it.

Moulton said:

I will give you (although it means nothing) that 103 scientists (Picard included) signed something that had no identifiable connection to any sponsoring organization.

Really? So, in other words you are asserting that these 103 people are either very stupid or incredibly gullible? More to the point - evidence?

Please don't put words in my mouth that I have not uttered. That's what DI did to 103 scientists. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

You have no verifiable source that any of them signed what DI claims.

We have a verifiable source - the DI says so.

Since when is the DI a reliable source of any factual information, other than their own existence? Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

You have no verifiable source that any of them agree with or support the DI's notorious assertions appearing on their ads or web sites

...except the fact that most of them have done nothing to distance themselves from the claim. What we lack is any verifiable source which suggests that Picard is not a creationist.

You don't know that. In the case of Davidson, the news only came out after he succeeded. It's often easier to negotiate things if you don't raise the stakes by publicizing the dispute. For all you know, many of those 103 scientists could still be engaged in quiet negotiation. I'm not a lawyer, but most lawyers advise their clients not to say anything in public, because it could compromise their chances of achieving their goal. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

The only source for any of that is DI itself, and that's not a reliable source of anything approaching a verifiable fact.

The DI is a verifiable source. It is a source whose reliability is questionable on a number of issues. But there is no reason to doubt everything they say. It has been over half a decade - if the DI has libelled Picard, she has had more than enough time to challenge their libel.

They may be a verifiable source as to what they are saying, but not to its factual accuracy. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

To present any of that as an independently verifiable fact risks publishing a falsehood about 103 living persons

If anyone had challenged it, we would have to report both sides (the DI says X, but Picard denies it).

All you have now is DI says X about person Y. That doesn't elevate X to an independently verified fact about person Y. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

All you can safely publish is what Ken Chang found: The names of 103 scientists appeared on a list published by the DI.

No, not really. We cannot be absolutely certain that Chang found this. By your standard, what we can report is that NYT claims that Chang wrote this (or rather, since I'm sure all this comes off nytimes.com, that the publisher or nytimes.com, which claims to be the New York Times, claims that Ken Chang claimed... Guettarda 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You can independently find the same thing -- that some names appear on a list published on DI's website. What any of that means is not entirely clear, as DI's representations as to what it means is a matter of considerable doubt. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow

The article says:

“ In February 2006, the New York Times reported[10] that Dr. Picard was one of several hundred professonals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".[11] ”

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)

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)

Don't even joke about it! ornis (t) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Anti-evolution petition controversy redrafted

Here's my suggestion for explaining the petition aspect in a neutral way:

Picard is one of several hundred professonals who have signed the Discovery Institute's petition, attesting to the statement that "We are skeptical of the 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." This petition and a list of its signatories was published late in 2001 as advertisements in periodicals under the heading "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" with a heading claiming that the signatories disputed an alleged claim that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution". The National Center for Science Education noted that the statement and headings were artfully phrased so that normal scientific questioning of the extent to which natural selection is involved in particular aspects of evolution could be confused with the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution position.

The petition has been repeatedly used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to promote intelligent design creationism.

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard had signed the list. Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology. It has been noted that many others on the list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology.

By stating the facts in sequence and noting the artful phrasing, there should be no further confusion. If there is any published statement by Picard dissociating herself from the list as presented by the DI, that should be noted with proper citation. .. dave souza, talk 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dave. That redrafting comes very close to my goals for accuracy.

A few details...

Where it says "was published in late 2001 as advertisements in periodicals," I would prefer if it read "was published in late 2001 as part of advertisements in periodicals," so as not to give the impression the 103 scientists had signed onto the anti-PBS ad itself.

What do you propose as the section heading, Dave? My proposal was "New York Times Story on Controversial Petition" which I believe is both accurate and NPOV.

Finally, I've heard it stated that the DI admitted that it drafted and circulated the 32-word petition that circulated in academia in 2001. Can somebody direct me to where DI admits that? All I've been able to find out is that the DI first put their name and agenda to it in that anti-PBS ad. My information is that the copy that circulated in academia prior to first publication bore no disclosure of sponsorship. Separate from any of the controversy here on how to write the story, it seems to me that if DI did in fact construct and circulate the pre-publication copy with the intention of subsequently (mis)representing it as they did, there might well be grounds for alleging a case of fraud. If that proves to be the case, the NCSE might well be interested in a class action on behalf of those 103 scientists.

Again, let me thank you, Dave, for your courtesy and your professionalism in helping to address my concerns.

Moulton 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

References

For anyone who wants to check them:

Outside offer to mediate

Hi, there. I'm a Wikipedia editor with 7000 edits, and strong familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There was a request on the WP:BLP/N board for assistance in this matter. I would like to help, if the parties agree to letting me mediate. I work at a right-wing think-tank (in legal studies), and I am also a lifetime member of NCSE, so I am familiar with both the evolution/creation controversy and with the perception that the press sometimes treats religious arguments unfairly. I think this would permit me to have credibility with both sides, but perhaps someone would instead feel that this means I have a conflict of interest because I recognize the theory of evolution or because of my employer. Would mediation help matters? If so, we can set up a Talk:Rosalind Picard/mediation page. If one person disagrees, I'll walk away without hard feelings. THF 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Pending Dave Souza's intervention, the need for mediation may have abated. If other editors can agree with what Dave and I agree on, then I think we are done.

Separately from this specific issue, I'd still like some help on the general issue, of which this case is an instance. The general issue has to do with distinguishing a report of a claim with the veracity of the claim itself. In the specific case at hand, there is some confusion over whether the NY Times affirmed a claim by the DI, thereby elevating it to a verifiable fact, or whether the NY Times only reported a claim, together with additional story content that cast doubt on the claim. The issue is clouded by two confusing elements. The first confusing element is DI's partisan characterization of the 32-word petition as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." The second confusing element is that the NY Times headline refers to the content of the 2006 website, which presents something considerably different from the 2001 version. There is no question that the NY Times story reports what DI claims. But there is considerable question how much, if any, of their claim is substantiated or affirmed by the NY Times. What I'd like some help on is how (in general, not just in this case) one can make that distinction, and how Wikipedians can avoid adopting a partisan's unwarranted reframing, spin, or evolving recontextualization when doing so substantially changes the meaning, import, or interpretation of a controversial statement. That is, what I'm seeking here is not so much mediation as education from an expert on that general issue.

I thank you for any assistance you can provide on any or all of the issues on the table.

Moulton 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the series of arguments made above on this page for the moment, may I ask: 1) what exactly is being alleged to be misrepresented in the NY Times article, or other published reliable source, as to Picard's being a signatory to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition? and 2) what reliable published sources, if any, support any such allegation of misrepresentation of Picard's relationship to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition? ... Kenosis 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The name of the pre-publication petition that circulated in academia in 2001 was not "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." That was the name that the DI later adopted to characterize an unnamed 32-word statement that 103 scientists had previously concurred with. Prepending that misleading name to the 32-word statement reframes and recontextualizes the meaning and interpretation from a technical issue among specialists to a substantially different (and considerably more notorious and controversial) advocacy slant. Labeling the 32-word statement as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin" is the misrepresentation.

2) The earliest known published version of the 32-word statement is found within a 2001 anti-PBS advertisement published and signed by the DI. In that ad, the DI invoked the 32-word statement and asserted that it supported their criticism of the PBS series on Evolution. The name "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was the headline of the ad attacking PBS. It was not part of the cited 32-word statement that the DI invoked as supporting their view.

Moulton 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think can readily understand how the untitled statement could be misconstrued to refer to the need for more in-depth research into the process of speciation, cladistics, empirically observable precursors to speciation, etc., particularly if, say, a researcher had just been dealing with the issue of the fossil record not being a continuous random spread over time, or was talking about Gould, or any of a number of other possibilities. What published sources exist that have presented, e.g., a photocopy of the statement as it was originally circulated without title, a statement that it was circulated untitled, testimony as to any assertions of misleading statements made orally by persons circulating the petition, or other indicia that might be relevant? The sources in which such assertions are documented would be very important to the WP discussion. ... Kenosis 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight on petition

About half the article is taken up by this issue. There is already a (long) article about the petition itself. What is the reason for giving some much attention to it here? It almost seems like the intent is to punish Ms Picard for signing it. Steve Dufour 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed off some of the info on the petition itself, but still noting that it is controversial. People can check out the petition's article if they want to learn more. I hope this will be considered fair. Steve Dufour 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version I proposed, which was reverted with a rather rude comment:

Anti-evolution petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of several hundred professionals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".

I don't see what the problem with it is? Steve Dufour 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the controversial elements is whether the 32-word statement is accurately characterized as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." The easiest way to fix this is to simply say, "Controversial Petition" to avoid adopting the DI's controversial POV that the 32-word statement should be interpreted the way DI suggests, rather than the way the scientists who actually signed it suggest. Moulton 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, so I've implemented it and have also added the reason that the Times named her, as one of the few nationally prominent scientists out of the 514 scientists and engineers who had signed. That leaves open the implication that she agreed to "dissent from Darwinism" – my suggestion above shows what she apparently signed, and cites the NCSE to clarify that point. .. dave souza, talk 12:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I would suggest the the issue is not so much WP:UNDUE as notability (WP:N).

• The subject of this article's notability is almost solely due to her being mentioned in the NYT article as having signed the petition. This being so, it is unsurprising that the article is heavily weighted towards this.
• Prior to the addition of this into the article, it would almost certainly have failed this criteria (as the only content was based almost solely on her peacock-word riven, hagiographical bio from MIT -- "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."), and therefore been deleted if challenged. Even now it is, at best, marginal on this criteria.
• This raises a potential solution: if we can agree on deletion, we can most probably remove this bone of contention completely. This will however mean both sides agreeing to relinquish the bits of the article we do like.

Hrafn42 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Slash and burn, it's really not worth the grief. ornis (t) 05:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What Picard is notable for is her pioneering contributions to her field. The Biography section doesn't need to be lengthy or vainglorious, but it does need to fairly represent her notable contributions. It should state that she founded the field of Affective Computing and made seminal contributions to it, with a modest selection of them mentioned according to their importance to the field.

On the other hand, if the only point of having this article at all is to highlight the controversy in the NY Times story, then there is no need to even feature a biography at all. Just delete the whole article. To my mind, it's better for Wikipedia to say nothing at all than to say contentious things that cast Wikipedia in an unfavorable light.

Moulton 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, can you provide any evidence that she has any notability according to WP:N, other than for her signing the 'Dissent'? As far as I can see, Picard may be notable within her particular field, but she is virtually unknown to those outside it. Hrafn42 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think Chang picked out the names of Skell, Tour, and Picard as prominent scientists? Do you think he picked out of the list three obscure unknowns who hadn't done anything notable in their field? Or do you think he picked out those three names because they were well-known and highly respected scientists with notable contributions? Do you think a scientist becomes a Fellow of the IEEE or an advisor to the National Science Foundation because they haven't done anything notable? Do you think Chang picked them out to illustrate and affirm DI's claim, or to cast doubt on DI's claim? Moulton 07:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Skell doesn't have an article either, and probably has more notability these days as an anti-evolution crank than as a retired scientist. The Tour article would likewise be a prime candidate for deletion under WP:N. I suspect there may be many scientists who have the qualifications you mention who do not meet WP:N. What proportion of IEEE fellows have their own wikipedia articles? There are only 136 Fellows in Category:Fellows of the IEEE, but there have been 268 new Fellows in 2007 alone.[15] Hrafn42 08:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Skell the one who wrote the article, "Why We Invoke Darwin," noting that some writers are genuflecting toward Darwin's model (i.e. Natural Selection) even when nothing in their research depends on Natural Selection? As I read that, he's not anti-evolution. He's just annoyed by writers who invoke the wrong framework. It would be like someone doing research on quarks and begin by paying homage to Einstein. Nothing wrong with Einstein, mind you. It's just that Quantum Mechanics doesn't reside within the framework of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Moulton 08:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"the main purpose" of anyone teaching evolutionary biology in our schools is the "indoctrination of students to a worldview of materialism and atheism" is emphatically anti-evolution. Quotes & links relating to Skell's anti-evolutionism can be found here. Hrafn42 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will vote for deletion. Looking over it I notice that her bio is only sourced from primary sources. Anyway the story of the petition is well covered in its own article, which is where people will look if they are interested. (Please let me repeat my comment that WP's evolution supporters would do better if they focused more on ideas, rather than too much criticism of individuals. IMO of course.) Steve Dufour 06:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve: the reason that we criticise individuals is that these individuals do little more than recycle tired old debunked ideas, rather than come up with anything new. See the Atomic Theory of Antievolution. There really are no new ideas to criticise. Hrafn42 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody in a position of authority explain to me why it is the function of Wikipedia to venture criticism of individuals -- especially distinguished individuals who are notable for making seminal contributions in their field? Moulton 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's in a position of authority, everyone can check the policies and guidelines and admins are trusted with a couple of extra tools to try to tidy up. My understanding is that particular care has to be taken to ensure that any criticism of living individuals is properly attributed, and is not original research - there's a link to WP:BIO at the top of the page. Within limits, as set out there, editors can express their opinions on talk pages. WP:NPOV requires that pseudoscience is set in the context of majority scientific opinion on the subject, and some may see that as excessive criticism of individuals. .. dave souza, talk 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When editors express their personal opinions on talk pages, it frames their personal POV regarding how they have read and understood stories like the celebrated one in the NY Times. Given that reliable sources establish that the subject of this article is recognized as a promient distinguished scientist who is also an advisor of the National Science Foundation, comparable to other similar prominent and distinguished scientists who are on clearly record as expressing interpretations substantially at odds with the reported claims of the DI, it occurs to me that elevating the reported claims of the DI as verified facts regarding any of the 103 scientists is both unwarranted from the evidence and potentially libelous and defamatory of any or all of those 103 scientists. See the WP guidelines on using words like "report" and "claim". Moulton 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I invite you to try that sort of reasoning in a deposition. You might find yourself in hot water pretty quickly, I would venture. And it does not particularly carry any weight with me. I have heard these tedious and tendentious arguments 100 times or more now. And they are no more convincing now. It is all nonsense and OR. We are not here to engage in wild speculation and conjecture. And you cannot shove this nonsense on us. Thanks awfully though.--Filll 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also leaning towards deletion. Has she really done anything that important? I could argue that she has not.

It is not a function of Wikipedia to do more than report what is in the RS and V sources. If there is "criticism" of an individual in RS and V sources, then it goes into Wikipedia. If we removed all "criticism" then Wikipedia would be of far less use.

Also, "criticism" is in the eye of the beholder. How do we know that Picard objects? We ONLY have Moulton's claims. These claims might be pure fantasy. We have not one word, not one breath, not one hint, from Picard herself over a 6 year period that there is any disagreement by Picard with this petition. Many people, in fact, I would venture that MOST people on the list, are proud to have signed and champion this cause. What evidence do we have that Picard is not one of them? Not one shred. Sorry Moulton. Your COI claims really count for very little. And every passing day when I do not hear back from my inquiries confirms this.

I do NOT believe for one second that over a 6 year period that biological or paleontological colleagues of Picard did not make her aware of the significance of signing and remaining on this petition and remaining on it. Her name has been on the web in this context for 6 years. It was in dozens of advertisements in major National publications when it was first announced in 2001. It was attached to press releases that came out once or twice a year for 6 years. It was in the New York Times article and possibly others. So Picard almost certainly knows what this means to biologists and geologists and other scientists. In fact, the Discovery Institute with their war on "materialism" wants to smash other disciplines like physics and chemistry, eventually, according to their oft-repeated statements and plans. And yet Picard stays on the list and never even whispers that she disagrees even though her name is used to champion this agenda over and over and over and over.

So if I was going to speculate, like Moulton likes to do, I would say it is quite plausible that: (1) Picard wants to stay on the list and meant to sign it, and only complained to Moulton to tell him what he wanted to hear (2) Mentioning this is not harmful at all to Picard, but beneficial. A pro-intelligent design position might easily help with fund-raising for example, or with personal relations. (3) Picard does not really care one way or the other, or even enjoys issuing a big "F-U" to the science community. Picard is an engineer, not a scientist, remember. --Filll 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the MIT Press, which publishes her book, Picard "holds Sc.D. and S.M. degrees in both electrical engineering and computer science from MIT and a bachelors degree in electrical engineering from Georgia Tech. Moulton 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It also could be that she really does believe in the supernatural, as have many intelligent people -- rightly or wrongly. Steve Dufour 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One of her grad students has just completed his thesis on the topic In Search of Wonder. Moulton 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"we are measuring and quantifying people's experience of wonder while watching magic tricks" – should help when dealing with ID, anyway. Perhaps they could examine the experience of wonder when contemplating a tangled bank? .... dave souza, talk 16:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Since the question was raised of notability established by secondary sources, I'd a quick look and found a few. These could form the basis of some expansion of the biography, and doubtless there are other secondary sources which can be cited. BBC News, The future of affection, PBS Org., Rosalind Picard bio, FM interviews Rosalind Picard, ZDNet MIT's PC breakthrough ... dave souza, talk 12:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of sources that reliably present interesting biographical material on the subject, including some that even disclose her religious convictions. It perplexes me why, when I stumbled onto this page a week or so ago, the singular focus (for the past year and a half) was on the controversial NY Times story featuring the dubious claims of the DI. It astounded me that this biographical article, which is obliged to conform to [[WP:BLP] blithely adopted the dubious POV of a controversial advocacy group that claims (without credible evidence) that 103 scientists subscribe to and support the DI's patently ridiculous (and oft-ridiculed) political agenda, as represented in their 2006 website.

As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedians can gleefully discredit DI all they want. But it troubles me that so many Wikipedians leaped to the opportunity to discredit and defame 103 scientists whom DI merely claims to support their interpretation and agenda.

Moulton 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you, as Picard's booster, and as the supposed expert on her work, never bothered to look beyond her hagiographical bio on the MIT site, to these more reliable sources. I never made any bones about the fact that my primary interest in this article was removal of inappropriate material and accurate characterisation of her signing of the 'Dissent.' I would suggest that you stop trying to reinsert the former and minimise the latter, and attempt to present a broader biographical picture of Picard based on these new sources. Hrafn42 15:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Hrafn42 here. I have begged and pleaded with Moulton for one week to assist in a constructive way. I presented several options he could help with. More web information and documentation of the petition and campaign would help. Less plagiaristic pasting of POV biographical material. More prodding of the machinery to produce more RS and V sources that could be incorporated. Instead, he has chosen to fight instead here in a pointless exercise, wasting time and energy, and even being the subject of a temporary block and coming close a few more times. Moulton, work with us, not against us. It will go much easier that way.--Filll 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to WP evolution supporters

I really do think that in defending science it would be better to make it more about, well, science and less about individuals. For instance in an article about Joe Creationist you could say he wrote a book saying that the universe was made in 6 days and that mainstream science says it took about 15 billion years. That is really all the readers need to know about him. You don't have to tell them that he has warts on his nose and hired an illegal alien to mow his lawn. Steve Dufour 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been extensively involved with individuals that support creationism, but as far as I am aware, we do not talk about the warts. We only mention things relevant to the issue at hand. If incorrect listing of affiliations is mentioned as an important issue by RS and V sources with a petition, then we might include examples, which some would claim reflect badly on the individuals (of course it might not be the individuals, but those who wrote the list). If irrelevant expertise is mentioned in RS and V sources, then we might include examples, which some would claim reflect badly on the individuals (but again this is not the fault of the individuals, but those who compiled the list and allowed the individuals to be on the list). Before we had examples listed, our articles came under constant attack by creationist POV editors here for not having examples.

And the categories and lists for signatories of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism were created by creationist editors here, not pro-evolution editors. And they fought hard to keep them when these were challenged. Check the records. It is not some dishonor to be a creationist to these people, as you seem to think.

If you look at biographies of creationists Henry M. Morris or George McCready Price or Harry Rimmer, would you claim that they show the "warts"? Even Jonathan Wells is presented pretty blandly. Even current prison inmate Kent Hovind has a pretty bland biography here, with huge amounts of negative material excised. Are these the biographies that these individuals would write for themselves? Clearly not. They would want to whitewash things and spin them in a completely different way.

Would Senator Larry Craig prefer that his biography here not mention the current controversy? Of course he would prefer that it did not. But what is of use to the readers? We do the readers a disservice by not mentioning these controversies.

Bernard d'Abrera would not even merit an article without his creationist activities. Someone who takes pictures of butterflies with no degree and prints and sells them? That is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. So if we describe the source of these people's notability, is that bad?

As I said before, the Picard article should either be expanded or deleted. And frankly it is so much trouble that I wonder if it should not just be nuked. Someone who decided that people like machines better that smile? Give me a break...--Filll 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve: the science articles are about science, not individuals -- e.g.: Evolution. This is because it is a requirement of science that the whole thing dovetails together into a reasonably seamless whole, so the individual researchers don't matter so much. If they don't dovetail together, then research gets done to produce evidence to resolve the conflict. Creationism on the other hand is generally about the idiosyncratic, and often conflicting, views promulgated by the movement's leadership. It would be very difficult to write about YEC without writing about Henry Morris and Ken Ham. It would be likewise difficult to write about ID without writing about Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. It is not some evil Evolutionist conspiracy, it is merely the nature of the subject being covered. Hrafn42 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, maybe it would be nice to drop all the chatter about Einstein and just stick with special and general relativity; drop Heisenberg, Planck and Shrodinnger, and just stick with quanta, etc. ... Kenosis 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What would be more useful would be to point out that GR and QM are mathematically incompatible theories. That's why Einstein and Bohr had such interesting disagreements. This perplexing problem -- that GR does not dovetail with QM -- plagued a lot of physicists for most of the 20th Century. It wasn't until the advent of Superstring Theory that anyone discovered a mathematically plausible way to resolve the discrepancy and unify GR with QM. But Superstring Theory calls upon extremely complex mathematics that is difficult to present in layman's terms. One of the more interesting approaches is to present these stories in the form of a stage play. Moulton 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a mention of this basic issue in General_relativity#Relationship_with_quantum_mechanics and it's also mentioned in Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics. A story of this kind would likely be what's termed original research, although if drawn from reliable published sources about the story, it could well be an article at some point in the future. ... Kenosis 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well only partially true, and obviously due to incomplete knowledge. But ok...--Filll 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am frankly perplexed by the whole notion of support or dissent for a theory. To my mind, scientifically evaluated evidence is what affirms or refutes a theory. To my mind, the concept of support or dissent applies to political choices laid before a body politic. Conflating the protocols of the scientific method (e.g. skeptical examination of the evidence for a theory), with support or dissent for a political cause is a fundamental category error. I suppose if one is on the sidelines, watching competing factions of researchers battle it out, one can root for Linus Pauling's alpha-helix model vs. Watson and Crick's double-helix model. (In case you missed the box score, Watson and Crick's model was the one affirmed by examining the evidence of X-ray crystallography images. And it was another Rosalind -- Rosalind Franklin -- who carefully examined those X-ray crystallography images to resolve the question.) So feel free to root for or against your favorite researcher. But please don't conflate the protocols of the scientific method for the cheers and jeers of the spectators in the stands. Moulton 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientists here do not, and the WP articles they have written on this subject do not, as can easily be verified. However, WP must report on what is in the public sphere, not what we would wish it to be. We can write lots of articles and include lots of paragraphs explaining this, over and over and over (and we have), but this does not change the discourse in the public sphere or the public mind or in the media. And so we report what is out there. Not what we wish was out there. But reality, instead. --Filll 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The public political debate over what should or shouldn't be taught in Dover PA belongs in an article about the political debate over how science should be taught. The subject of this article is not a party to that debate. She's been interviewed on lots of subjects (including some touching on religious ideas); her research has been featured in lots of prestigious media, including PBS Scientific American Frontiers, and she has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on subjects ranging from digital signal processing to visual modeling to pattern recognition to affective computing to autism research. Whether anyone who reads Wikipedia has the slightest interest in any of that is not for me to judge. But it occurs to me that anyone who does visit a Wikipedia page purporting to be the biography of a living person is entitled to find a responsibly written, accurate, and informative article about that person. Is that too much to ask of Wikipedia?

Having said that, let me express my thanks to Dave Souza and the others who have worked conscientiously to transform this biography into a reasonably respectable example of a BLP. Moulton 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. My problem with WP's coverage of creationism, etc. is really more the tone of hostility towards individuals which is sometimes seen on the talk pages and even sometimes leaks out into the articles. I think that distracts from the debate about the facts, which of course (IMO) the evolutionists would win. Steve Dufour 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you have a problem, from what I've seen the hostility goes both ways in what can be described as a culture war. It's not about facts, it's essentially a theological argument as to whether science can continue to be secular, or whether credence is to be given to theistic realism assuming the "fact" of creation to have empirical, observable consequences[16] producing "facts" that are explained as evidence of the supernatural. .. dave souza, talk 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to evolution?

Has there been some consensus that I failed to notice that we should not even mention "evolution" in connection with the 'Dissent'? I find it more than a little odd that it is mentioned solely as a "controversial petition". It would seem to me that it is:

• Primarily an anti-evolution petition
  • Secondarily an anti-evolution that misrepresents evolution.
    • And only tertiarily a controversial anti-evolution petition, because of this misrepresentation.

I would thus consider it to be reasonable to characterise it as an "anti-evolution petition" or a "controversial anti-evolution petition" but not merely a "controversial petition". However, if the consensus is against me, I must needs bow to it.

Additionally, I am concerned to note that the appeal to authority aspect of the petition (which would seem to be directly relevant, given Picard's lack of any competence in evolutionary biology) has been completely pared out. Likewise I would inquire if there is consensus for this. Hrafn42 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. It all seems a bit strane to me. I have avoided editing the article directly until we get more information to sort this out, and trying to educate Moulton as to how and why we do things the way we do here (which I did not understand at first either, to be fair). I also have tried to recruit other editors and administrators to help straighten this out and assist. But I start to wonder if it is all worth it, frankly. --Filll 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The 32-word statement is not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense, to carefully examine the evidence for one's beliefs in a skeptical light. It's an appeal to function within the paradigm of the scientific method, so as to avoid arriving at erroneous conclusions. Socrates said something similar a while back. Moulton 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of my thinking was that if a reader was interested in finding out more about the petition he could click on over to its article and read all he wanted. I don't think it's fair to mention the appeal to authority issue in Ms Picard's article. She just signed the petition. It is not her fault that she is not a biologist, well it is but we can't blame her for that. :-) I will change the title of the section to "Anti-evolution petition" which was my choice in the first place. (p.s. It might not have been controversial when she signed it if she was one of the first ones to do so. Steve Dufour 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

She signed a petition, on a matter outside her field of expertise, that attempted to discredit the expert scientific consensus in that field. We can most certainly "blame her for that." Hrafn42 04:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason she got in New York Times was because her field had nothing to do with evolution. Otherwise, it would not have been much of an issue probably. It supported Chang's thesis.--Filll 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But that is not really about her. It's about the Times using her as an example. To me that would be better to mention in the article about the petition. Steve Dufour 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of those coming to this page will be looking up someone listed as signing the petition, so it needs at least a brief mention. The options are giving a brief mention with minimal explanation, as at present, or giving a bit more context as I suggested earlier, showing what the petition said and noting the NCSE comment on how ambiguous the statement was, and how the heading and intro added by the DI changed the interpretation. If that's done, it would be good to state that she was one of 103 original signatories (or whatever the number is, a source should be checked and cited). That list is easily obtained from the somewhat dodgy DI, but it was published as advertisements in more reliable sources. Each option has advantages and disadvantages. .. dave souza, talk 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless it can be made abundantly clear that none of those 103 (including Skell, Tour and Picard) signed a piece of paper bearing the label "A Dissent From Darwinism" or anything remotely construed as "anti-evolution" then it's best to say nothing at all, because no verifiable source establishes that what they signed was anything of the sort.

What can you legitimately derive from the NY Times article?

All you can derive is that the names of those three appeared along with a few hundred others on a list on a new website launched by the DI. The DI claimed they were all scientists. The first thing Chang did was exhibit quotes (which support the headline) that most those who went to the DI's site to add their names were evangelical Christians. The next thing Chang did was to note that of the scientists, most were not biologists. The next thing Chang did was to single out three prominent scientists who, on the face of it would be unlikely to be supporters of the DI's agenda. Chang manages to get a quote from one of them (Tour, a nano-technologist) who explains his position (which is technical and does not concord with the way the DI slants it). This all serves to cast doubt on the credibility of the DI's claim about who is on their list.

Separately, you have the article from Skell in The Scientist, Why Do We Invoke Darwin?, with his concluding quote, "None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false," after airing his central complaint that Darwin's model doesn't frame work (like his) in biochemistry, even though a lot of authors begin their papers by invoking Darwin's name. The skeptical reader is left wondering what other technical reasons besides those two were in the minds of the 103 scientists. Then you have the quote from Nathan Salthe who said he never heard of the DI and expresses disdain for the whole lot of them.

Separately from all that, you have the 2001 anti-PBS ad which reveals two things. First it reveals that most of the heavy-hitting scientists on the DI's list are found in that original 2001 contingent who signed a piece of paper before the first publication. Secondly, the ad reveals that those first 103 only put their name to a 32-word statement that does not carry any title selectively reframing the context of the 32-word statement as either "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." Moreover, you have the case of Davidson, which further reinforces Chang's skeptical examination of the claims of the DI as represented on their new website.

Now, as responsible Wikipedia editors, we cannot conclude, either from the NY Times story or from the other evidence at hand that the first 103 ever heard of the DI, ever assented to or supported the political agenda of the DI, ever signed anything entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwin" or ever characterized themselves as "anti-evolution."

Any elevation to the status of facthood of idle speculation about those 103, or the DI's claims about those 103 would exceed the what the evidence demonstrates and would potentially violate WP:BLP "Do No Harm."

Therefore, the standards of ethical journalism requires due diligence in refraining from the publication of any speculative or dubious material that cannot be established to be factually accurate.

Moulton 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"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." is an anti-evolution statement. Picard signed it. QED. All the hand-waving in the world isn't going to change this fact. Hrafn42 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is false and defamatory to negatively reframe an invocation of the protocols of the scientific method as anti-evolution. The purpose of the protocols of the scientific method is to avoid making errors of scientific judgment. Darwin's model, like any scientific model, has a legitimate scope. It is a potential error to apply a model outside of its legitimate scope. For example, the scope of GR does not extend down to the subatomic scale, which is why GR is mathematically incompatible with QM. It is a scientifically valid observation (which Tour and Skell have both made) that the scope of Darwin's model for Natural Selection does not extend down to the molecular scale. Changes at the molecular scale are explained by theories appropriate to molecular biology and biochemistry. Darwin's model applies to species. Tour isn't even working with the molecules of living organisms. He's working with engineered molecules such as his nano-car. The legitimate scientific observation that molecular dynamics is explained by theories outside the scope of Darwin's model of Natural Selection of living species is not an anti-evolutionary perspective. That's the negative spin or reframing of partisans who wish to milsead the public by falsely reinterpreting the meaning of an expression of the protocols of the scientific method. Furthermore, Darwin's model of Natural Selection, which legitimately applies to species of living organisms, does not even attempt to address the origins of life, including the origins of complex molecules like ribosomes and nucleic acids. Darwin's model of Natural Selection predates and does not overlap most if not all of modern molecular biology and cell mechanics. Moulton 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: the statement that Picard signed had nothing whatsoever to do with "the protocols of the scientific method" and everything to do with 'framing' dishonest anti-evolution bigotry to make it look more respectable. Hrafn42 10:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the scope of the statement in question derives from information supplied by five of the scientists who affirmed that statement. Moulton 10:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The section whose title Moulton can't resist changing, in spite of being warned not to

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another section heading that Moulton inserted in flagrant disregard of WP:POINT

(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)

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)

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)

Further WP:DE from Moulton

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)

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)

Social Contract

I would like to see the participants here craft a more functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide us. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, is proving to be needlessly aggravating and contentious. I believe we need a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution. Moulton 10:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but Moulton what I see from you is a desire to impose your own changes and views by fiat. By fatwah. That is not how Wikipedia works. We work by consensus. Please try to work with the other editors, not against them. So far, everything I have told you has been correct, and all your own personal claims and ideas have been wrong. Trust me on this. I know what I am talking about. You do not.--Filll 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A social contract is a document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one party over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus -- a consensus on the terms of engagement.

As to notions of right or wrong, I draw to your attention a famous quote from the Tao: "Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error." Moral suasion may be about Right and Wrong, but science is about constructing accurate and insightful models that make reliable predictions. I doubt either of us have sufficiently accurate and insightful models to predict the future with any confidence, beyond expecting some kind of liminal social drama.

Moulton 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition to the article, courtesy of Moulton

Unlike Moulton, I have no desire to violate WP:3RR (compounding his violations of WP:COI), so rather than reverting his latest piece of unsourced partisanship on behalf of Picard, I will submit it for the consensus consideration:

Picard's field of affective computing is a field of scientific research which establishes her credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

Does anybody think that such a statement has any place in wikipedia? Hrafn42 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't. I think it is original research and just someone's opinion besides. As I said before, the article should be about Picard, not about how some people are trying to use her for one side or the other in the creation/evolution controversy. That could be mentioned of course, but should not dominate the article. Steve Dufour 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not strike me as particularly enlightening for a biography like this. One could put such boilerplate in ALL engineering and scientific biographies. If this sort of standard was employed, biographies would quickly be filled with meaningless phrases of a similar nature.

Most of the edits I have seen here over the last week have been pointless. There were edits, which were instantly reverted. There was heated debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think the best for all concerned would be if we just slow down and let things settle out here a bit.

And it appears to me, looking in, that Moulton is a big change agent here. So Moulton, please try not to engage in such pitched battles here. These are not helpful.--Filll 12:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny being a change agent. I'm a science educator, affiliated with the Boston Museum of Science and five universities in three states. I care about critical thinking skills, ethics in both science and journalism, and reclamation of our system of education, which has fallen behind that of other developed countries.

I've been a researcher and systems scientist my entire life, and those are the skills I bring to the table, whether anyone finds them edible or not. My point is that if I cannot find any credible evidence for a presumptive fact, then it's not yet demonstrated to be a fact. I'm not blind and I'm not deliberately shutting my eyes when someone places before me an exhibit which they claim to prove a given thesis. In mathematics, if a student presents a purported proof of a theorem, I am obliged to examine the offered proof with a critical eye to see if it actually proves the theorem to which it is attached. That's part of the discipline of critical thinking and is the opposite of an appeal to authority.

Wikipedia may not have as an express goal the exercise of the scientific method, but Wikipedians can still benefit from the disciplines we promote in science education and in journalistic excellence. I'm not here so much to change Wikipedia as to unabashedly promote the conscientious and diligent utilization of critical thinking skills and ethical standards of journalistic excellence as cultural values essential to the advance of human civilization.

Moulton 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My last edit

I took off Moulton's opinion. As I said before, this article is about Picard. It would be just as wrong to use it as a coatrack to attack evolution as to defend it. I also added the word "later" because I understand that the title of the petition was added after she signed it. If I got this wrong please take it out. I also took the word "Controversial" out of the section title. Too often that word is used to mean "bad" or at least "politically incorrect". That might be true, but it's bad style to give away too much in the title. Steve Dufour 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that you excised my opinion. I put it there to demonstrate that there is more than one way to interpret the statement. The statement can, on the one hand, be viewed in a favorable light (as suggested by half a dozen scientists) or it can be viewed in a negative light (as has been the case in these pages for a good year and a half) or it can be viewed in a neutral and nonjudgmental light. The question I ask is pretty transparent: What light do the Wikipedians cast on the statement, and what is their evidence and reasoning to promote that view as worthy of an encyclopedia? Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if controversial is a good qualifier or not. That is up to consensus to decide.

An alternative, which I posted on Steve's talk page, was "Confusing Petition." That may or may not be a suitable title, but it's certainly an accurate description. Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

However, the claim that the title was added "later" is a fact I wish we knew and had documented in WP:RS and WP:V sources. If this was true, believe me, I would proclaim it loud and often. It would have a very prominent place in our main Dissent from Darwinism article. You would find it on blogs. You would find it in all the media articles on the Dissent petition. You would find it used over and over by the National Center for Science Education. This is a piece of information I would desperately love to have. However, this is just pure WP:OR and speculation at this point. If we can get any evidence of it, then believe me, we will put it in Wikipedia. It would be a very interesting and valuable fact. I think it is quite plausible, but it is not something we can use in Wikipedia. Unfortunately. Or at least yet. But it is something that perhaps some digging can find out more about. Who knows?--Filll 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The best WP:RS that the 5-word title came later is the 2001 anti-PBS ad. If you consider the act of examining the exhibited ad (to see what's in it) to be WP:OR then I despair of the goal of promoting critical thinking. Do you consider the observation that the 5-word title does not appear within the gray box to be WP:OR? The second best WP:RS that the statement carried no such title is the quote from Salthe who says he never heard of the DI. The 5-word characterization is the headline of the DI's anti-PBS ad, so it's clear they own that label (it's not in quotes, and not represented as having been seen or signed by anyone other than the DI). For my part, I will again ask one of the 103 signers what was on the piece of paper that circulated in academia, and whether there is any way to demonstrate that above and beyond mere oral testimony of a personal recollection. Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the confusion about the word "promoting". Perhaps the phrase should be reworded to remove ambiguity. However, one of Moulton's main points is that we have no source that these people actually signed the petition aside from the Discovery Institute. I personally think that is a fairly reasonable source in this instance, particularly if the "signatories" did not object for 5 or 6 years after the petition came out and they were able to see what uses it was put to. However, clearly the people who purportedly signed were not promoting the ideas, but the website was promoting the ideas. --Filll 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything to remove ambiguity and confusion would be a move in the right direction. I have no objection to an individual person adopting a personal belief, but I do object to acting on a mere belief as if it were the ground truth, for the purpose of either casting a living person in a negative light, or for giving would-be sociopaths any reason to sustain a campaign of harassment and abuse of 103 scientists and their professional colleagues. Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-evolution"

I have no strong objection to calling the petition an anti-evolution petition in the title, although some others seem to. I would like to point out that it might be a little confusing to some people. Maybe they will think the purpose of the petition is to do away with evolution and turn us back into chimpanzees. :-) Steve Dufour 07:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, it's more than a little "confusing." It's a notorious misrepresentation to label the statement "anti-evolution." Let me explain...

One of the harshest critics of the Darwinian model is David Berlinski, who is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. One of his criticisms is that the stochastic models still don't fit the data very well. His dissatisfaction with simple random models makes a technical point that is lost on the layperson. The stochastic models that fit the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium) are not simple random models. To get the stochastic models to fit the fossil record, one has to tinker them in ways that raise more (technical) questions than they answer. Is it responsible journalism to spin a technical scientific point into a sensationalized "anti-evolution dissent from Darwin'? Let us not fall into the trap of naively interpreting and misrepresenting a scientific criticism having to do with the precision of mathematical models. Berlinski is hardly anti-evolutionary. But he presents a fair criticism that the stochastic models don't predict what is found in the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" highlights the troublesome nonstationarity of the fossil record, but that leaves a gap in the mathematics that remains to be filled. Reframing that technical issue over deficiencies in the stochastic model as "anti-evolution" is simply incorrect, and doing so does a disservice both to the public and to the scientists who are framing this debate. One could fairly characterize Berlinski as dissenting from Darwin's mechanism, on the grounds that Darwin's stochastic models are inadequate to predict or explain the nonstationary features of the fossil record. But then one would be obliged to explain that the dissent isn't over the theory per se, but over the inadequacy of the stochastic models to fit the non-stationary features of the fossil record.

Moulton 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

David Berlinski is an anti-evolution crank with zero scientific credibility. He "has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science." Were Moulton to bother providing a source for Berlinski's claims, I am sure we would not find them to have been published in a credible peer-reviewed journal, and most likely we would find that they've already been debunked by other, more credible, mathematicians. Wikipedia policy: no WP:RS, no entry. Hrafn42 13:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal belief about any of the scientists is not a suitable basis for injecting one's preferred characterization of them into an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to know where I obtained my information about Berlinski, I'll tell you. I have twice watched an hour-long video interview of him explaining his objections to Darwin's mechanism. I consider Berlinski's own words, delivered directly from his own mouth to be a reliable source of what Berlinski says. The video (from 2002) was produced by ColdWater Media. Moulton 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ColdWater Media who also produced the dvd version of the notorious (and notoriously dishonest) anti-evolution polemic, Icons of Evolution (the producer of which is also Berlinski's interviewer). A great endorsement for a claim that Berlinski is neither anti-evolution nor a crank. Hrafn42 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is dissent, and there is dissent.--Filll 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this article is about Ms Picard, an engineer -- not about Mr. Berlinski, or evolution. Steve Dufour 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually she is a scientist, not an engineer. She had on hand a copy of the above-mentioned video interview, which she loaned me. My source for Berlinski's views (which are patently not anti-evolutionary) is his hour-long recitation of his views as recorded in a video interview released in 2002. The 'anti-evolution' label appears on the NY Times headline, but never on the DI website. The criticism about Darwin was not a dissent from evolution (which Berlinski and the other scientists clearly accept without question), but a critique of the shortcomings of Darwin's mechanism to accurately model or explain important the parts of the data in the fossil record -- most significantly the parts which Stephen Jay Gould has termed the punctuation points. Moulton 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Ah yes, a video -- the ideal media to characterise complex mathematical ideas, present formulae and proofs, etc. I wonder why we bother to have mathematical and scientific journals, when we could just make videos of it all.</sarcasm> Hrafn42 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Nature gonna bring out a YouTube clone next (they have a myspace one[17]) ...? Anyway, Engineers is a branch of applied science, so all engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are engineers. "Engineering is the applied science of acquiring and applying knowledge to design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Many engineers pretentiously call themselves scientists. And this comment is quite telling. Thanks.--Filll 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Her MIT degrees are S.M. and Sc.D. She is on the advisory board of the National Science Foundation. Moulton 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand. Clearly from the evidence presented here, and the fact that Rosalind Picard signed the petition and has remained on the petition for 6+ years, in spite of assorted encouragement of Picard to get off it over the years and Picard's uncomfortableness with the media coverage, I have been mislead severely by Moulton. Picard's endorsement of the petition is obviously noteworthy and merited and not at ALL misrepresented by this article. In fact, it probably does not go far enough. I no longer believe any fraud was involved in Picard's signing of the petition. I no longer believe that Picard did not know who the Discovery Institute was before she signed. I no longer believe almost anything that Moulton has claimed. Moulton has revealed his true nature. Thank you Moulton for your honesty, however belated. --Filll 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe the petition is in fact "anti-evolution"? What is your evidence and reasoning, as a responsible editor of a published biography of a living person, to believe (and therefore publish as fact) that the controversial petition in question is accurately characterized as anti-evolution (and thereby imply that 103 scientists are opposed to theories of evolution in the face of copious evidence to the contrary)? Moulton 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough.--Filll 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. A single ill-chosen word appearing nowhere but in the headline of only one story (the content of which does not support the sweeping headline) suffices in your mind to firmly and irretrievably commit Wikipedia to publishing a demonstrably false (and potentially harmful and defamatory) characterization of 103 scientist, notwithstanding copious evidence to the contrary? Moulton 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is over, and time for the RfC I believe.--Filll 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe anti-evolution is a poor unreferenced POV (though, concedingly accurate) description for th petition. The easiest way I can see, is by simply referring to the title by name. User:Moulton has left a rather cryptic message on my talk page which suggests he objects to the use of the word "dissent". As this is the actual title of the petition, I see no way this argument can hold up for exclusion of the term. I think Discovery Institute petition would be fine (DI is synonymous with anti-evolution anyway), as long as that is an accurate portrayal of the petition.--ZayZayEM 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The description "anti-evolution" is referenced to a WP:RS: the title of the NYT piece. Moulton's position appears to be that this petition should not be mentioned at all in this article, and that if it must be mentioned, it should not be described in any informative manner. I do not care if the title says "Anti-evolution petition" or "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", but I would object to the title being pared down to the uninformative "Petition" (or "Controversial petition") or similar. Hrafn42 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's problematic. NYT is not a reliable scientific source, and as elsewhere countered, it is only used in the title, which are prone to hyperbole. If the section can be better titled - i.e. simply by mentioning the title of the petition, it makes no sense to use a perceivably problematic title.--ZayZayEM 06:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2001 32-word statement, as signed by 103 scientists, had no title. Since the adjective "anti-evolution" appears only in the headline, and since six scientists are on record as not being anti-evolution (some are working on micro-evolution), it's best to leave the adjective where it belongs -- in the citation of the NY Times article, which appears in the numbered list of references. That way, the onus is on the NY Times to defend their headline, and Wikipedia avoids elevating an ill-chosen adjective in the headline of one referenced story to the status of "verified fact" which potentially libels and defames as many as 103 scientists. Compare to the similar biography of James Tour. Moulton 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That the "NYT is not a reliable scientific source" is an irrelevance, as the claim that the petition's statement is anti-evolution is not a scientific claim. From a scientific viewpoint, the petition's statement is actually meaningless (as evolutionary biology does not claim that natural selection and random mutation are solely responsible for evolution). The anti-evolutionism of the statement is thus in its intended impact on a general public unaware of this scientific fact. What purpose does the wording of this statement serve, if not to throw doubt on evolution? Hrafn42 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR WP:RS. I don't see the point of using a semi-contentious title when one not as contentious, and no less accurate will suffice. I think the petition is being used as an anti-evolution device, but I still have to abide by NPOV. I'm also going to agree with Moulton that wikipedia should avoid promoting ill-chosen adjectives in headlines. The nature of the petition is well explained in the text of the section. Picard isn't notable for her personal anti-evolution stance; but for being a notable scientist on a notable petition that happens to be used for anti-evolutionary purposes. The NYT "anti-evolution" adjective doesn't directly link to Picard's role.--ZayZayEM 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The title is neither in violation of neither WP:NOR nor WP:RS (but in any case, I have already said that I will accept "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" as a title). The petition is not one that just "happens to be used for anti-evolutionary purposes", it is a petition that serves no purpose other than to promote anti-evolution. That "The NYT "anti-evolution" adjective doesn't directly link to Picard's role" is completely irrelevant, as it it the petition that is described as "anti-evolution" throughout not "Picard's role". Hrafn42 07:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The petition is two sentances and a list of names. It really could be used for a number of things. Explicitly as worded it isn't anti-evolution; and is actually pretty pro-science (are you suggesting that scientific evidence shouldn't be carefully examined? Modern Evolutionary Theory uses much more than just "random mutation and natural selection" to "explain the complexity of life"[18]. The DI is deliberately misrepresenting the statements, though that was the whole intent of the shebambles. This is an article on Picard. It should focus on Picard's role in the petition, not the petition itself. Especially as it has it's own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting to reach a bit here, aren't we? What else, pray tell, could the "statement", as some have called it, be used for? Obviously, you seem not to understand the purpose of the the DI's Teach the Controversy campaign or the Wedge Strategy. If the DI were to create a petition that clearly said, "We think evolution sucks and we'll prove why through a recycled ontological argument" they'd be seen as the crackpots they are. Given the history of the DI and its campaign, there is nothing else the petition could be used for. Syaing that it's pretty pro-science is both a stratch and very akin to saying that someone is "pretty pregnant".

As for the oft-repeated claim that the signatories were ignorant of the potential uses of the petition, I'd suggest that if that is your best defence of the signatories, you might as well just admit that they are idiots, bereft of the ability to think beyond the moment, to reason, to extrapolate, to analyze. Pretty crappy defence for folks who need all of those qualities to be worth a damn as scientists. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Purposes

It's an interesting question what purposes are served by the petition, whether they are planned and intentional purposes or surprising and unexpected purposes of an opportunistic nature.

One purpose (albeit one not particularly respected or celebrated) is to raise awareness of the need to employ the critical thinking skills that honor and reify the protocols of the scientific method when reckoning one's beliefs ranging from fanciful idle speculation to comforting cultural myths to useful scientific theories to demonstrably provable mathematical theorems.

Another purpose (almost surely unintentional) is to provide an interesting sociological case study in the phenomenon of reframing. That would be an example of an opportunistic purpose.

In both biological evolution and cultural evolution, we find that an emergent happenstantial feature which originally serves one purpose may end up serving multiple purposes. That is to say, let us not thumb our nose at the Panda's Thumb.

Moulton 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did any critical thinking go into that statement? You seem to trying to reframe your arguments as time goes on. First, Picard was a witless victim, now the petition had another, higher purpose. Good grief. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look what critic Ed Brayton says:

[This appears just after quoting the two lines of A Scientific Dissent] [The statement] has nothing to do with dissent from Darwinism. or support for ID. I would go even further than this statement goes. I'm not only skeptical of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life we see around us, I flatly deny that those two things alone account for it. Random mutation is not the only source of genetic variation and natural selection is not the only means by which a trait can become fixed in a population. No evolutionary biologist would disagree with the statement above; even Richard Dawkins could honestly sign that statement. It is completely meaningless.[19]

Seriously guys, read your sources and you might understand the incredibly political nature of this debate and how important it is tread on eggshells so that we portray it accurately and properly without utilising the nasty brutish tactics of the creationist throng.--ZayZayEM 04:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's political? Like, no way dude. Of course it's political, it always has been, and is now so in spades.

Yes, perhaps Richard Dawkins could have signed that petition, but he didn't, and there's reason for that: he's smarter than the buffons who did sign it, and I have little doubt that he would have seen through the charade. The fact remains that Picard did sign it, and her bona fides are lacking. It really is that simple, stop making excuses. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated fields

According to the article on fields of science, computer sciences are a subset of Mathematics and Computer sciences and evolutionary biology is a subset of life sciences, which is in turn a subset of natural sciences. This would seem to me to be prima facie evidence that the two fields are completely unrelated. Hrafn42 08:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In case anybody is interested, Picard's field is affective computing within the field of artificial intelligence. The closest that computer science and evolutionary biology come to meet is in the field of evolutionary algorithms (an unrelated subfield of AI), which "uses some mechanisms inspired by biological evolution: reproduction, mutation, recombination, natural selection and survival of the fittest." You would be hard pressed to make the claim that because another sub-field of your field is "inspired by" an otherwise-unrelated field, that your sub-field is in any way related to this field. At best, this would be an argument for more narrowly characterising Picard's field as affective computing. Hrafn42 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bioinformatics.--ZayZayEM 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Her fields are Digital Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition, and Affective Computing. See, for example, the citation to her 1997 best paper prize. She began working on Affective Computing in 1995, barely two years before publishing her seminal book on that subject.

Her current work on Autism research (see ESP: Emotional Social Intelligence Prosthesis) has a genetic component, because there are both genetic components and social/cultural/educational components in Autism. Treatment of inherent deficits arising from genetic causes differs from treatment of developmental deficits arising from shortcomings in social-emotional education.

Stochastic modeling is widely used in many fields. So-called genetic algorithms are used both to simulate biological evolution and to adopt "Nature's Search Method" to find improved versions of engineered systems. Practitioners of mathematical techniques routinely compare notes with their fellow practitioners who are applying those same technical tools of mathematics across a broad spectrum of applications. Whether one is using a hammer to build a house or to beat the brains out of an adversary, one is still using a hammer.

Moulton 11:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All of which has what to do with being a biologist? Hell, one could argue that a chemist is qualified because the study of various components of biology are predicated on chemical reactions. A physicist could make the same claim as what happened at the moment of the big bang is crucial to the development of chemicals, and hence life. A geologist too could make this claim as the geology of earth, especially after the impact of the proto-moon may have altered the earth's structure in a way that made the formation of life possible. But, they're not, she's not, you're not, get over it and take your specious claims back to the blogosphere. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Noone's calling her a biologist? Can I also note I'm finding a lot of Moulton's logic shaky. But I stand by the idea that BLP's need to be looked after carefully. DO all you want on your blogs, but wikipedia is facts, and only relevant facts.--ZayZayEM 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton is noting that her fields are akin to biology -- erroneously of course -- but the implication is quite clear. BLP's merely need to be clear of any rational, logical and actionable assumption of libel or defamation of character that will not pass a preponderance of the evidence test. That does not however mean that "bad" things cannot be in the articles; the "bad" things simply have to meet WP:RS and WP:V in order to be included. At least, that's the way the law works. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevence of Bryant's coments

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 [20][21]

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)

Oh HELLO -- tenuously thin argument:

1. Bioinformatics (like evolutionary algorithms, which I discussed above) would appear to have no overlap with Picard's field of affective computing;
2. Computer science/artificial intelligence is only one of a large number of fields that bioinformatics calls upon; and
3. Modelling on evolution is only one of eight applications listed for bioinformatics.

This argument is about as compelling as claiming that stress-testing nuts and bolts is related to medicine because both the workings of nuts and bolts and of artificial implants can both be considered to be part of materials science.

The statement is not "inflammatory", it is simple common sense. Individual sub-fields of scientific fields (or more commonly sub-fields of sub-fields of fields) quite frequently overlap with sub-fields of other fields, but that does not mean that the entire fields are "related". Affective computing is in no way related to evolutionary biology. This can be seen from (1) the prima facie evidence I cited above, and (2) the lack of any evidence of any specific sub-field overlap.

The comments were directed towards a class of people that clearly includes Picard, who, as an Engineering graduate (a subject that is highly unlikely to include electives in even general biology,let alone evolutionary biology), has a vanishingly small probability of having had any academic contact with evolutionary biology. I rather doubt if Brayton demanded Bradfield's or Egnor's full academic transcripts before making his comment either. His point was that neither work in fields that have any contact or overlap with evolutionary biology -- a point perfectly mirroring Picard's own speciality.

Hrafn42 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If anybody is interested here is GIT's 'prerequisite diagram and typical schedule' for a BS in electrical engineering Hrafn42 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the fact that, in my argument in the section above, I linked to a mere wiki-article is the problem, then NSF Fields of Science Codes and this explanatory information on them add up to much the same thing. Hrafn42 12:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival of the Fittest

One of the cornerstones of Darwin's model is the principle that is typically captioned "Survival of the Fittest." One of the faculties that figures into one's fitness to survive is intelligence. Among Howard Gardner's celebrated list of multiple intelligences, author Daniel Goleman singles out Emotional Intelligence as arguably the most important variety of intelligence for overall success in life. Goleman tends to focus on emotional intelligence in humans, but studies of bonobos and chimpanzees by primate researchers suggest that social and emotional intelligence appears to have achieved strikingly different levels of sophistication in otherwise closely related species. Emotional intelligence depends, in part, on the ability to recognize subtle cues in posture, gesture, and facial expression that signal emotional state, and to rapidly process such non-verbal and sub-verbal data streams to identify, assess, reckon, and adaptively respond to affective states. Are these faculties of social-emotional intelligence heritable characteristics? Are they learned skills? How do they arise, evolve, and become impaired in different lineages? Autism research, for example speaks to these questions. So does research in pattern recognition. Moulton 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Picard's research does not go near the genetic basis of intelligence, autism or pattern recognition, let alone their effect on population genetics. As such, it is completely unrelated to evolutionary biology. I am getting very tired of this faulty logic applying what might be considered a promiscuous transitivity to the "relatedness" of fields. Hrafn42 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How could a stranger living half a world away be expected to know anything about the research agenda or research results of the subject of this biography? Have you read a fair cross-section of the original research papers produced by her group? Have you read a fair cross-section of media reports on the research produced by her group? Have you attended any of her public presentations, or viewed any of the online videos of her presentations, as made available from MIT? Your demonstrated lack of familiarity with the subject does not qualify you to assert with any credibility the scope of her research. Moulton 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival of the Fittest? Not one of Darwin's terms and certainly belied when applied to intelligence factors in the hoi polloi. But I digress...

In any case, Moulton's examples are ancillary to evolutionary studies, just as the study of a specific language is ancillary to studies regarding the need for communication. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Stanislaw Ulam's contributions to Theoretical Biology (which are inexplicably absent from the pages of Wikipedia) are exemplary of the kind of useful quantitative modeling connecting micro-evolution to macro-evolution that critics of Darwin's mechanism are urgently calling for. These kinds of quantitative models provide the kind of scientific evidence that puts evolutionary biology on a firm scientific footing. Darwin could not have supplied the kind of mathematical grounding supplied by Ulam. Darwin didn't have access to the organic chemistry that allows microbiologists and biochemists to construct models of biological molecules, nor did he have the mathematical depth to craft theoretical models comparable to those provided by Ulam. I celebrate contributors like Ulam, especially because his brilliant application of mathematical modeling unifies the work of micro-biologists and evolutionary biologists. Moulton 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a point to your rant, but how it has any bearing on this article escapes me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated, tendentious nonsense

It is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that computer science, or computer engineering are the same as evolutionary biology, or have any substantial overlap with evolutionary biology, and that someone who is basically an engineer has any authority to make pronouncments about evolutionary biology. No journal in evolutionary biology would ever choose an engineer like Picard to review a paper on natural selection. No reputable university would hire Picard to do research and teach evolutionary biology. Why is Picard working in one of the engineering departments at MIT and not the Whitehead Institute or the MIT biology department? Why did Picard work in area 54 at Bell Labs? I did not notice any evolutionary biologists in that department. How many evolutionary biologists are members, let alone fellows of the IEEE? How many semester hours of coursework and laboratory work and field work in evolutionary biology and paleontology does Picard have at the undergraduate and graduate levels? Any scholarly peer-reviewed publications in this area? This is nuts. And the more people make these kinds of arguments, the more they discredit themselves and make it clear they are POV warriors.--Filll 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone, please let the article be about Ms Picard, not evolution. Steve Dufour 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you account for the fact that Stanislaw Ulam, an applied mathematician working at Los Alamos on the mathematical models of nuclear physics ended up making seminal contributions to the field of Theoretical Biology? Moulton 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If and when Picard makes seminal contributions in evolutionary biology, this will be noted. Otherwise, my opinion stands. --Filll 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor (spotted Filll's BLPN request). This circular discussion of more than 30,000 words is very telling. Moulton will not take no for an answer. I suggest that Moulton study our rules (especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS) instead of (hopefully unwittingly) trying to convince experienced editors to violate them, or selectively quoting the do no harm pillar of WP:BLP. Avb 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have studied Wikipedia's rule-based system, and examined how well and how efficiently it achieves the overarching goal of rising to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online journalism. You can read some of my findings here. Moulton 16:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And we can summarise our findings with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Hrafn42 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue here really is that one or more of the signatories and/or their close supporters are attempting to do some public-relations-type ideological damage control -- in a word, propaganda. That's an inherently WP:POV position, and it may involve WP:COI considerations too. There are two basic possiblities w.r.t. the deniability that Moulton appears to seek. 1) The statement was presented to the signatories without a title, with the title folded over, or otherwse not visible, at the time of signing, to one or more of the signatories. Or, (2) the title was clearly visible and someone's lying. There are other possibilities, but those are the two main ones in the present setting. Problem is, none of this has any reliable sourcing thus far.

W.r.t. other apparent possibilies: Why haven't some of the signatories called or written one another? and said, for instance: "Hey, this title is a misrepresentation of the language of the statement I signed, for the followng reasons [enter reasons in the space provided or on an attached page ________________, _________________, __________________]. Send it off to the newspapers and other appropriate periodicals and make clear the nature of any assertions of misrepresentative language, lack of title at the time of signing, and/or other claims by one or more of the signatories and make sure it's published in a reliable source. Then it can be considered for use in Wikipedia.

In the meantime, Moulton hints at, and also explicitly threatens in several instances, allegations of libel, slander, public mockery of Wikipedia procedure, practice and substance in various as yet unnamed public fora. Gimme a break already. The threats ring hollow, quite frankly, and this lengthy discussion pretty much speaks for itself. Moulton attempts to break the rules and guidelines of WP, and get others to break them, in order to achieve her (or his) POV objectives. Moulton, this effort of yours is way out of bounds for awhile now. Seriously. ... Kenosis 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At the root, the unethical and unbecoming practice of selective (partisan, negative) contextual reframing is the practice that I am taking exception to. Moulton 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please define unethical. Define how your assertion is a valid one. Oh, never mind, see the quote from Ben Franklin (wise old codger he was). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is your authoritative source for ethics in journalism:

Media Ethics Bibliography (from the Poynter Institute)

Moulton 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The already documented record of this discussion with you says differently. Hopefully we will not need to go over all of your assertions again point by point in order to make this additional set of points about your approach here. Fact is, it's demonstrably been repeatedly threatening and nasty to the participants in the article, with some pseudo-logic thrown in along the way. Time for it to stop, and go do something more productive, such as: If there's an allegation that the signatories were misled by those who circulated and used the petition, go pow-wow with other signatories, or have Picard take matters more publicly into her own hands, and make any allegation(s) or arguments of deceptive manner of presentation of the statement to the signatories in a public place where it can be scrutinized. You know as well as anyone here at this point, or should know, that there are many avenues of publication of such an assertion to pursue. If signatories feel they were bamboozled or misled or were misrepresented in some way, some reliable pusblisher will publish it. Then, if that end up being the case, it can be used and even quoted in Wikipedia. But quite frankly, all we have here thus far is a bunch of unsubstantiated, quasi-anonymous hooey. ... Kenosis 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, it is true that Wikipedia comes across as a rule-based system to new editors making controversial edits. The more experienced one gets, the more one realizes that the project is community based and largely consensus-driven. But regardless of one's initial experience, studying a project of this scale is never a trivial task. In my opinion, this doesn't even begin to convey what experienced editors know about what makes this project tick, what its shortcomings are, and what can be done to improve it. Avb 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, much as you like to pride yourself on your intellectual superiority and presume to lecture the editors here and talk down to them, you have sadly and embarassingly failed in your efforts to understand Wikipedia and its internal culture, rules and checks and balances. All you have amply revealed is your own set of personal biases and inability to engage in reasoned debate and argumentation and collaborate with others in a productive fashion. I for one believe you have done over the edge long ago, and I believe the situation is irretrievable. --Filll 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I must disagree, in part at least. My review of the statements of Moulton thus far indicates that this has not been, and is not now, about comparative assessments of innate competence. A significant number of the statements by Moulton are demonstrably manipulative, and/or threatening, and demonstrably seek to persuade the WP users to submit to Moulton's preferred, unsubstantiated version of events, under threat of legal action and/or informal sanctions such as publishing pieces in other publications about Wikipedia's alleged flaws in methodology and alleged flaws in its practice. I not only find the threats hollow, but indicative of very arguable hints of intellectual dishonesty by Moulton. All this is quite demonstrable based upon Moulton's submissions to date. If we need to spend the time going over it point by point, we will proceed to do so. Let's not mince words about this at this point in time. The evidence here is such that a random sample of reasonable, objective observers would likely conclude that what I've asserted here is a reasonable way of describing Moulton's approach. ... Kenosis 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree. What I see here is the pretence to intellectual superiority that, via his specious and neverending arguments, marks a decided deficit in intellectual capacity. The manipulative nature of Moulton's comments, along with an apparent cognitive dissonance point more to a pathology that I should prefer to not mention here than to any dominance in ratiocination. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cruel, cruel. It could be choice you know, or genuine exasperation, or an emotional disconnect, just for starters. Perhaps it's better not to dwell on possible causes, but work towards removing the symptoms instead? Avb 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed (not to the cruelty charge, but to the points). So, how shall we proceed? Obviously we need to begin with "so-and-so presents with..." and move toward a differential diagnosis, but perhaps we've passed that point already. So, what is the cure or should we focus on a palliative? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me is the recurring appearance in the pages of Wikipedia (and not just this article) of polemic partisan content that fails to rise to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in journalism. To my mind, that's the overarching story. It's not about any individual -- not about any subject of a BLP and not about any partisan editor with a passionate cause. It's about process and product, and the failure of the process to produce a product worthy of the label "public encyclopedia." Moulton 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me is your recurring appearance in the pages of Wikipedia (and not just this article) with polemic partisan comments about Wikipedia and its editors and calls for article content changes that fail to meet Wikipedia's policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It's become such a problem that you're close to meeting all the criteria for identifying disruptive editors at WP:DE. There's a limit to how many rants against them regular, good faith contributors have to endure, and you're very close to crossing it. Your comments like this are best suited to your blog and the anti-Wikipedia campaign found there, I suggest you limit yourself to making them there. FeloniousMonk 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, of course it is true that users who tend to be attracted to certain articles quite frequently have POV agendas for those articles. At this point in time, it appears you are not an exception to this all-too-frequent occurrence. The agenda you have asserted for this article is beyond POV, and has gone into (a) criticisms of Wikipedia rules and practice with threats of using other media to get your way here, (b) veiled and/or explicit legal threats, (c) other obvious attempts to manipulate users to accompany you in breaking Wikipedia policy and practice in order to include your unsubstantiated allegations, and (d) lengthy tendentious argumentation in an attempt to get this article to read the way you want it to read. The evidence of your comments thus far indicates that your prime objective is to insert your preferred POV, and that your assertions of a quest for improved quality of journalistic reporting are quite secondary to that objective. Time to cut it out. What's needed now is verification of your as yet unsubstantiated assertions. ... Kenosis 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My POV is hardly a secret. I have a passion for science education and science journalism, as well as a passion for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in journalism. Do you mean to tell me that a few Wikipedians are afraid of a critical examination of the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product generated in this novel enterprise? Every other healthy discipline routinely engages in critical examination of its own integrity. Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." By extension, one might also note that the unexamined speculation is not worth believing, and the unexamined process is not worth adopting. Moulton 06:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So you say. In the present context, that has become demonstrably bullshit. Obviously you're not adequately diapassionate about the present topic. See ya later. ... Kenosis 10:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think editors here have done all they could towards a cure, including folk remedies such as WP:MINNOW, more serious treatments such as the injection of massive doses of policy background, and finally folk treatments collectively known as WP:CLUE/WP:TROUT, yet the symptoms have not abated.

This well-known condition, generally known as Clue Deficiency Syndrome, is meme-borne and therefore contagious. Now that we have determined further discussion is not going to cure it, we should contemplate measures to prevent further contamination of talk pages and even the encyclopedia itself. Like regular medicine, WP has some options available to prevent symptoms from recurring once they have become a nuisance. Some editors advocate removal of an entire article in order to keep the condition off-Wikipedia, but I do not believe that is a reason to employ the AfD process in this case. I would rather move towards a temporary? ban of sorts, unless/until the editor proves willing to use our regular dispute resolution processes and abide by consensus. The consensus process is also the recommended instrument to campaign for a community-wide change of our modus operandi that ends up in a guideline or policy. The current disruption of the normal editing process, entertaining as these excursions into scientific (sounding) discourse may seem to some, including its flagrant dismissal of even a remote possibility that consensus will decide the outcome of disputes as long as editors are applying Wikipedia's current community standards, especially if the involved editors are not subject experts, cannot be allowed to continue on article talk pages. Avb 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have never suggested that computer science is the same as evolutionary biology. I am disputing that the fields are totally unrelated. Pedantic as it may seem its important because as it stands it was innacurate and misleading.--ZayZayEM 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Nothing like injecting pure nonsense in here at random intervals is there? Is this a profitable hobby for you? Of course, everything is connected to everything. And I can do brain surgery because I visited a doctor's office once. --Filll 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please try and mind WP:CIVIL. I haven't said anything like that. If you had a degree in Biology, I'd think it would be silly to say it is totally unrelated to Neurophysiology. I am saying that you can't unequivocably state that two remotely related fields of science are totally unrelated, without a reference, and on top of that use the erroneous statement to introduce some potentially contentious commentary into a WP:BLP--ZayZayEM 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"you can't unequivocably state that two remotely related fields of science are totally unrelated" -- can you spell "tautological"?

Anyway, how are they related? Because they're both science? Because computers were developed out of the ideas of man? Because we created computers to do the "hard work" so we wouldn't have to? Hell, we've been doing that for thousands of years -- work smarter, not harder. What precisely is your point? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When I woke up this morning

• The deleted commentary specified computer science as having nothing to do with evo-bio. I think I have established that this was innacurate, and was not well referenced. Whether Picard's actual research sub-fields were related was not what was stated so all your work presenting those details really don't apply. And you still need an accurate reference, as its still a contentious claim.

• As Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution it's very hard to say that much of applied theoretical science applied to living systems has absolutely nothing to do with evo-bio. Studying facial expression and communication systems in living organisms, would be grossly understudied without an evolutionary component, but Picard did sign this petition, so maybe she just ignores that, but it still wouldn't mean we could say her field of study is unrelated. If you want to say Picard has "no training or expertise" in evolution, you are going to have to find a reference, it's as simple as that.--ZayZayEM 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re; What you have established, or claim to have established. You have not established anything of the kind. Her specialty and her research and her positions and her writings on the subject are prima facie evidence to the contrary, as we have in several RS and V sources already. And your postings are replete with WP:OR and other assorted nonsense. Provide a source for your claims. Let's see a publication in a peer-reviewed evolutionary biology journal with Picard as the lead author.--01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

No, you have not "established that this was innacurate[sic]"! All you have "established" is that a few, isolated sub-fields of computer science, that have no overlap with Picard's own sub-field, have a very tenuous relationship with evolutionary biology. You have NOT established a relationship between computer science generally and evolutionary biology, nor have you established any relationship at all between Picard's sub-field and evolutionary biology. Your claim that "its still a contentious claim" is tendentious and has no factual basis. Hrafn42 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not establishing that. I'm establishing that you can't say "Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology." which to me says Computer science is unrelated to evo-bio, which isn't true. I'll say they aren't closely related. And that being specialist in Computer Science, really doesn't automatically qualify you as an evolutionary critic. But that's not what the claim said. It said unequivocably the two fields are unrelated. Plainly wrong. Again at worst I am being pedantic, but IMO it is an important distinction. *** If it was referring to Picard's subfield, then it really needs to be more specific, because that isn't very clear, and again by saying "unrelated" you are say not-related-at-all which doesn't seem to be the case - whether or not Picard actually utilises the relationship is moot. The relationship exists, however teneously and cannot be denied. Maybe "Picard's primary research is unrelated..." would be better, but that would need an accurate cite about her research not being related to evo-bio, or it's OR.--ZayZayEM 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not established "that you can't say 'Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology.'" All you have done is put up a very weak and WP:SYNTH argument that certain specific sub-fields of CS (none of which are in any way related to Picard's work) are very tenuously related to evo bio. This neither establishes a relationship between CS generally, nor Picard's specialisation[s]. Hrafn42 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So we are talking about specifically Picard's sub-fields?--ZayZayEM 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• It still doesn't also change the WP:SYNTH issue. Noone (or at least no verifiable source) has made the direct link between Brayton's comments and Picard. Brayton's comments are directed at those signatories without "training or expertise" in evo-bio. Saying that Picard's main field, sub field or research isn't related to evo-bio is not the same thing. As such the comments can't be included, particularly in a BLP. It's just unnecessary overkill. The connection between Picard and DI's pseudoscience anti-education agenda is clear. I would reccommend putting Brayton's comments in the main A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism main page, but they just don't fit in here.--ZayZayEM 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument why CS & Evo Bio are related is equally WP:SYNTH, and ridiculously weak to boot. If we decide to disallow this level of Synth then both drop out, and the simply hierarchy of fields remain. If your argument is allowed in, then so is mine, and it is far stronger. Make your choice, but you lose either way. Hrafn42 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's not, CS and Evo bio are teneuosly related. I really can't see how anyone can dispute that. The main point is anyway that saying the two fields are unrelated is definitely not the same as Picard has "no training or expertise" is evo-bio. I'm not saying she does, I'm saying you need a reference to establish this. You can't really get upset at me using SYNTH to disallow SYNTH. EIther way it doesn't go into the article. Noone wins. Huzzah...??? ToT--ZayZayEM 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider the example of mathematician Stanislaw Ulam, who is cited in "Stanislaw Ulam’s Contributions to Theoretical Biology" (in Letters in Mathematical Physics 1985) as having made notable contributions to theoretical biology. The authors describe a 12-page record of his contributions which span work in cellular automata theory, population biology, Fermi-Pasta-Ulam results, pattern recognition, and biometric spaces. Here's a germane excerpt:

In a paper with T. F. Smith, Myron Stein, and William Beyer, Ulam carries out an investigation of the reconstruction of evolutionary trees based on 33 species of the protein complex known as Cytochrome-C from 33 extant plants or animals. A distance metric between these similar proteins is calculated by a mathematical theory (discussed elsewhere). Hypothetical evolutionary trees are then constructed by use of linear programming methods. Agreement of the trees with generally accepted evolutionary trees was reasonably good.

Ulam's results helped evolutionary biologists resolve uncertainties regarding the placement of problematic species on the evolutionary tree. By comparing which species had the most similar forms of Cytochrome-C, evolutionary biologists were able to establish which species were most closely related on the evolutionary tree. Mathematical models such as those crafted by Ulam and his collaborators exemplified the power, utility, and importance of mathematical modeling in unifying the fields of molecular biology and macro-evolution.

These well-sourced examples illustrate that various branches of applied mathematics, including Picard's field of Pattern Recognition are applicable to the mathematical modeling of aspects of evolutionary biology. Moulton 04:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Interconnections everywhere Pharyngula, March 17, 2007 7:45 PM. -- Science is not a bunch of boxes.--ZayZayEM 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Zayzay, learn how to use colons for indenting (these things ":").

In any case, this discussion gets more ridiculous as time goes by. BTW: mathematical modeling can be used in damned near evey field, you just make up the math and go for it. So what. 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"No training or expertise"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Please read the bold text here--ZayZayEM 05:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No one can deny the subject's expertise in digital signal processing and pattern recognition, which are computational tools that have wide applications in many diverse fields. No one can deny that there are people like Stanislaw Ulam whose primary field is applied mathematics and who have notably applied their mathematical expertise to brilliantly solve important problems in evolutionary biology. Participants here also cannot deny (because they could not have known) that the reason Ulam was on my mind this morning was because I was recalling his memorable talk, many years ago, at the General Research Colloquium at Bell Laboratories, where Picard and I were both employed back in the 1980s. She was in the Digital Signal Processing Group there and I was in the Network Planning Division. It was in that talk where Ulam described his mathematical model linking his metric on the differences in Cytochrome-C to the distances between species on the evolutionary tree. It was an enlightening and inspiring talk, especially for those of us who were trained in the use of similar mathematical tools as those employed so brilliantly by Ulam. Moulton 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• No sources say that any of Picard's personal research is related to evo-bio. Can you please focus on the major issue. Saying a field is not related to evo-bio is not the same as saying someone who researches it (unequivicably) has no "training or expertise" in evo-bio.--ZayZayEM 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The full context of Brayton's opinion

This is the full context of Brayton's opinion:

Last week I had a post fisking Nathan Bradfield's ignorance about evolution and his trumpeting of the DI's famous list of dissenting scientists. One of the names mentioned in his article was that of Michael Egnor, one of the folks who has signed the DI's list, but is not a scientist but a professor of surgery. I pointed out that, in fact, the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field.

The post he linked to states:

If you thought Nathan Bradfield's take on church and state was absurd and overly simplistic, wait till you see what he has to say about evolution. To begin with, he's getting his information from the Worldnutdaily, which is a bit like learning about physics by reading Highlights. He's parroting this article about the Discovery Institute's famous list of "dissenting scientists" that has the gall to refer to it as a list of "top scientists." The very first paragraph:

The list truly is a "Who's Who" of prominent scientists in the world today, and now another 100 ranking leaders have added their signatures to a challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Now that's just funny. A "Who's Who" of prominent scientists? In what alternate universe? How many of the names on that list do you suppose Nathan has ever heard of outside of lists like this? I suppose they think Richard Sternberg is a "prominent scientist", but if not for the Smithsonian controversy even those of us who keep up with this issue had no idea who he was. He was so obscure, in fact, that the head of the department at the NMNH where Sternberg was a Research Associate had never even heard of him and didn't know he existed and had an office in his own department until that controversy broke. Golly, that's sure "prominent."

The only names on the list with any prominence at all, even within their own narrow fields, are Phillip Skell, Henry Schaefer and Frank Tipler. And guess what? None of them are in fields that deal with evolutionary biology at all. Their opinion on evolutionary theory is no more authoritative than anyone else who has no knowledge of the issue. If you want a measure of just how obscure most of them are and how much effort the DI has to go through to make them appear more credible than they are, look no further than the list of credentials they give for each of them and the fact that they switch back and forth between citing where they got their degrees from and what organization they are affiliated with now, picking whichever one sounds more impressive.

And consider the fact that the majority of people on the list are in fields that have no relevance to evolutionary biology at all. A chemist or a physicist or a doctor has no more specialized knowledge of biology than a sociologist or a mechanic for that matter. This is not only an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to non-existent authority. Of course, the last thing the ID advocates should be engaging in is such appeals to authority, especially in light of the fact that well over 99% of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution. If you're going to appeal to the authority of a tiny percentage of scientists, most of them obscure names in fields with no connection to evolution, it seems rather silly to reject an appeal to the overwhelming opinion of those scientists who actually work in the field. ...

I challenge anybody to show how applying the quote to Picard is taking it out of its original context, that of "the majority of people on the list are in fields that have no relevance to evolutionary biology at all." Hrafn42 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brayton's opinion is just that -- an opinion.

But more importantly, his assertion depends on what the word "relevance" means. All it takes to dismiss Brayton's remark is to show that at least one notable researcher in a given field has done at least some significant peer-reviewed work in evolutionary biology. By that standard, James Tour's field of organic chemistry is manifestly relevant and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.

Ulam did celebrated work in evolutionary biology based on his ingenious use of fundamental tools of mathematical modeling, including pattern recognition. An even more relevant mathematical tool is stochastic modeling which has broad applications in many fields. Anyone with expertise in stochastic modeling is well-positioned to review how well that tool is being used to solve interesting problems in diverse fields. Stochastic modeling includes Bayesian network models, Markov process models, and Wiener process models. Does Brayton have credentials to demonstrate that those commonly used mathematical tools have no relevance to constructing models in evolutionary biology?

Moulton 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brayton is a blogger. his opinion is not noteworthy. Speculation about Picard's ability to comment on evo-bio cannot come from a blog per WP:BLP [22]

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Reading Brayton's commentary really doesn't enamour me to the idea of him as a Reliable Source. You've already conceded his research regarding his claims appears somewhat less than complete. It is irrelevent commentary that violates WP:NOT WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. The quote isn't even attributed to Brayton as a blogger, just to some weasely phrase of some people. Reinsert potentially contentious material into a BLP again, and this will be taken to WP:AN/I. Please continue the discussion. If you manage to bring some actual references establishing Picard's lack of "training or expertise" in evo-bio, the notability of Brayton as a commentator on evolutionary criticism, the accuracy of his claims of irrelevent fields etc. you may still have a chance. But until then, it can't be included.--ZayZayEM 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, ZayZayEM has it right. This is classic original research, putting together facts about Picard, opinions about what her expertise touches on, and an opinion about the petition in general, to synthesise an unattributed opinion about her. That the source of the opinion about the petition is a blog in itself makes it a very dubious source, unacceptable for a BLP. The point that her field of eminence does not appear to concern evolutionary biology, if attributable, might be relevant to the Dissent article, but here it at best serves to give her an unnecessary alibi for not knowing what she was signing, and is inappropriate. ... dave souza, talk 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dave here. Avb 12:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Final warnings" and moving the goal-posts

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)

• WP:BLP was my first and real only criterion for deletion. The relevance of the field has always been accessory. I kept pointing back to WP:BLP and my original SYNTH claim (irrelevent field is not the same as "no training or expertise"). A whole two sections of discussion went by while I was asleep. And I think that totally sidetracked the whole thing.--ZayZayEM 08:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm over it. this is getting listed at WP:AN/I and I am requesting protection. Citing various criteria to formulate and argumentative/convincing tone. (X says B is A, N did B, therefore A) is the exact formula used in the WP:SYNTH example.--ZayZayEM 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone for RFC in the interests of AGF. Without the Brayton link, the argument of unqualified expert is even more contentiously OR. It really is pretty much the example on the WP:SYNTH page. It is so essay-like. Notices will be placed on pages such as Talk:Intelligent design to ensure wider community consensus --ZayZayEM 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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 [23]

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 [24].--ZayZayEM 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This RFC aims to address:

• Does the "unrelated field" argument constitute as OR?
• Is it reasonable to mention the "unrelated field" argument on every signatory of the petition?

It does not concern:

• Is Computer Science related to evo-bio?
• Did Picard sign the petition under false pretences?

--ZayZayEM 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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)

It's not reasonable to expect that anyone should, but we're not really dealing with reasonable editors here, are we? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The statement is a simple statement of fact, so it isn't OR; it's common knowledge
2. The point that the signatories lack relevant qualifications has been made, albeit not specifically about Picard.

Based on that, I think the statement is entirely reasonable. Guettarda 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia guidelines play absolutely no part in deciding whether arguments or points presented on Talk pages are sufficient. I can WP:OR and WP:SYNTH all I like to present an argument, so can you. You just can't do it in presenting the content on an article page. My ability to produce a counterpoint simply by using my own powers of SYNTHOR™ shows how unreasonable it is to allow any OR into an article.
• Including the "unrelated field" argument is OR as no RS exists that presents the argument in that fashion directly relating to Picard signing the petition.--ZayZayEM 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• WOuld it be OR to say that the sky is blue? Give me a break. It is clearly not OR to characterize her field of study that way. It may be POV to inlude this information, though. I do not take a position on that just yet.Verklempt 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Protected

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 Dissident^Talk 09:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I would like concerned editors to note the disclaimer in the protection notice of "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version".--ZayZayEM 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Please leave the attitude at the door.--Filll 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Nuke it!

Well. I don't think it is productive to even attempt to try to add informative material any more. Given the harsh and unreasonable rigidity with which some editors are expecting WP:BLP to be applied, and the complete lack of any iron-clad, belt-'n'-braces WP:RSed articles that are squarely about the subject of the article (there are just a few WP:RS articles that mention her in passing, or have her venture a comment, but there has been some contention even here), the most logical course would appear to be:

1. to get this article deleted, as not being sufficiently notable to sustain sufficient WP:RSed information to flesh out an article; and
2. to see that this harsh interpretation of WP:BLP is applied even-handedly [in the mean time Hrafn42 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)].

Hrafn42 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to simple deletion would be to have the article merged/redirected to affective computing. Hrafn42 10:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, we have to have a reliable source with statements directly related to Picard. Putting information about her qualifications and position together with a comment on the petition which doesn't specifically mention her is original research. However, she's notable enough for her research and for the fact that she is specifically mentioned in the NYT article. .. dave souza, talk 10:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is more trouble than it is worth, for a very minor engineer who makes machines with smiling faces. As for her expertise in DSP, or computer science, or evo. bio. do not make me laugh.--Filll 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is only marginally notable. As a WP:BLP, there are only two things notable as far as I can tell. Picard's work in affective computing is first. Being a signatory to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is secondary, and very significantly lower in notability. IMO, at the end of the day, the issue of being a signatory of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, among the 100-or-so "prominent scientists" mentioned in the New York Times article, deserves a very brief mention, one or maybe two sentences, As far as I can tell, that's the maximum amount of treatment the issue properly deserves. It appears that the debating about how to present the basic material on Picard's education and professional work was fairly reasonable on the whole.

The most contentious aspects of this episode, in my estimation, started with Moulton becoming a participant and asserting that there were "behind the scenes" elements related to the signing of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which has led to further arguments over how to present that short paragraph about the petition circulated by the Discovery Institute, which later bacame a central feature of the intelligent design controversy. Moulton's assertions were WP:original research, and IMO so are these other arguments about how precisely her area of expertise might relate or not relate to evolutionary biology. Same with other proposed additions -- in my observation it's unfortunately become a debate about a debate, with two opposing POVs drawing farther apart. Please stick to the readily verifiable facts here. The originally contested material in the article is quite adequate as it presently reads here. ... Kenosis 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please go back and read the section captioned To others looking in. Therein, you will see that the "behind the scenes" comment came not from me, but from User:Filll and referred not to what went on behind the scenes back in 2001, but what was currently going on behind the scenes here, in this dispute over what to include in this WP:BLP and how to frame it from a WP:NPOV. I have no knowledge of what (if anything) was going on behind the scenes back in 2001. All I have is evidence of what the scene looked like when the DI raised the curtain on its first act, by publishing the anti-PBS ad. What's notable, to my mind, is the failure of the editorial process to craft a biographical article worthy of distinction. Moulton 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll's characterization of Moulton's assertions about what actually happened with the petition as "behind the scenes" is an accurate characterization of what Moulton sought to use in forming the article-- that is how the issue of WP:OR and WP:VER came into play here. As to quality, Wikipedia articles run the gamut of quality. Moulton is entitled to the opinion about this one, although s/he has made it clear that nothing will be satisfactory other than her/his preferred rendering of the article. C'est la vie. ... Kenosis 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shy of the so-called "Wedge Strategy" (which I've heard of but never read), how can anyone claim to know what was going on "behind the scenes" back in 2001? All I can do is note what the public evidence reveals -- namely that the 32-word statement did not carry the 5-word title when DI published their first version of it in that anti-PBS ad. Moulton 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On the "behind the scenes" element of this, I would point out that "Please arrange to talk to me by telephone." is not a request I would ever consider a reasonable one on wikipedia. It absolutely reeks of a desire to try to influence the article via private transmission of OR. It is the very essence of what wikipedia is not about. Hrafn42 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would note that only half of the MIT Media Lab#Media Lab Research Groups directors have wikipedia articles. Hrafn42 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would further note that of the 103 scientists, only two of them have Wikipedia articles. Moreover, it appears to me that the only reason those two have articles on Wikipedia at all is to publicize a POV regarding the Creationism/ID/Darwinism controversy. Moulton 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If that were true, many more would have articles -- indeed the threshold of notability required for BLP's is gradually being reduced, and who knows where it will end up. I believe I already made my point about "notability index" of the issues just above, which is that Picard's work in affective computing as far more notable than the issue of her credentials being drawn upon by the Discovery Institute. On the other hand I have no objection to pursuing an AfD of this one, which would leave only one article to delete. ... Kenosis 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton's accusation is provably false in Tour's case. The article was in existence for two years before the creation of the Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" sent people searching for signatories a couple of months ago. It was only thereafter that it was noticed that he was one of three signatories mentioned by name in the NYT article. Hrafn42 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, the claim that "only two of them have Wikipedia articles" is also false. Michael Behe, David Berlinski, Stephen C. Meyer, Charles Thaxton, Paul Nelson & Richard Sternberg all have articles (and there may be more that I've missed). Hrafn42 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense in multiple ways. For example, more than 2 of the original 103/105 have articles I believe. And signing of course adds to notability, particularly if it leads to publicity in the mainstream media. So what? And also, there is NO proof about what the petition that was circulated said, and if it did or did not have a title. All we know so far is what was published, and republished probably a good 10 times and reported in the mainstream media. And we know there has been no evidence of retraction presented in this case, after 6 years. And lots of RS and V evidence of agreement with the intent of the petition and the Discovery Institute agenda by the subject. That is what we know.--Filll 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. Moulton's line of reasoning here is nonsense. Picard is quite clearly a signatory of Dissent, which is a petition widely utilised to promote their anti-education "teach-the-controversy" campaign. This is all well referenced and should remain in the article. There is no published material saying Picard's signature was gained under false pretenses, or how the petition was originally disseminated to garner signatures - conversely there is no published material against Moulton's points on this matter - so the entire matter is appropriately left entirely out of the article.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting an article bceause you can't get your commentary in is the biggest cop out ever. I strongly support option number 2. Which really is the only way about it. This is a BLP Wikipedia article - all comments should be adequately sourced and accurately reflect their content. Removal of peacock terms and puffery is not going to be a controversial improvement to the article.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The recent proposals to delete this bio (which I neither support nor oppose) arose after a few of us challenged the publication in the pages of Wikipedia of false, defamatory, and harmful content that had found its way into largely irrelevant sections that, for a year and a half, had dominated such bios. To my mind, that's compelling evidence these bios only exist in the first place as vehicles for promoting long challenged views on controversial items. Moulton 09:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

Please do not feed the trolls.

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)

Deletion certainly seems reasonable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

<OutDent>You'd probably find another book a better read. HAL's Legacy: 2001's Computer as Dream and Reality came out in 1997, to coincide with the date that HAL "became operational" in Arthur C. Clarke's futuristic SciFi novel. Edited by David G. Stork, and with a forward by Arthur C. Clarke, the book examines how well Clarke's imagination matched up with the actual state of the art in 1997. Thirteen authors (including Kurzweil and Picard) contributed the 16 chapters. Kurzweil's chapter was entitled, "When Will HAL Understand What We Are Saying? Computer Speech Recognition and Understanding." Picard's chapter was entitled, "Does HAL Cry Digital Tears? Emotions and Computers." You can read the entire book online at the above link. Moulton 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection is unnecessary

There is a clear consensus to have the information. It is well-sourced. That two editors continue to have issues with does not mean we should leave it out. JoshuaZ 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for response. I have been quite clear I was going to allow time for commentary to go on without my interference while I WP:COOL off. --ZayZayEM 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see consensus to Delete the article. I do not see consensus to keep potentially OR material. I will not DaveSouza has identified it as OR too. That makes one troll, me and dave. I'm still trying to locate the other troll... ^_^--ZayZayEM 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't give a shit whether the article stays or goes. If it stays, however, then everything stays, including the fact that she's an anti-evolution, DI-supporting Creationist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orange please read what the RFC is about. It is not about including that commentary. Removal of the petition is Moulton's agenda, not mine. The RFC is about whether a potentially OR disclaimer saying that Picard's field is irrelevant to evo-bio, making Dissent a failed appeal to authority, is worth including. See this diff [25] (especially the footnotes). All material from the NYT article, noting Picard's signing of Dissent and the context of that petition, will remain in the article if I have any say about it. --ZayZayEM 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we keep it, we should keep the well documented and sourced information. She clearly is a creationist and ID supporter and always has been and is in fact proud of it. There is no problem with Do No Harm here. It is true, we can demonstrate it is true with our evidence (and we have a lot more now). So this fight was basically pointless, except it gave us more ammunition to discuss Picard's creationist beliefs.--Filll 01:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• So we have clear consensus not to include the "irrelevant field" commentary under WP:NOR; but will keep all material referenced appropriately from the NYT and accessory sources regarding Picard's signing of a DI's anti-education petition. (Additionally the Biography section will be cleaned of any puffery and peacock terms.)--ZayZayEM 01:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No we do not have that consensus. I am sorry you seem to be mistaken.--Filll 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The material about her field being irrelevant appears to be OR at this point in time. I don't see it as such a serious issue as to justify page protection. In any event, the rest of the material is clearly well-sourced and has no issues. JoshuaZ 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the revert warring in the edit history. Protection is justified until a genuine discussion takes place to avoid reinsertion of material without any consensus either way.--ZayZayEM 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only person that appears to need to cool down here is you. And FYI edit warring begins with the first edit that does not benefit from consensus, not the other way around. Noting her fields of expertise are not related to biology is not even OR, much less a BLP issue, so I don't see an issue with the content you object to remaining. Cool down please. FeloniousMonk 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look back through edit history carefully. I originally reintroduced the now labelled OR/BLP material (which originally was incorrectly attributed to PZ Myers BTW) [26]. I let it stand for a while and asked that editors attribute appropriate references in good faith. As editors did not seem interested in accurately referencing or wording what could have possibly be seen as OR I decided it was best to go back to the version without while a sensible discussion took place. (Possibly treading on WP:DISRUPT in hindsight) Noone seems really to interested in a sensible or focused discussion, and keeps getting distracted by irrelevant throwbacks by blatantly POV Moulton who wants the petition not mentioned at all. I want the petition mentioned, I don't see the point in a non-specific disclaimer about Picard's lack of expertise or field relevance if an RS can be found to prevent WP:SYNTH claims by the other team.

The claim that Picard's field is unrealted is a minor quibble in pedantry OR, and is not a major focus. I'd really rather that discussion was focused on what appears after that - regarding appeals to authority and such. It has already been established that blogs can't be used; and so the present proposal by Fill and Hrafn is absolutely OR, complete with footnotes and all.

Neither Picard's original field of electrical engineering nor her current field of affective computing is related to evolutionary biology.

See fields of science (or alternately NSF Fields of Science Codes and associated explanatory information) for an exposition of the general, hierarchical, relationship of scientific fields. For a non-hierarchical representation, see the map of science, which has featured in both Nature and Seed.[27]

It should be noted that all scientific fields are related to other fields that are themselves related to further fields and so on. However, the degree of relatedness between two fields quickly becomes negligible with each intervening field.

The following has been commented out as it might be considered OR, but is OR only to the extent that the argument it is intended to rebut (that evolutionary algorithms & Bioinformatics create a relationship to Evo Bio) is also OR. I.e. it is a (potentially) OR plug to an (equally) OR perceived hole in the above, non-OR prima facie evidence that affective computing and evolutionary biology are unrelated. If defence of this point is considered necessary, then this text can be introduced.

Certain specific sub-fields within computer science,e.g. evolutionary algorithms (which uses some mechanisms inspired by biological evolution), and interdisciplinary fields involving computer science, e.g. Bioinformatics (which has applications in the modelling of evolution, among a wide range of other applications) have a closer relationship with evolutionary biology than this hierarchy would indicate. However, no claim has been made that these sub-fields have significant overlap with affective computing.

The statement attempts to base its claim to truth on the credentials of its signatories, a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority.' Where the 'authority' in question is venturing an opinion outside their field of expertise (as is the case with Picard), it is known as an 'appeal to false authority.'A List Of Fallacious Arguments

• This is pretty much classical WP:SYNTH now that the blog reference has been removed. No third party has been referenced as using this line of reasoning. First a semi-reasonable statement is put forth "Picard's field is unrelated to the topic". Then a textbook definition is brought in (List of fallacious arguments) and used to establish a POV - "Picard's field is irrelevent, therefore she is a false witness in DI's attempt to create an appeal to authority." It's all very reasonable, and would muster in an essay or a blog positing. But it can't be included in Wikiepdia because it requires OR to reach this viewpoint. --ZayZayEM 05:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Two issues on which I would seek a consensus

I would seek a consensus from all editors on this article (not simply my two most vocal critics) on the following issues:

Unrelatedness & appeal to authority

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[28][29] and science-as-map [30]
• 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)

[Update] I've managed to find a reference on the 'appeal to authority' bit: [31] Russell D. Renka, Professor of Political Science, Southeast Missouri State University. Can this be considered a WP:RS? Hrafn42 05:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• 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[32].--ZayZayEM 05:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

Like I said, I'll discuss that later ^_^ --ZayZayEM 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See Ohio Scientists' Intelligent Design Poll. The sample of 460 had a response rate of 31% and a sampling error of +/-4.5%.

The Discovery Institute would have to counter this poll's appeal-to-authority value, and in early 2006 they attempted that. The result is profiled in CSC - A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, released 20 February 2006, and is reviewed in Kenneth Chang, Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition - New York Times, February 21, 2006. The 514 credentialed signatories are short of biologists and long on overtly religious Christians whose dissent on Darwinism extends further to questioning of ancient earth and ancient universe propositions. In other words, these are largely creationists. The dissenters' list is at filesDB-download.

Many of the dissenters evade the overwhelming evidence for evolution by accepting micro-level evidence of emergent variation within species while rejecting macro-level emergence in nature of new species. But evolutionists do not separate these. Arguments among evolutionists occur not on whether speciation occurs, but only on the necessary conditions for that process. See Carl Zimmer, Palm Trees and Lake Fish Dispel Doubts About a Theory of Evolution - New York Times, February 21, 2006; this summation demonstrates evidence for sympatric speciation instead of the normal (and accepted) allopatric speciation.[33]

• This helps, but it still doesn't refer to Picard specifically. It's a general attack on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and belongs there, not here.--ZayZayEM 05:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Additionally, closer reading of this, doesn't actually come out and call Dissent a failed appeal to authority. It just says that the DI needed to counter a different polls a-2-a value. It also references the NYT article, which we are already using as a source. We could use it to say something like "Russell D. Renka, Professor of Political Science, Southeast Missouri State University pointed out the signatories are largely creationists", but again it' pushing the context as he's not pointing out Picard specifically. It belongs on A Dissent from Darwinism not here.--ZayZayEM 23:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Picard's notability

I know we've discussed this before, but I wish to crystallise my thoughts on this. I apologise if you are becoming sick of the question.

Picard's notability would appear to come from three sources:

• her position within MIT. This is at best of marginal notability as half of her fellow Group-directors don't have articles.
• her signing of the 'Dissent' & mention in the NYT article. Again, at best of marginal notability (as well as excessive dissension).
• her contribution to Affective Computing. But whether this adds to Picard's own notability depends on whether the majority of what can be said can better be characterised as:
  • "Picard is a major contributor to the field of Affective Computing. Affective Computing..."; or
  • "Picard is a major contributor to the field of Affective Computing. Picard..."

My suspicion is that the former description would be the most frequently applicable and that Picard's contribution (although significant) is insufficiently differentiable from the field as a whole for her to be notable due to this in her own right rather than to simply be mentioned in the Affective Computing article. Hrafn42 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I think it would be prudent just to resolve one issue at a time. After unprotection, perhaps a test VFD would satisfy concerns of notability. --ZayZayEM 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given recent events, I hope that you will not object if I discount rather heavily your opinions on issues of prudence and collegiality. The question stands. Hrafn42 05:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Picard is the founder of the field of Affective Computing. Moulton 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm... do you have a reference for that?--ZayZayEM 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If you go to the bibliography page for Affective Computing and scroll all the way to the bottom, you will come to the very first paper(AbstractPDF) on the subject, published in 1995. On the first page of that paper, towards the bottom of the first page, Picard writes:

In this essay I will submit for discussion a set of ideas on what I call “affective computing,” computing that relates to, arises from, or influences emotions.

That establishes the date of her claim to have coined the term and defined it. The rest of the paper delineates it. Now if you put the search phrase "affective computing" into your PDF reader, you will find many instances of it in the paper, but nowhere in the 62 references. Next go to Google Scholar and search for papers on "Affective Computing." Can you find any prior to 1995? By the way, check out Reference 13 on page 3 of that original paper. Moulton 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx--ZayZayEM 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I trust that you are now satisfied that Picard is authenticated as having founded the discipline of Affective Computing, as laid out in that seminal paper. Also, thanks for tidying up the citations and the Wiki-formatting. Moulton 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I trust that any residual assertions that this article exists merely to criticize Picard's involvement in the intelligent design controversy are now put to rest. Thanks for the citation -- this would appear to deserve note in the article. Where was it published? ... Kenosis 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The seminal 1995 paper was published as an MIT Technical Report. According to the notes on the bibliography page, that was the paper that Picard expanded into her book of the same name, which came out in 1997. Moulton 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I imagine it's not quite sufficiently important to request an admin to unprotect the page until these arguments settle down. If someone else doesn't get to it when the page is unprotected, I'll do my best to make sure it gets in there. ... Kenosis 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I wouldn't know the best way to fit an item like that it into the editorial style for an academic biography, anyway. Nor do I care to argue with contentious adversarial editors whether my familiarity with that paper disqualifies me from inserting any mention of it. Moulton 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM is way too easily satisfied (it's odd that his skepticism seems to be quite distinctly asymmetric). This claim needs a reliable third party source (as per WP:RS). Picard's own words don't count (even if the leap from "In this essay I will submit for discussion a set of ideas on what I call 'affective computing'" -> "I founded the field of Affective Computing" weren't a piece of quite heroic synthesis). Hrafn42 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was satisfied that moulton has established Picard as the founder of Affective computing. I think it is sufficient to show her significance is more than just a signatory of Dissent per Kenosis.--ZayZayEM 04:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

M: "Picard is the founder of the field of Affective Computing"; Z:"Umm... do you have a reference for that?"; M:"Yes. If you go to..."; Z:"Thx" -- that certainly gives every appearance that you were "satisfied" with Moulton's substantiation of the point.

In any case, my argument above isn't that Picard's contribution to Affective computing isn't significant, but that it is difficult to delineate her contributions, as opposed to simply recounting the achievements of the field as a whole. This makes giving her an article, separate from the one on affective computing, problematical. Hrafn42 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Picard's "notability" extends to her efforts to provide the insightful perspective of a computer scientist when considering questions in far-flung disciplines. The MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, in cooperation with the Harvard Divinity School, organized a new course in 1997 provocatively titled, "God and Computers," inviting the general public to attend the guest lectures. Among the invited guest lecturers, Donald Knuth may have been the most notable. Picard was also a guest lecturer one year, and part of her presentation is preserved as a one-act play, "Machines That Can Deny Their Maker." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulton (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

More OR from Moulton. I glanced over said play earlier -- it is hardly likely to add "playwright" to Picard's claims to notability. It is a rather tedious and ham-handed piece of creationism-by-allegory. Hrafn42 10:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it an appropriately "scathing glance"?  :) Moulton 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

A concern has been raised on my talkpage about the IPs identified as belonging to Picard on top of this page. Do we know this for certain? If not, I would prefer that they be removed. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We have good reason to believe this from private communications with Picard and her associates and Checkuser results. And why are you so frantic to remove this when we have every reason to believe it is true? Very interesting...--Filll (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have every reason, get a checkuser or OTRS person in here. Otherwise we remove it.

(Of course, I have reason, Picard is paying me to cover her tracks, so she can continue to teach our children about how our ancestors fought dinosaurs.)--Relata refero (disp.) 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The conspiratorial thinking here is breathtaking. Filll you truly believe we are all closeted ID fans, or covert operatives of anti-evolutionist institutions, don't you? Relata is absolutely right. There are proper channels for that kind of thing, and talk page insinuations they are not.PelleSmith (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you look in the page history? This was a major part of the argument by the ID proponents, including Picard's closest colleagues who were editing here in violation of WP:COI that Picard disagreed with intelligent design and never really signed the petition. They pointed to the edits of these IPs and said they were Picard and therefore we had to take those as evidence of what Picard wants, although Picard was contacted directly half a dozen times by the editors of this page and half a dozen times by the New York Times to try to get a clear statement out of her. Finally, we have something that is not too clear, but it exists. And no we don't remove anything because you have made a gratuitous declaration. You clearly know almost nothing about Wikipedia and its procedures. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should we accept a random IP that claimed another random IP was the editor in question? That's what we have WP:OTRS for. Unless an OTRS volunteer comes here and adds a ticket number, I will remove it. (Otherwise my overlords at the Discovery Institute will set the tyrannosaurus on me.) --Relata refero (disp.) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not just wrong, but incredibly wrong. And apparently suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Let's try this again, shall we?

• It is not a random IP. It is an IP from the MIT Media Laboratory. You think Picard does not work at the MIT Media Laboratory?

• A random IP did not claim this was Picard. It was Moulton, who works with Picard and this has been repeatedly verified. Do you deny that Moulton's repeated statements are of no value? You seem to be arguing very hard to support everything else Moulton has ever claimed.

• You do not seem to understand what OTRS is. You are definitely confused. --Filll (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should we assume anyone editing from the Media Lab, which has hundreds of people as well as, IIRC, dozens of terminals accessible to the entire MIT community is this person?

Why should we believe Moulton? Is he a reliable source about this? He doesn't seem to be about anything else.

Unless the IP self-identifies or the subject writes to OTRS, we have no reason to believe its her. That's what OTRS is for, you know. I hang out in the channel. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No that is not the main purpose of OTRS. You might want to check on the history of OTRS and what stimulated its creation and what is goals and purpose are. Nice appeal to authority there, but effectively spurious.

Please point me to the place in policy where you get to summarily remove talk page content especially important cautions like those notices.

So what does the notice really say? An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Rosalind Picard, has edited Wikipedia. So this article is called Rosalind Picard, right? And we have a few IP addresses from the MIT Media Laboratory where Picard works editing Picard's article, right? And yet you claim that these IP addresses have nothing to do with Rosalind Picard, right?

Do you claim that people at the Media Laboratory who happen to be editing the Rosalind Picard article are not related to Rosalind Picard? Do you claim that someone who is editing the Wikipedia article on Rosland Picard from the MIT Media Laboratory has no relation to Rosalind Picard and in fact does not even know who Rosalind Picard is? Sounds like a bit difficult of an argument to make, but nevertheless, you are making it. Do you think it is a very compelling argument? How many do you think would buy it? Does it seem very likely to you? Well, you might want to think about that before pressing that claim very hard.--Filll (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear chap, people have students. So yes, I can claim that with perfect impunity "relation" is misleading. In fact, as I actually edit this encyclopaedia, I am aware of the fact that a vast proportion of edits to academics' articles are from (a) political opponents who read an op-ed that pissed them off and (b) students. One of mine did one on me once. (Speedied, according to the log. Sigh.) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and OTRS is the accepted way in which people can identify themselves about their bios. I don't see how its irrelevant here. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So do you contend that Picard's students are not related at all to Picard, if these IP addresses belonged to Picard's students (an unfounded assertion or suggestion)? Picard is perfectly within her rights to file an OTRS request. In fact, I have invited her to do so for months now, over and over and over. In fact, I went even farther and instead of Picard contacting us, I contacted her directly to try to resolve this. I have bent over backwards over and over and over in this situation. So I do not need to be lectured by you, thank you very much. Or your students. --Filll (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I contend that X's students are not necessarily "related" to X in the sense in which we need this template. If Picard has not herself got in touch, or self-identified as the IP, we have no way of knowing who that IP is, and we have a responsibility not to assume its Picard.

I am amused by your pun on "lectured". I trust it was intentional. It is unfortunate that Picard has not spoken to you, but I begin to see a glimmering of what might have warned her not to. Relata refero (disp.) 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well show me the statement in policy that demonstrates we should not have these statements. Pretend I am from Missouri.

We are not assuming it is Picard by the way. Have you even read the templates?

And why do you claim Picard has not spoken to me or communicated to me? Again I see someone who is having trouble following the conversation. That is unfortunate. And how do you think she was warned not to? If she was warned not to, why did she?--Filll (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless its verified that this is someone editing on behalf of Picard, we can't claim that it is. That's WP:V. (Of course I've read the templates, I've said "related" many times, dash it.)

I'm awfully sorry if I misunderstood one of your various rather lengthy statements on the subject of getting in touch with this otherwise unremarkable scientist. The point remains that unless the IPs identify, or she accepts its her, or we have a consensus that it was likely her or a close associate and not just someone in one of MIT's largest computer clusters - including her students, who have more than a little motivation to read professors' articles - we can't make this claim.

I'm afraid the last bit makes no sense to me. I was making a humorous statement about your inquisitorial style perhaps intimidating an article subject. I am sorry that vastly funny remark was apparently misunderstood. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That is some very twisted logic. So we have someone who works with Picard and who purports to be one of Picard's confidants who states repeatedly in various fora that this was Picard editing her own article. We have Checkuser results that demonstrate it was from her laboratory, editing her article. And yet you claim that just being closely related (which certainly these IPs are) is not the standard, but it has to be someone editing on behalf of Picard? No I do not think that is the standard for problems with WP:COI. For example, Moulton clearly has problems with WP:COI and this was determined to be correct in a substantial administrative hearing, the RfC, but there is strong doubt that Moulton was editing on behalf of Picard. Particularly when I had direct communications with Picard, it became clear that maybe Moulton was claiming one position for Picard that might not even be correct. But Moulton still violated WP:COI because of his overly close relationship with her. And to claim that the only way we can have some suspicion about an anon is if the anon voluntarily drops anonymity and reveals their true identity is just silly. Few if any anons would ever do this, yet many still violate WP:COI and other principles, and so we have a template cautioning people. So what?

Your attempts at humor frankly fall flat. All I see is someone desperate to avoid the clear facts, as stated clearly in reliable sources.--Filll (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I arguing that we remove Moulton? I suggest we replace that with a more general CoI template. I am merely pointing out that the IPs can be interpreted several ways, and asking again - do we have any direct demonstration, such as an on-wiki statement or an OTRS ticket, that the IPs were in any way related to Picard, instead of being random students, who obviously do not have a CoI? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way - have you read the templates? --Relata refero (disp.) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I gather you interpret them to mean that they state that Picard herself edited this article, and cover no other case. And I think that is the wrong interpretation. However, why not ask others how they read them? Also, in the case of many WP:COI violation cases, you think that only in the case where the subject of the COI violation confesses and we have solid evidence that these templates are applied? In that case, how do you even know that the subject of the OTRS ticket is who they purport to be? You have someone fingerprinted by the local law enforcement people or FBI perhaps? You have them swear an affadavit in court, under penalty of perjury?--Filll (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. We do, however, have separate CoI templates. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, show me the policy. Chapter and Verse. Show me exactly what policy we are violating and why. Show me.--Filll (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V.

• As far as I can see it, if the statement that it is Picard, is supported in good faith by an editor in good standing who has personally verified it, there's no real need to dispute it. If, however, he's only confirmed that these IPs are from that group, then it is not conclusive at all, academic sites typically use proxy servers and it could be any student defending the reputation of his / her professor. So can we just clarify the exact claim which is supported by user:Moulton? That would seem to be the clincher here. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been asked to weigh in on this. Briefly considered starting a thread to similar effect last night, but it hardly seemed worthwhile because the matter was something that hardly any non-Wikipedian would recognize if he or she noticed it. Our site processes are often so dense that people's heads explode trying to make sense of them (I have a few exploded skull fragments right here at my desk as proof). Basically it breaks down like this:

• An IP related to Picard's office edited here.
• That IP might be Picard herself, or might have been someone else editing at her request, although to the best of my knowledge that's not possible to confirm technically.
• One blocked editor who also works at Picard's office attributes the edits to her.
• I have seen no independent confirmation from Professor Picard regarding any of this.
• If someone other than Picard actually made the edits, then it might be a mild BLP issue to have the templates and category up. I say mild, because few non-Wikipedians are capable of parsing these things and the assertion that someone edited their own Wikipedia biography isn't necessarily negative (the person might have reverted vandalism, for instance, which is perfectly okay).
• At this juncture, any thread on the topic is likely to become long and contentious, and is also likely to draw considerably more attention (and be more comprehensible to non-Wikipedians). This is why I did not open a discussion last night.

The thangka of Wiki Wisdom.

Periodically, pages become drama central for mysterious reasons comprehensible only to the most experienced Wikipedians who reside in the inner sanctum of the secret crypt beneath Wall Street where the Nefarious Wikipedia Cabal^TM meets. Note to passing checkusers: I am disguising my actual location now. I appear to be editing from San Diego, but no...and actually I'm not in the secret crypt either; I'm atop the Great Mount of Wiki Wisdom in Tibet, praying beneath a thangka, and meditations have thus far revealed that this thread goes against the Tao/force/karma/will of the deity of your choice (forgive me if this offends your chosen religion; I'm trying to be lighthearted). Please archive without action, wait a month for things to cool down, and reopen if you still think it really matters. I doubt the underlying issue will make waves outside the Wiki, but this discussion itself is somewhat more noticeable. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting a consensus

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:

[A Scientific Dissent] attempts to base its claim to truth on the credentials of its signatories, a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority.' Where the 'authority' in question is venturing an opinion outside their field of expertise (as is the case with Picard), it is known as an 'appeal to false authority.' °context

_{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

1. Hrafn42 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Against

1. ZayZayEM 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2. dave souza, talk 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Looking at the source[34] 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:

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers, out of five hundred scientists and engineers, whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". According to the Discovery Institute 254 of the signers held degrees in the biological sciences or biochemistry, leaving more than 350 nonbiologists including Dr. Picard. The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

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)

• That seems fine. Can you please comment on the inclusion of the allusion to the appeal to authority fallacy, or are you being diplomatically neutral today?--ZayZayEM 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to point out "The Times noted..." because it's not something only The Times would have seen. Any reporting body looking for it (which was most) would have noticed that 350 weren't actually biologists. Sources only need to be cited when something controversial comes up. We are citing The Times at the start, because we are establishing her signing as a encyclopedically significant fact.--ZayZayEM 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

---

On June 29, 2006, Picard [IP 18.85.10.17] proposed this version...

Controversial Petition Signer
Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Dissent From Darwin Petition (see page 6 of the petition for her signature). This petition has received criticism since although all of the signers hold doctorates in science and engineering disciplines, only 154 of the 514 signers have biological science backgrounds.

On February 4, 2007, Picard [IP 18.85.10.10] proposed this version...

Controversial Petition Signer
Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Discovery Institute's Petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (see page 6 of the petition for her signature, which names the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as her affiliation).

--Moulton 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I think there is no problem with drawing the conclusions that Chang did in the NYT, but in a brief abbreviated fashion. I have no problem with the blog as a reference, as long as we have a couple of other more RS sources if there are problems. I think she is not particularly notable, although she obviously gained notability from appearing in Chang's article.--Filll 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:PROF I think she meets #3. And her involvement with DI removes caveat 1. (If Moulton is to be trusted she meets #5)--ZayZayEM 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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 {{mergeto|Affective computing|Talk:Affective computing#Merger proposal|{{subst:DATE}}}} 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 {{editprotected}} 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)

Picard is notable for more than affective computing. Namely for being a signatory of Dissent. This information would have no relation to the affective computing page. That this article is not a stub (but still small) shows that two articles are favourable.--ZayZayEM 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also think she is barely notable. I would favor summarizing the New York Times article that mentions her, in the least offensive manner possible, to avoid upsetting anyone. However, we should still include the material that lead to her being mentioned in that Chang article. Otherwise, why did Chang single her out? If she was an MIT biologist, I suspect Chang might have mentioned her still, but maybe in a very different context. The context in which she was mentioned is important, and merits inclusion. By us excluding this information, or trying to spin it in another way, we are engaging in OR. However, if we just use the same context Chang did, we are not violating WP:OR.--Filll 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I support a merge/redirect, but for a different reason: this is not a proper biography by a long shot. But note that mentioning the ID poll will probably not satisfy Due Weight concerns in the Affective Computing article.

Nevertheless, it may be possible to find sufficient published information on Picard to expand this into a true bio; those in favor of keeping a separate biography may want to spend some time digging it up. Topics e.g. early life, pop. science publications/(media) appearances/talks given on Affective Computing, her religious beliefs. Avb 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM's recent accusation of WP:DISRUPT

• It was ZayZayEM's insertion that introduced the figure of 254 into the article [35]. It was perfectly legitimate to remove this obviously contradictory sentence until the specific error could be identified & corrected.
• Given ZayZayEM's very zealous enforcement of WP:NOR on previous matters, it is unreasonable of him to object to my seeking a similar enforcement on his edits, specifically his insertion of the unsupported adjective "emerging".
  • On ZayZayEM's argument for reinsertion, even if <20y.o. = "emerging" weren't WP:SYNTH, most fields in Computer Science are of similar youth (it is after all a very young field), so this is non-notable. Hrafn42 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• The List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" does not show "five hundred scientists and engineers", it only shows the 23 of them that somebody has gotten around to entering. As such this link is both confusing and misleading.

Hrafn42 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word "emerging" does not belong here. It sounds ridiculous when applied to a subfield of computer science. This is even more true when used to describe something in computer technology.

The statements ZayZayEM has wanted to include about the petition and the numbers are either wrong, misleading, or confused.--Filll 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the incorrect figure to 154. Sorry I took dave's maths at face value. 5am. will expand tomorrow. reverted to earlier Hrafn version in meanwhile--ZayZayEM 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in mental maths – I can proudly claim to have failed my O-level arithmetic. Oops. Have now corrected the total number of signatories it from 500 to 514, which makes the "over 350 nonbiologists" work if needed. Sorry and all, .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, some of those are biochemists, which are not the same as biologists. Certainly they are not experts in evolution. They just need classes in organic chemistry, and not biology or genetics etc.--Filll 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not caring too much anymore. I inserted the material about Picard being a non-biologist because consensus appeared to favour inclusion, and a source did actually point it out (if only someone had actually used this argument at the start). I am not accusing Hrafn of WP:DISRUPT, though it does seem that it seems certain parties seem to be having a "my way or the highway/all or nothing" attitude towards Picard's article. I'm quite happy to leave "emerging" out of the article if people feel it is overstepping the mark (noone actually commented as to why it was unreasonable to suggest). List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is a relevant link, even if it doesn't actually list all 500 signatories (yet), perhaps it could be worded differently.--ZayZayEM 08:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Visitor from MIT IP

I've reverted an edit by IP# 18.85.44.145, location: United States [City: Boston, Massachusetts], owner: MIT

Apart from the fact that I feel such a change requires a consensus first, if only for WP:BLP reasons, this could be a sock or meat puppet trying to continue disrupting this article. Avb 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it MIT, it's MIT Media Lab -- dhcp-44-145.media.mit.edu, so most likely Picard or an associate. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the edit, I'd be very curious to know whether it was picard. ornis (t) 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably someone trying to generate more raw material for more juvenile stories about moulton's Wikipedia experience. Why don't these people understand this reflects badly on them in real life? Anyway, one more edit of this kind and we'd better request a moulton sock/meat puppet block. Avb 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, this edit in the opposite direction of the Moulton edits and the purported Picard anon edits. So it might be just someone trying to create controversy, or more material for Moulton and his blogs and/or experiments with the "journalism" culture and standards of WP, or it might be an associate of Picard and Moulton's who really secretly feels that Moulton and Picard are wrong, and resents their views and activities. It is too coincidental.--Filll 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the alleged Picard edits were 18.85.10.xx numbers[36][37] and, as Filll says, this new edit changes the heading to "Anti-evolution petition" which Steve and Moulton had been fighting against. .. dave souza, talk 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit created a situation that, if handled incorrectly, would reflect badly on Wikipedia. The assumption that the change might stick without a consensus seems based on an incorrect understanding of (and plain disbelief in) WP style consensus - both hallmarks of moulton's type of editing. By the way, has Picard herself ever contacted editors, or the Foundation directly? It beats anonymous IP editing and proxy editing by a friend who does not want to go with the flow and attacks the system. Avb 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Picard contacted me directly with a personal email, and promised to send me more information once she had investigated the situation further. I have not heard back from her, and it is more than 2 weeks after she had promised to get back to me.

It easily could be Moulton testing our NPOV principles and WP mechanisms, since he is writing articles about this, and would love to be able to hang us out to dry if we do not handle this situation "fairly".--Filll 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Well, we'll simply go on editing as usual. If Picard ever follows up on that promise, we may be able to do something for her, or once again explain why we can't. Avb 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-biologist

NYT does make a point of her being a non-biologist:

The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell.

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)

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)

Undue weight

It seems to me that the section, Rosalind Picard#"A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", is a violation of the undue weight policy. It is clearly only a minor point, deserving one sentence maximum, not a section heading. As far as I can tell, there is no further information relevant to her other than that she signed it.

I'm removing all but the first sentence, and the rest of the information can be covered over at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Her status as a non-biologist is also relevant. The NYT makes a note of the fact. I don't see a problem with trimming down a detailed explanation of what ASDFD was/is. I do think that it should still remain a seperate sectionm, as it is not related to her Affective Computing work.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think her status as a non-biologist is relevant to the Dissent from Darwinism article more so than here. It's really more relevant what she is in this article.

As far as separating it from her other work, if we actually had sections for her other work, it would make more sense to do so. However, the article body only contains one section, Rosalind Picard#Biography, so creating a separate section for the Dissent from Darwinism petition sets it apart as if it were a particularly defining event in her life, which I think it's clearly not. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a big part of her notability. It should stay, maybe abbreviated, but it should stay. Without it, she is really just a professor who put smiling faces on computers. So what?--Filll (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a big part of her notability. It's not much of a big anything. She is not Gonzalez. Picard is quite obviously primarily an expert on affective computing, and that is what she is notable for. Even NYT acknowledges she maintained some notability before signing the document, otherwise it would not have listed her as a "nationally prominent scientist".--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any major WP:RSs other than the NYT piece that makes mention of her? If not then that piece, and its subject, remains the only substantive evidence of her notability. What the NYT thinks is not relevant to WP:NOTE. If you want an article "primarily on affective computing", then you are welcome to merge this article into the one on the subject (the topic really isn't notable enough to deserve two articles), as I earlier suggested. An article on Picard herself cannot help but give prominent mention of the one thing that she's done that has gotten her mentioned in the mainstream press. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted an article on anything. I just said Picard's notability is primarily from such work. I really don't see how anyone can dispute that. It's why she was mentioned in the NYT article, she was already "a nationally prominent scientist". Let's look at the internet: "They walk among us", an article on Future technology has a paragraph on Picard's work; First Monday has an interview with Picard that outlines affective computing and Affective Computing (and in which she asserts her founding of the field, or at least naming); Chris Willmott also has review of Affective Computing

[Picard] tries to meet the criticisms of a sceptical audience by emphasising practical benefits and avoiding science-fiction rhetoric

Another review [38], Further "future/robot" news articles at The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Boston Globe.

Google testing [39] alone brings up one resource that refers to the petition, her wikipedia article... notable indeed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good finds. I think Picard passes notability requirements on her own, but if the petition truly were the most significant thing she has done, then the article should be put up for deletion. She was one of several hundred signers, so if she's not notable on her own, she's not worth mentioning at all.

I'll also add that I have not been saying that the information should go, only that the version as it stood constitutes undue weight. Her contribution to ID has been small, both in the context of her life as well as in the context of the ID movement. Unless there's more information to add about her and the ID movement, one sentence is plenty. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should summarize what is in the NYT article. I do not believe this can adequately be covered in one sentence.--Filll (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced that the summary is necessary, as the links to the Discovery Institute and Dissent from Darwinism articles offer quick access to further explanation, but that's a reasonable point to consider. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur 100% with Filll here - she's notable mostly for being a semi-respectable academic who signed a petition propagated by and fueling the conspiracy theories of cranks. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating opinion. Cite it to a reliable source. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See below, re: 0 mentions in the Times for her career, and at least 1 for her signature on that petition. Raul654 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that Picard would pass WP:ACADEMIC without the ID info at all, as she is a full professor at MIT, a director of a lab, and has won several awards. The extended discussion of ID seems very out of place here, as it is certainly only a very insignificant part of her academic career. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of New York Times articles about her career: 0.

Number of New York Times articles about the fact that she signed the DI petition: 1 (at least). Raul654 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a point here, perhaps? Are you unaware that the political pages of the NYT are largely irrelevant to an academic's career? --Relata refero (disp.) 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times has articles about more than politics. Here's one about an old prof of mine and the keyless keyboard he invented. The fact that Picard didn't get into the Times about anything related to her career except the fact that she signed the DI petition (a professional embarrassment) speaks volumes about what she is notable for. Raul654 (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you're arguing that a mention in thethe NYT politics pages are a reasonable guide to what is notable about an academic's career. The bar for inclusion in the NYT in terms of participation in a hot-button dispute is considerably lower than otherwise; we do not, if we wish to be a reasonable encyclopaedia, repeat that here. You should realise that there are differences between this project and a newspaper, and that is one of them. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. Care to cite a source? Raul654 (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For what? The difference between us a newspaper? WP:NOTNEWS. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For your claim that "The bar for inclusion in the NYT in terms of participation in a hot-button dispute is considerably lower than otherwise" Raul654 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are beginning to surprise me. Perhaps I should have clarified that I didn't mean the NYT in general, but most newspapers? And are you sure you are claiming that you need a citation for the statement "newspapers tend to focus on politics more than science and technology"? --Relata refero (disp.) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't judge academics by the number of New York times articles they generate, but by WP:ACADEMIC. Mainstream media sources on academics are typically either popularized announcements of research breakthroughs, obituaries, or stories about topics independent of the person's career, as here. Mainstream media generally ignores the professional careers of even prominent academics.

Could you explain exactly how signing this petition is an important point in her career, warranting more than a single sentence? I think it would make more sense to simply say she signed the petition and link to a full discussion of it somewhere else, rather than try to expand upon it here. The NYTimes article is not about Picard at all, but about the petition itself. The only things it says about Picard are: she signed the petition, she is nationally prominent, and she is not a biologist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not important in her career. She not important because of her career - she's an obscure academic in an obscure field of computer science. She's notable for exactly one thing - because she signed that petition.

As for the description itself - we write articles to avoid making people click links to get necessary information. We really should have an entire section on it, but the two sentences in this article are the *minimum* necessary to describe what she did and why it matters. Raul654 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. I count a dozen mentions in newspapers alone for her work in affective computing. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If she were only notable for one incident, her article should be deleted, per the relevant section of WP:BLP. That's why I looked to see whether Picard passes WP:ACADEMIC independent from the ID stuff. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If she were only notable for one incident, her article should be deleted - totally false. We have article on one-hit-wonder musicians (Tommy Tutone), internet memes (Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)), and the like. This article is no different than any of those other people that are notable for one and only one thing. Raul654 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. Your description of Picard - that she is not notable apart from appearing in the NYTimes article about the petition - seems to fit that language well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to have blown up spectacularly in my face, I might as well explain my edit. :/

I came across this BLP, which hadn't been edited since last year, and noticed that the paragraph about her signing that creationism petition seemed a disjointed and tangential - her signing the petition is unquestionably notable, but it seemed jarring to go straight from discussion of her research to "In February 2006, the New York Times reported... The petition, a two-sentence statement," without stating why she signed the petition or anything. We have an essay about these sorts of articles and the problems with them - WP:COATRACK. I checked out her personal webpage, noticed she was quite open about her religion, googled "Rosalind Picard christian" and found an Atlantic Monthly article that discussed at length why she was a creationist. So I added a sentence about that, making the article flow more smoothly into the signing of the petition. I also removed the second sentence explaining the petition, as I thought it was straying too off-topic.

I discussed this with Raul and can now see the merits of leaving that last sentence in - I think the article as it now stands is acceptable. What's greatly troubling to me is that instead of discussing this and working out a compromise, certain folks refused my invitation to discuss it and instantly jumped on me and started canvassing for a revert war when a few minutes of discussion would have cheerfully resolved the situation instead. (I'm personally as agnostic and anti-creationist as it gets... the only god I'm working in the name of here is WP:BLP.) This really isn't the way Wikipedia should work - assuming everyone is a POV pusher by default is not how we do things around here. krimpet✽ 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm glad you trust that editor's opinion of what seems necessary here - I must say my trust in that has just received a couple of nasty shocks. There is absolutely no reason to have the last two sentences in there - that is plainly what wikilinks are for. However, since I know that the ID project has several editors who specialise in assuming everyone who disagrees with them is a virulent anti-Science troll, I suppose trying to get it removed step by step is a hopeless enterprise. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely atrocious. And it is still not true that a negatyive book review constitutes a violation of WP:BLP for the author. Sorry, but that is...well you can imagine I am sure.--Filll (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and cherrypicking a usenet post still is. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone who wants to edit war and generally march around in high dudgeon here, there are some facts you should know if you want to dig into this situation (1) violation of copyright law is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper (3) The New York Times is generally viewed as a reliable source around here. Sorry. (4) Wikipedia makes it a policy to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. So just try to absorb a few of these basic principles before you get yourself too worked into a tizzy. Thanks. Oh and you might find it valuable to actually read the RfC instead of going on hearsay.--Filll (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea what (1) means, thanks for agreeing with (2) in theory, even if your actions here don't indicate that you agree in practice, (3) is bloody irrelevant to the point and (4) is a truism that is even more irrelevant. If you feel like stating four irrelevant things before breakfast who am I to stop you? --Relata refero (disp.) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you claim these are irrelevant, you just reveal your lack of knowledge of the situation. Better educate yourself before you commit another faux pas like claiming that a negative book review is a violation of BLP.--Filll (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What frakking situation? People reading an article shouldn't need a guide to a "situation" if the article stinks to high heaven.

Truth be told, nos 1-4 are irrelevant for most discussions, unless the person in question is a rank newbie.

And I would never say a negative book review is a violation of BLP! That would be stupid. However, cherry-picking a usenet post for nastiness probably is a violation of BLP. Sad that you haven't moved on from that....

Incidentally, those links to your "challenge" you keep sending out. Do you ever read people's answers to your questions? Or would that lead to too much reality-based interference with your mental classification of editors? --Relata refero (disp.) 06:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you won't listen, but Relata, you really need to move on from that one tiny little sourcing issue. If you want to be vindictive for all of your days against every single person who gave a differing view, maybe you should find a new way to spend your time. This is what, the 4th time you have brought it up since it happened. And it in no way applies to this article! C'mon. No more about the book review from a (nearly) completely unrelated person. From anyone. The ship has sailed on that topic. Thoughts on the Picard article? Great. Baegis (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the damn discussion. I didn't bring it up. Peh. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to this post where you clearly are leading back to your one brief excursion onto an ID related article. Filll may have actually mentioned the review, which may have been unnecessary, but you let the cat out of the bag. Let's move on, shall we? Baegis (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to move on from the incident, and never discuss that issue again. That doesn't mean that I am obliged to never mention the behavioural issues that a bunch of people demonstrated during that, especially when they're demonstrating it again. Note that my statement is not based only on the one instance in which I participated; your assumption that it was is faulty. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would never say a negative book review is a violation of BLP! That would be stupid. You said it, not me. And as a result, I basically discount everything you claim for obvious reasons. And you can whine all you want, but a good 11 editors or so disagreed with you quite vehemently. If you had insisted, I would have dug up another 50 or 100 to demonstrate how bizarre your position and reasoning is. It really makes me wonder what sort of agenda you have to push. Until I see otherwise, I know what I am going to think. And if you cannot understand the purpose of the AGFC, then that is just par for the course, isn't it? I would expect nothing less from you.--Filll (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why the article is giving so much weight to this issue. It's the last sentence that is clearly undue weight here. Yes, she was in a NYT article, but please read it more closely - her name was mentioned in passing, she is in no way discussed in the article. To hang this sentence about the Discovery Institute's misdeeds off the end of this short article is simply not appropriate. And after clicking on a few names from [40], it seems even less appropriate, since other articles - like Philip Skell - contain either no or only a short mention. If the reason is we're afraid of handing Moulton and his fellow haters at WPR a victory, then that's stupid. They stand victorious whenever we make a decision based on criteria other than what's best for the encyclopedia. - Merzbow (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to offer another outside opinion here. While a specific mention in the NYT for signing a petition is a notable event, it is only notable as such and the point can be made in a short sentence that links to the petetion. I don't understand the logic behind publishing this kind of detail about the petition, since it has nothing to do with the living person we are writing about specifically:

• "The petition, a two-sentence statement, has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of its supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools."

What the Discovery institute "has used" the petition for is entirely and completely irrelevant to the any of the people signing it. If Picard has notably recieved criticism or notably created controversy in signing this petition then reporting on that controversy (specifically involving her) may be appropriate, but in this instance it seems that we are creating the controversy ourselves. To me this is exactly what our BLP guidelines are meant to prevent.PelleSmith (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the situation with some rationality here shall we ?

• Picard signed the petition, as near as we can tell from all our sources.

• Picard probably did not sign a blank piece of paper, although many have insisted that Picard signed a blank piece of paper. We have no evidence that she signed a blank piece of paper, and it would be a bit hard to imagine an MIT faculty member signing a petition that had no writing on it.

• Picard signed the petition at least 6 or 7 years ago since she was one of the first 100 signatories and it was revealed in 2001.

• When the petition was first announced, with great fanfare in a series of advertisements in prominent publications, the petition was framed as an anti-evolution, anti-materialist, anti-methodological naturalism, anti-science statement. The petition has been added to repeatedly since then and now has more than 800 signatories. The petition is worded vaguely on purpose to confuse the unwary. We note this in our article about the petition, and include sources for that, although many have been frantic to remove any discussion of the statement's vague nature and the sources.

• Since 2001, some signatories have withdrawn their signatures and announced this publicly. Some signatories have issued statements that they disagree with the anti-evolution and anti-science tone of the petition.

• However, in spite of being clearly aware of all of this, and invited to do something similar over and over and over by many others for years, Picard has repeatedly declined to do so. Picard and her associates have been the subject of mild harassment, at least by some on the internet, for this position.

• Picard has also published other statements and material that appear to support the anti-science and anti-evolution position of the Discovery Institute.

• I have tried on a number of occasions to remove Picard's biography from Wikipedia. After all, do you believe that someone who paints smiling faces on computers is the most prominent person in her department at MIT? Do you believe that we have articles on all her colleagues? Do you have any idea how many more prominent faculty members there are at MIT that have no articles? As Raul654 pointed out, clearly the thing that brought her to prominence in Wikipedia was not the fact that she put smiling faces on computers. It was that someone who is obviously educated, and obviously in a technically demanding position, and obviously with colleagues in biology who definitely object to this petition and how it is used, has chosen to continue to use their prestige and position to promote an anti-science, anti-evolution agenda for years and years. It is not super notable, but it is somewhat interesting. So the New York Times published something about it.

• The New York Times did not publish this lightly. They asked repeatedly for more clarification from Picard. Picard refused to give it. I have been in contact with the New York Times writer and have communications on his efforts in my possession.

• I have been in contact with Picard herself, and her media agent about this matter. I have been promised repeatedly that she will get back to me to clarify the situation, for months now. Nothing has been forthcoming. The offer still stands. User:Durova made the same offer back in late summer of 2007. Nothing was forthcoming, but Durova's offer still stands. User: Kim Bruning made the same offer 1 week ago, and Bruning's offer still stands. Again, nothing that was promised has yet appeared.

• This biography is a mess. Anyone can clearly see that. We wasted huge amounts of effort on it months ago and an editor was banned over it. Part of the mess was that people attempted to fix it by cutting and pasting in huge volumes of material that violated copyright. If you want to write more about Picard's career, go ahead. Just do not blindly cut and paste material under copyright to do it. That will be deleted, and such attempts have been deleted in the past several times. That is not the way to do it.

• Having wasted huge amounts of time on someone barely notable, you will forgive many of us for not wanting to expend more energy on trying to fix this biography when assorted hacks will just destroy our efforts. If you want to make an honest attempt to fix it, go ahead.

• Part of the problem with most of the efforts to "fix" this biography has been that these efforts have not been at all reasonable. For example, there have been attempts to remove all mention of the New York Times article, or claims that the New York Times is not a reliable source. That is just not going to fly. Over the months there have been many who have tried to address the New York Times article in more palatable terms. All my efforts to describe this in a more appealing way have been flushed down the toilet. The efforts of many others have been discarded as well. After you end up being fought tooth and nail over this, then eventually you say "to hell with it".

• If you want to "fix" the biography, you will not get very far by pretending Picard did not sign the petition, or by claiming she signed a blank petition, or by claiming the petition is not used to attack evolution and science, or by wanting us to publish a paragraph describing how incompetent the New York Times is, or wanting us to write a paragraph describing how evil and dishonest the Discovery Institute is and how Picard was an unwitting dupe of these evil geniuses, or any similar ridiculous ideas that have been tried here.

• If you want to "fix" this article, do it seriously and honestly. Start in a sandbox. Write a good 50 or 80 Kilobytes describing Picard's career, in your own words, with plenty of good reliable sources. Include a short section on the New York Times article. Do not try to whitewash it. Do not try to vilify Picard for signing; after all, it might not be a negative thing to her. Do not try to attack the New York Times for publishing it. Do not try to attack the Discovery Institute for their tactics and strategy and agenda. Just state the facts. It is pretty simple to do, instead of attacking the other editors here and throwing tantrums. Take a week or two to really fix the biography, instead of using it as a weapon against other editors here who are trying to do their best.

• Asking others to volunteer their time to fix this biography is asking a bit much. This is really over the top when you are asking people who have already expended an immense amount of time and effort on this biography and situation. If it is really important to you, show it by actually doing some work instead of just whining.

--Filll (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice essay. Have it published and then have someone else summarize it with a citation. Until then it would be nice to see only relevant, notable and verifiable information about this living person in the entry. The bit about the Discovery intitute is still irrelevant unless we are trying to create controversy here ourselves inspite of our BLP guidelines. The compromise below seems more than appropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The sarcasm is not particularly becoming and shows an unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Are you here to fight, or to write an encyclopedia? Good heavens. Why not try doing some work for a change?--Filll (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but my point is a simple one. There is no notable controversy surrounding this particular person in relation to that particular petition, and it is unhelpful to have editors writing essays here explain why there should be. Look I'm a staunch evolutionist and no fan of intelligent design, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to bend our basic guidelines to prove a point. Our reaction to something like this has no place here, only notable and sourceable reactions out there in the real world do. Can you please offer an opinion about the compromise below? Thanks graciously.PelleSmith (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was more than clear on what my position is. I have given you my advice as to what needs to be done to fix this. You can take my advice, or not. Whatever.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree to mention that Picard signed the petition. The question is why it's necessary to discuss the petition itself here, rather than linking to a WP article about it. This article is not about the petition, it's about Picard. The NYTimes article is not about Picard, it's about the petition, and mentions Picard in passing. The motto in WP:BLP is "cover the event, not the person".

As for keeping or deleting the article, the relevant policy is WP:ACADEMIC. But I think we are all proceeding under the assumption the article would be kept at AFD.

As a compromise, what if we keep the footnoted reference to the NYTimes article, but remove the second sentence, the one about the Discovery Institute? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

With that sort of reasoning, I suspect you will have trouble. Sorry, but the only reason she is on Wikipedia is she signed the petition. She is not particularly notable as an academic. If you believe she is, spend a week or two writing a proper biography for her in a sandbox and let others look at it. And yes lots and lots of people have tried to claim she did not sign and wanted us to write that she did not sign and the New York Times writer is a stupid #$%^&* for writing that she signed. And just trying to hide the fact that she signed and the NYT wrote an article about it probably is not going to fly. If this is so all-fired important to you, why are you afraid of doing any real work? Stop complaining and do some real writing.--Filll (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"The only reason someone with a point to prove added her to Wikipedia," is what I believe you mean to say. WP:ACADEMIC is the test as to whether or not she should have an entry here. Will you consider the compromise suggested above? If not can you explain to us naive outsiders why information about the Discovery institute is relevant here? Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to continue to fight with you about nonsense. Do some work if you want to improve this biography. --Filll (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The work to expand the biography is somewhat orthogonal to the BLP issues that several editors have expressed above. It's unreasonable to ask someone to rewrite the entire page simply to discuss one sentence that appears to violate WP:COATRACK. If other editors in the past have acted poorly, that's unfortunate, but this is a different set of editors, and I don't think anyone here is making the arguments you describe in the list of bullets above. Apart from the fact that Picard signed the petition, is there any evidence she is notable as an advocate for the Discovery Institute? As PelleSmith asks, can you explain why the actions of the Discovery Institute need to be explained in an article about Picard (especially in light of WP:COATRACK)? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that coatrack is a policy. It is not. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that this article gives undo weight to the fact that she signed the petition. It does not. She is not notable for anything else. The two sentences in this article are the *minimum* required to accurately describe what she did and what it is significant. Raul654 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to (again) disagree with your argument she is notable for nothing else. Here are some areas in which she meets the tests of WP:ACADEMIC:

• A full professor at MIT
• An IEEE Fellow: "The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and shall be conferred by the Board of Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest. "
• Newspaper articles on her work, found on LexisNexis:
  • The Independent (London) February 17, 1998, Tuesday, "The computer that can hack into your emotions"
  • The Washington Post, June 7, 2004, "Human Responses to Technology Scrutinized; Emotional Interactions Draw Interest of Psychologists and Marketers"
  • Christian Science Monitor, December 18, 2006, What if your laptop knew how you felt?

In light of these, I think the argument that she is only notable for signing the petition is not very compelling. What do you think of the compromise I suggested above? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are over 1000 faculty members at MIT [41]. How many of them have articles on WP? The bylaws of the IEEE allow as many as 10 percent of the members per year to be promoted to the position of fellow, and there are about 400,000 members of the IEEE, so literally tens of thousands can be IEEE fellows. 300 have been promoted in 2008. Do you think all of these have WP articles?--Filll (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "is she notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography apart form the DI connection" (I'd say yes), and whether she would have a Wikipedia article if it wasn't for her support of the DI petition (my guess is no; it was in the earliest version of the article). Articles are written (and more importantly, maintained) because people find the subjects interesting enough to write about. And they are read for the same reason. The DI connection is one of the most notable things about Picard, not the only notable thing. We would be a much better society if professors, not sports stars, made the front page for what they have achieved. But we don't live in that world. Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if you want to balance out this article, you should try to add details about her allegedly notable career instead of trying to whitewash the well-sourced, notable events surrounding her signing the petition. Raul654 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should say she signed the petition. What I don't see is the relevance of the Discovery Institute here; could you explain that to me? Is she known as an advocate of the institute beyond simply signing the petition? What do you think of the compromise above? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to answer your first two questions. Those would be better directed at Filll, who is more knowledgeable about her than I am. To answer your third question, there are two sentences in this article describing the fact that she signed the petition, and describing what it was. You want to remove the latter sentence, effectively cloaking the meaning, importance, and notability of that fact that she signed it. No, this is not an acceptable compromise. As I have already said - twice - the two sentences in this article are the *minimum* that this article should devote to the subject. Raul654 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "why it is significant part" should be directly associated with the person whose biography we are writing and remains a matter of editorial interpretation (see Fill's investigative essay above) unless it has been notably commented on and can be cited as such. There doesn't seem to be any such notability or at lest no one here seems to be offering any evidence of it. As such why can't we just say she signed it with a link to the full entry where there is ample discussion about petition itself? Some minor discriptor could be added as well. Something like this for instance: "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 controversial 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,' petition in support of intelligent design." In this example there we say it is controversial and that it relates to intelligent design. I'm still struggling to understand how a sentence about what the Discovery Institute has done with the petition belongs here and am still in hope that someone can explain that. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Over the months, many many compromises have been attempted. I am telling you from experience, the compromises that involve whitewashing the endorsement of this petition will not work. The way to improve this biography is to IMPROVE THIS BIOGRAPHY. Is that so hard to understand? DO SOME WORK and add some material about her career in your own words if she is so notable and has had such a stellar important notable career putting smiling faces on computers. I will not continue to fight about this nonsense. If you want to have a better biography with more details here, then you have to write one. No one will write one for you or allow you to steal one from someone else. Also, we have plenty of other evidence that Picard supports the Discovery Institute and intelligent design and has an anti-evolution position. But in the interests of fairness and WP:BLP, I do not suggest we smear this woman any more than necessary. Leave sleeping dogs lie. If she is prominent for other things, then go ahead and write about them. Let's not make this article a huge long discussion about how antiscience this woman is with all kinds of references to this activity of hers. Good lord...be reasonable. You want a better biography? Write one.--Filll (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see anyone whining about getting a better biography, so please let that straw man burn. What I see are people concerned with BLP issues and not understanding why we need information about the action of an institute which a specific living person that this biography is about does not represent. This small issue is what no one wants to address. Instead I just get told to do some work and quit trying to "whitewash" the entry. Its a very simply question which never gets answered. Why do we have information about the actions of this instiute in an entry unrelated to the institute? What no one seems to disagree with is the fact that she signed is notable and should be mentioned. Doesn't sound like whitewashing to me, especially if we link to the petition and add a suitable discriptor of the petition. Heck say specifically that it comes form the Discovery institute, then you would have links to the 1) petition, 2) to the institute, and 3) to the essence of what the petition promotes. BTW, I resent the idea that someone can't have general BLP concerns which they wish to engage editors at an entry with without also wishing to rewrite the entire entry. This discussion was linked elsewhere, and I didn't come here because of some burning interest in the entry subject matter, but because I think this sets a bad example and is exactly what not to do in terms of living persons. Improving Wikipedia isn't just about adding information to entries, it also invovles trying to keep the spirit of the project and its various aspects in check all over the place. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If and when you feel like doing some real work, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, who can be bothered with this kind of nonsense?--Filll (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one sentence. It provides context for the statement about the petition. Although Wikipedia is hypertext, it's perfectly normal to briefly explain statements that aren't clear to the average reader.

• The fact that Picard signed the petition is a notable fact. It's probably the reason this article was written in the first place.
• The petition and what it means isn't something that the average reader would be familiar with. So we have a sentence that explains what might otherwise be a confusing statement. That's a pretty standard thing to do. Although Wikipedia is hypertext, it's also printable. Although Wikipedia is hypertext, it's read by people. Often, by people with crappy bandwidth. We can't expect people to click on every link in an article just to understand what's going on. So we add a one-line explanation. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the problem is that the explanation isn't about the petition but about what the petition has been used for by an outside party (as in not the person the entry is about). The suggestions below are clear in explaining what the petition is about without doing so. What are the objections to these suggested changes? I would like to note as well that the others on the list of signers that we have wiki entries for do not have this type of "explanation" added to their entries. Instead we have verifiable and notable information about their own views on intelligent design, creationism and/or Darwinian theory. Biographical information about persons should relate to them not third parties. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reworded sentence

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See my above comments, re: whitewashing to remove the importance and notability of the statement. Raul654 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

(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)

The current wording is clear, and it doesn't go beyond the references. She signed the DI petition. We explain what the petition is. We don't assert that Picard is a supporter of ID; it seems likely that she is (read this history of this page), but we don't know.

At present the article states a notable fact about her, and adds context. Why is that a bad thing? Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, we're all for hagiographies, us. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The second sentence tells the reader about the petition, rather than stating uninformatively that she's signed some petition. The NYT describes her signing it in the context that "In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers. The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists." That's what the second sentence explains. .. dave souza, talk 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:SPADE. Odd nature (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Source

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)

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)

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)

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)

Be clear. The report says what the petition was, she had opportunity to distance herself from the petition and chose to give it tacit support. What her reasoning was is unknown, we can only report the facts. Note well that the petition does not oppose modern evolutionary theory, but it was used to oppose evolution. .. dave souza, talk 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Writings

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)

“ Imagine your robot entering the kitchen as you prepare breakfast for guests. The robot looks happy to see you and greets you with a cheery "Good morning." You mumble something it does not understand. It notices your face, vocal tone, smoke above the stove, and your slamming of a pot into the sink, and infers that you do not appear to be having a good morning. Immediately, it adjusts its internal state to "subdued," which has the effect of lowering its vocal pitch and amplitude settings, eliminating cheery behavioral displays, and suppressing unnecessary conversation. Suppose you exclaim, "Ow!!" yanking your hand from the hot stove, rushing to run your fingers under cold water, adding "I can't believe I ruined the sauce." While the robot's speech recognition may not have high confidence that it accurately recognized all of your words, its assessment of your affect and actions indicates a high probability that you are upset and maybe hurt. ”

Seems to be from Scholarpedia by R. Picard herself, and doesn't seem to be in the book at all. (I can see how you might get that wrong-ish). Can someone check where else it might occur? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue complaint

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)

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)

I am not even going to justify that with a response. Just be aware that the last person who tried to claim such nonsense was banned for their trouble. And I already warned you in detail about it. So...--Filll (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please feel free to be productive instead of violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF and a number of other principles. Cheers!--Filll (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

WP:BAIT again huh? As I said, actually being helpful would be nice.--Filll (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wording

Dave's version

She is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which has been used in campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.[19][20] In a 2007 interview she raised the idea of a "greater mind" making some intervention beyond random processes in the complexity of DNA, but expressed reservations about intelligent design, saying that people of faith should challenge it and be more skeptical.[21]

Current wording

Picard is one of 514 signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," a controversial petition which has been used to promote intelligent design by questioning modern evolutionary theory.[21][22] In a 2007 interview she raised the idea of a "greater mind" making some intervention beyond random processes in the complexity of DNA, but expressed reservations about intelligent design, saying that people of faith should challenge it and be more skeptical.[23]

I think Dave's version is superior for a number of reasons

1. Single-sentence paragraphs are generally bad form
2. Discredit evolution vs. question the modern synthesis - the DI's campaigns are verifiably more abot discrediting evolution than question the modern synthesis. "Darwinism" is, after all, Darwin's theory, not the modern synthesis. And what is being questioned there is some odd caricature of evolution, not the modern synthesis.

I'm still not sure why one sentence is better than the original wording (The petition, a two-sentence statement, has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of its supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools), since that avoids the problem of having to characterise the situation at all. In addition, of course, the whole issue of notability is lost - Picard's being a signatory of the petition is notable because (a) she's relatively prominent, and (b) she's a non-biologist.

So, um, why is this wording better again...? Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about the petition or its campaigns. There are entire other Wikipedia articles for those issues. The petition specifically says "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 "questioning modern evolutionary theory." That is what she signed on to. Whether or not she supports the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, is not known, and to attach that to her without evidence is guilt by association. FCYTravis (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The first clause of that sentence pertains to the modern sythesis; the latter clause goes directly to Darwin's original formulation. And, given that the next sentence refers specifically to "Darwinism" and that the petition itself is called a "Dissent from Darwinism", it's pretty clear they mean all of evolution. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Travis, can you explain how you are so certain about this? How is "random mutation and natural selection" the modern synthesis? If you equate "random mutation" with the cause of Darwin's "variation", you end up with something much closer to Darwin's formulation than modern evolutionary biology. It's beside the point whether Picard believes in teaching ID in schools - it's our job to say "this is the instrument she signed". It isn't about guilt by association, it's about providing coherent prose that is informative. Hiding the details of the petition behind a hyperlink changes nothing for a reader who clicks the link, but deprives the non-clicking reader of any clue what the "dissent from Darwinism" petition is about. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The irony here is that the petition itself is not technically "used to promote ID," but to clear the ground for such a promotion. Other campaigns of the DI promote ID specifically, this petition simply attempts to lend scientific credibility to the criticism of ID's competition--theories of evolution. These campaigns may attempt to do what people are claiming here but the petition itself, on its own, does not do so. A reading of the relevant wiki entries will make this abundantly clear. The desire to keep the disputed language in the entry seems more and more like an attempt at "guilt by association" especially since the association is twice removed ... person X signs petition Y which it turns out is used along with claim Z. We should not be insinuating that person X believes claim Z without some evidence, period.PelleSmith (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not to mention that the secondary source cited (NYT) does not support the text "which has been used in campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools". Nowhere does the NYT article say anything remotely like that. This is a disturbing lack of precision for a BLP on a minor figure, and we should be falling all over ourselves to be as careful as possible, not the opposite. - Merzbow (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

NYT – In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers. The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists.... The petition was started in 2001 by the institute, which champions intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and supports a "teach the controversy" approach, like the one scuttled by the state Board of Education in Ohio last week. . . dave souza, talk 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the NYT says the petition is being used as "proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists" and not that it is being used to champion intelligent design. The NYT times then seperately says that it the Institute "champions intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution and supports a 'teach the controversy' approach." Nowhere does the NYT state that the petition aims to promote ID or that the people who signed it support teaching it in schools. Those who support teaching ID in schools look to this petition for fodder. The relevant wiki entries on the campaigns and on the petition also make this pretty clear. I'm dumbfounded by the idea that not only are you misrepresenting the source yourselves but you have the gall to accuse others of violating policy when all they are doing is reading and comprehending the English language as it is meant to be understood.PelleSmith (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, you seem to have lost track of my statements and become a little mixed up. The DI aimed the petition at supporting ID and its use in schools, and the signatures have been used to that ende, but the petition itself is ambiguous and the aims of those signing it are unknown. I've made no accusations about anyone violating policy, and the NYT article should be read as a whole to be properly comprehended. .. dave souza, talk 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have been advised that purposely and repeatedly mispresenting the content of sources is grounds for administrative sanctions. Doing this just violates the basis on which the encyclopedia is built.--Filll (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You've made this threat to a number of long-term and good-faith editors on this talk page. It's time to either make good on the threat or stop using it as a content-advantage tactic. - Merzbow (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will thank you not to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and engage in WP:BAIT. I am trying to avoid any trouble here. Just relax. The source says what it says, ID is what it is, the DI is what it is, Picard signed the petition, and there is not much you can do about it, and Picard has now issued a statement partly distancing herself from ID and the DI agenda. So...that is how it goes. The more blustering and attacking you do, the more lying you do about the sources, the worse things will get. Just take it easy. You will edit longer.--Filll (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the institute being accused of this. I see nothing about the institute using the petition in campaigns for this purpose. - Merzbow (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a long time ID fan, I know you're not as clueless about this as you'd like us to think. Read Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns‎ and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Odd nature (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're accusing a stone-cold atheist of being an ID fan. That's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. Perhaps you'd like to check out my over 1000+ posts as "Merzbow42" over at the IIDB board (for example, [42])? - Merzbow (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read those entries Odd Nature. Nothing in those entries supports your crusade to tar this woman. No one arguing against you is a fan of ID either. What we are fans of is carefully reading and understanding sources, wikipedia entries and applicable guidelines. Some of us who think ID is a pretty ridiculous theory, also respect the rights of the human beings we write about here to actually commit the crimes we accuse them of before we do so accuse them or so insinuate about them.PelleSmith (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am amused that everyone who is taking a critical look at the way Picard is being portrayed here, is automatically tagged and tarred as an ID advocate. My father has a Ph.D in palaeontology from UC Berkeley. His research specialty was early primate evolution, and there's a long-extinct primate named after me. I am an avid reader of Pharyngula and think intelligent design is a pile of religious piffle intended to sneak fundamentalist Christianity in the back door of public schools. But that does not excuse us from our duty to treat Wikipedia articles about living persons with the utmost caution and consideration, so that we do not imply something which sources cannot support. If there's a source that says Picard is on the record as wanting ID in schools, fine, say it here. But if not, then removing that connotation is not "whitewashing" but simple fairness and accuracy. FCYTravis (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please spare us the personal rants and offtopic nonsense. They are irrelevant for this article. I don't care if you are an atheist or who your father is. This is all a waste of time and frankly outrageous to shove on this talk page. What does it have to do with writing an encyclopedia? If this continues, we will have to start archiving it or userfying it because it does not belong here. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is relevant, considering the accusations made. People are making false assertions about being "ID fans" and responding to that is neither off-topic nor a rant. One may not make an unfounded allegation and then cry "off-topic" when the people so tarred respond to refute the charges. FCYTravis (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? why on earth are you trying to pick a fight? Please relax.--Filll (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave's wording is better and makes sense. The other is incoherent and bad grammar. And the hair splitting and nonsense is just serving to obfuscate the issues.--Filll (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I hate to point this out to you Travis, but you're arguing for a passage that promotes a particular point of view. That the petition questions evolution is happening to used to promote intelligent design is itself a view. One which plays the Discovery Institute's hide the ID in the appearance of a legitimate but ultimately contrived dispute, read Teach the Controversy. Reliable sources and the facts show that the the ID/creationist text book Of Pandas and People came up with the notion and term of ID which was then picked up by the Discovery Institute which then founded the ID movement. The Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy set forth the aims and governing principles of the movement, and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is simply one the invidual Discovery Institute campaigns which seek to misrepresnt evolution as "a theory in crisis" subject to sweep doubt in the scientific community: [43][44] Portraying A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as anything other than what it is -a part of a campaign promoting ID- is to purpetuate the Discovery Institute's own PR rhetoric. Protraying it petition that questions evolution and just happens to be used by the DI (the source of both Dissent From Darwinism and the ID movement I remind you) demonstably violates NPOV's Undue Weight clause.

I've provided 2 sources above showing the Discovery Institute runs a cynical campaign of misinformation. I have literally dozens of sources showing the Dissent From Darwinism petition is an integral part of that campaign, and I'm more than happy to provide them all here over time and make it stick. Now we can spend a few days or weeks arguing over this or we can all acknowledge the verifiable fact that A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism promotes intelligent design by discounting evolution and move on to something more productive. It's your call Travis. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have dozens of reliable sources showing that the petition is an integral part of the campaign yet you decide to provide us with two sources that don't even mention the petition? No one is disputing the DI's aims, or how they use their petition, but this entry is NOT ABOUT THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, nor is it about their campaigns, nor is it about the petition. This entry is about a living person who cannot be shown verifiably to share the POV of the DI regarding the teaching of ID in schools. You cannot either claim that a document which has no reference to ID whatsoever promotes it. It is clearer than day that it is the DI that promotes ID and that they use their petition has fodder for this by attempting to cast doubt on "science" of evolution. But that still doesn't make the petition say something it doesn't, and it certainly doesn't make this living person say something she HASN'T. Doing so is a violation of BLP. Please address the issues instead of continuing this crusade.PelleSmith (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't about the DI. It's about Picard. Who is notable because she is (a) one of the more scientifically notable signatories of the petition, and (b) not a biologist (so why is she signing the petition? It doesn't relate to her work.) So we need to mention the petition. The average reader wouldn't know what the petition is, or why that info is on this page. So we explain the significance of the petition.

Why is that contentious? Aren't we supposed to be writing informative articles? Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That point has been answered time and again. Let me try once more. The actions of the DI are not pertinent to the biography of one of the petition signers unless there is a verifiable connection between this person and those actions. There is not, unless you are all hiding the reliable sources on us. To go on about how the DI uses this petition in campaigns to promote the teaching of ID in schools in the biography of someone who is on record as not supporting ID, even suggesting that people of "faith" question the theory, is nothing more than an attempt to smear this individual. Isn't it enough to clearly state that the petition is against evolutionary theory? What is this obsession with connecting everyone who signs it with Intelligent Design? This is insane.PelleSmith (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been answered? Can you please point to where it was answered? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right above you. if you squint sideways at the top of this page, and the light is good, you might get to see the title of this page. It says "Rosalind Picard". It does not say "Discovery Institute". This potty little signature is a tiny infinitesmal fraction of her notability except for those obsessed with this petty political debate. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? All I see is PelleSmith asserting that something is true, without any explanation. The only explanation that goes beyond an empty assertion is Travis' claim that his "plain reading" trumps sourced explanations. And that is patently ridiculous. Guettarda (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I have explained is that 1) the sources do not link Picard to the actions of the DI which means that 2) discussing those actions is guilt by association. How is that an empty assertion? You've heard the same thing from numerous other editors. Also Picard is not notable because she signed the petition ... that assertion is in fact totally narcissistic. The NYT piece establishes quite clearly by selecting her as an example in their piece that she is already notable. Now just because she only popped up on the radar of those fighting against ID publicity after the NYT so recognized her, does not mean that she was not already notable. The current entry should make it abundantly clear that your assertion is false. The fact that you continue to make it, even now after the entry has been built up with reliable sources, baffles all around.PelleSmith (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources link Picard to a petition and the petition to the Discovery Institute campaigns. Which is why the petition is even interesting in the first place, and her signature on it is even interesting. Is that so hard to understand? My goodness. This is not "guilt by association". You are acting as though signing this statement is something bad or evil or wrong or something to be ashamed of. You think that the Discovery Institute believes that? You think that creationists would claim that signing this petition makes you "guilty by association"? You think that intelligent design supporters would agree with your choice of words? You are making outrageous assertions and trying to state that appearing on this petition is something negative. On the contrary, I think it is something many are proud of it. You do not think Dembski is proud of his petition? What baffles all around is that a careful NPOV description of the facts, something that no longer violates WP:UNDUE (the previous complaint) still draws your ire. Why is that? Aw, I guess the problem was never really WP:UNDUE at all, was it? Nope, just some standard ID nonsense and whitewashing going on here folks. ---Filll (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS likes to argue "by fiat and fatwa". He just makes gratuitous declarations with no facts to back them up and no sources, in what appears to be a desperate attempt to whitewash the situation and to try to make the Discovery Institute look reasonable, completely buying into their propaganda. I am not surprised he does things by fatwa, considering his other editing interests.--Filll (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I find this remark slanderous and will ask that you retract it. I am a non-religious person who believes in evolutionary theory and who finds no merits in intelligent design or in the work of the DI. I have already explained this. As to your comments about "fatwa" and my other editing interests you are getting very close to crossing more than slanderous lines. If you can only resort to name calling and implying that those who don't agree with your egregious desire to violate BLP must of course be brainwashed propagandists then your usefulness in this discussion is more than done. The editors you are arguing against are not POV warriors who support ID. Quite the opposite I don't think any of us believe in ID. We are all here because this crosses lines of decency and violates BLP. Again I ask you to retract your latest personal attack. I find it offensive.PelleSmith (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I struck part of it. But tell me how I engaged in "name calling". Did I call you a "fatwa". Did I write "Wow there is PS, a big fatwa"? And I could care less what you believe frankly, except you are arguing for bad writing and obfuscation as near as I can tell. And did you know that making oblique legal threats like calling what I said "slander" is sufficient to have an administrative sanction levelled against you? And I have yet to understand how describing what this petition is "violates BLP" somehow. That is a load of hooey. And your arguments have been singularly uncompelling, over and over and over and over. But you do mix it in with plenty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to create variety I guess.--Filll (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the striking of reference to my other editing interests you didn't strike out the part about my "desperate attempt to ... make the Discovery Institute look reasonable, completely buying into their propaganda." I've said it before, but please do take this to some official channel. I'd love to hear what outside observers make of your accusations.PelleSmith (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I reworded it slightly. Maybe you are not buying into their propaganda and repeating their positions and those of Moulton. Maybe it only appears that you are doing so, or you are doing so inadvertantly. Maybe you are only effectively buying into their propaganda, but not literally doing so. Maybe some might call this being an "unwitting dupe". Ok fair enough. But nevertheless, this pattern of obfuscation and mispresentation is quite characteristic of some well-funded and well-organized entites involved in this discussion who are promoting certain views and engaging in propaganda. Ok?--Filll (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, you are missing the point. This person signed a petition in 2000 or so. Maybe she was duped into it. Maybe she was confused. Maybe she was just really really stupid. Maybe she was delusional. It does not matter. She signed. Now, for the last 8 years or so, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over this petition has been used again and again and again and again and again in a massive multimillion dollar campaign to declare that science is nonsense and scientists are evil and on and on and on and on and on and on. On radio and on television and in state legislatures and in congress and in books and in newspapers and in magazines and in movies and on the internet and in court rooms. This has been an immense attack with public relations firms involved. Did you miss it somehow? Well no one who has not been in a coma in the United States could have missed this. Several people who signed the petition and realized that they had been lied to had themselves removed from the list. Several people who had signed the petition and realized that the petition was being used in ways they disagreed with made public announcements when questioned about it that they thought the uses the petition was being put to were wrong and it was deceitful. Picard was questioned, repeatedly by the New York Times. Her answer? Nothing. We asked her over and over and over. Her answer? Nothing. Several others have asked her over the last few years. Her answer? Nothing. Finally last fall, in November, she has issued a statement half distancing herself from the goals of the petition. Ok, so we report that. And what exactly is your problem? We have things partly clarified now. What is wrong with that exactly?--Filll (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest mistakes that writers of hyperlinked documents make is assuming too much of the readers and letting them just click for clarification of all the unfamiliar terms and all the details. This is extremely poor writing. A reader who has to constantly click to understand a piece of text will quickly get lost in a series of links, and not be able to read the original document and absorb the material. Just because hyperlinks exist on Wikipedia does not excuse us from writing clearly and accurately in a self-contained, self-explanatory manner.

We do a terrible disservice to readers to demand that they have to look everything up. For one thing, many people's internet connections are not able to cope with these sorts of demands. Also, many people's attention spans are not able to deal with this sort of sloppy writing. Our articles should be readable and accessible.

This idea that we can bury all the material in links 2 or 3 or 4 levels deep, and to heck with the needs of the reader is just outrageous and abusive. And the impression I get here is that people want to adopt this incredibly sloppy bad style of writing on purpose, to obscure the nature of this petition. Perhaps they believe it is embarassing to Picard. Perhaps they have bought into the intelligent design movement's strategy of obfuscation, to obscure the fact that Intelligent Design is just a form of creationism, and is essentially an anti-science religious movement that aims to roll back science to its position before the scientific revolution.

It does not really matter why people want to write vague sloppy inaccessible documents with no explanation of the details, demanding that readers have to click and click and click and click over and over and over on all kinds of wikilinked terms to understand an article. The bottom line is, we should not be asking anyone to do this. It is lousy writing. It stinks. And we should not stand for it.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this coat is getting very heavy on my shoulders. Do you have anything for me to hang it on? That's it for me. Adios.PelleSmith (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess you are in favor of lousy writing then and incomprehensibility and illiteracy? Ah ok fair enough. Well dont let the door hit you...--Filll (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the biographies of living persons policy, we have no evidence to suggest that Picard endorses or supports its use to promote the teaching of ID in schools. The fact is, the petition, in its plain language, states that the signatories "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." It says nothing about intelligent design. What the Discovery Institute may or may not have used the petition to do, is irrelevant. There is no substantive "controversy" over evolution in the scientific community - which is why "Teach the Controversy" is bullshit. But there is no evidence that Picard supports this effort. She signed a statement saying she's skeptical of Darwinian evolution. I think she's flat wrong, but it's not a "crime against science" to say so. Nor may you use that fact as a coatrack to hang the DI's neo-Luddite ID-in-schools efforts on her, unless you have reliable sources saying that she endorses that. We may not make any inferences about her silence. That is prohibited original research and synthesis. It is a fact she has signed the statement. Anything beyond that is coatracking. This is not an article about the Discovery Institute and their campaign. This is an article about a living person who has done nothing more than affix her name to a two-line statement that says she questions evolution. Guilt by association is not acceptable in biographies of living persons. There are plenty of articles which make it clear what this is about. We are not going to turn every single biography of every single signatory into a rehash of the ID debate. That is right out. FCYTravis (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny that Teach the controversy exists? Why are you so frantic to deny readers any information about this "denialism" petition? One or two words describing what it is and what the Discovery Institute is are completely reasonable. And who said that Picard subscribed to all the Discovery Institute agenda? In fact, we now have sources that after 8 years, she has decided to distance herself, at least partly, from some of their agenda.--Filll (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

we have no evidence to suggest that Picard endorses or supports its use to promote the teaching of ID in schools

Irrelevant - it's our job to explain what the petition is. We can't just say "she signed X". Now go figure out for yourself what that is.

The fact is, the petition, in its plain language, states that the signatories "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." It says nothing about intelligent design.

So you have taken it upon yourself to replace reliable sources with your own opinion? Your own reading of the document should supplant sources? Nope - we have a policy which precludes that sort of behaviour.

What the Discovery Institute may or may not have used the petition to do, is irrelevant.

Again, nope. We work from sources not from "plain reading" that ignores context and reality.

There is no substantive "controversy" over evolution in the scientific community - which is why "Teach the Controversy" is bullshit. But there is no evidence that Picard supports this effort.

Interesting, but irrelevant to this article. It doesn't say that she does, and I don't think it ever has.

She signed a statement saying she's skeptical of Darwinian evolution. I think she's flat wrong, but it's not a "crime against science" to say so.

Again, this isn't about your opinion.

Nor may you use that fact as a coatrack to hang the DI's neo-Luddite ID-in-schools efforts on her, unless you have reliable sources saying that she endorses that.

The statements in the article are sourced.

That is prohibited original research and synthesis. It is a fact she has signed the statement. Anything beyond that is coatracking

I'm really not sure what article you're talking about. Surely not this one?

This is not an article about the Discovery Institute and their campaign. This is an article about a living person who has done nothing more than affix her name to a two-line statement that says she questions evolution. Guilt by association is not acceptable in biographies of living persons. There are plenty of articles which make it clear what this is about. We are not going to turn every single biography of every single signatory into a rehash of the ID debate. That is right out.

We need to provide context. She signed this petition. The average reader would say "what's that?" If we want to write a good article, it's our job to explain what things are. You seem rather worked up against ID. Perhaps your dislike for them has clouded your judgment. The article you are describing isn't the one we have written. Please calm down, and take a second look at the article. The one you seem so upset about doesn't resemble the one we have here. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about your opinion either. She signed a petition saying that she is "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." You may not use that statement to make any further inferences about her beliefs and her opinion of intelligent design. This article is about her, not the so-called petition. If you want to go on and on about the petition, there's a perfectly good article you can use to explain the different views of what the petition means. We do not need to create guilt by association by explaining it in detail here. FCYTravis (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Look - you can't replace sourced content with your "plain reading". More importantly, why are you removing sourced opinion from the article? Do stop. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you are dead set against using any description of the petition other than your own. That's OR, but I suppose you are too worked up to see that. But I really can't figure out why you have chosen to replace Petricevic's take on Picard's opinion with your own. Really, when you find yourself in the position where your own opinion trumps those of articles about Picard, you really need to take a deep breath, stop, have a drink - something to step away from the computer for at least a few minutes. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions of what the DI does with the petition are not "descriptions of the petition." Can you please explain why you keep on making this claim about providing an explanation of what the "petition is" when you are actually providing an explanation of "what the petition is ... used for." Also I challenge you to show where in the NYT article or any other that actually connects Picard to the petition it is implied that she has anything to do with "what the petition is used for."PelleSmith (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways to describe the petition. I could describe it as a file on a computer, which would be completely accurate, but not useful. I could describe it as a list of words, which would be completely accurate, but not useful. I could describe it as a list of names, which again is completely accurate, but not useful. None of these sorts of "descriptions" are wrong, but they are worthless to the reader. You are arguing in favor of a completely worthless but accurate description that serves the needs of those who use this petition for propaganda, which is its most accurate description. Why are you so anxious to buy into the agenda of those who created the propaganda? Do you really think that describes the petition best? --Filll (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't yet explained why we need to explain what the petition is. So far I have heard no explanation for that except Raul's "what if someone prints the article out?" which is argument on par with all his others on this page, viz. pretty useless. I have reworded it, and unless in the next 12 hours a good reason is provided, I shall remove it. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really?[45], [46], [47], [48]. For someone who seems to prefer condescending remarks to actually addressing the underlying question[49], you seem pretty unwilling to take your own advice and, you know, actually read what people said. Guettarda (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it quite clear that all those were pretty poor arguments. I addressed (1) specifically, (2) has been answered already in that explanation is problematic when it becomes caricature, (3) and (4) are based on the demonstrably false premise that Picard's notability rests on this petty petition. Next time take your own advice on taking my advice and don't just read what you have written, read the replies.

Our job isn't to provide "context" that is a coatrack for "look at this horrible creationist." Our job is to say "she signed this petition, which some people, most of whom are apparently on Wikipedia, think is a big deal." --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that our job isn't to provide context, or it isn't to provide context to people who you think are horrible? No matter how much you dislike her, you need to set your opinions aside. In the last year or so, I can't recall anyone saying "look at this horrible creationist". Quite frankly, I don't think anyone has even called her a creationist. Read what the article says, not what you imagine it saying. Guettarda (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny.

To clarify: Our job isn't to provide additional material to articles that is purportedly for context but works instead to coatrack in negative opinion not directly addressed at the bio subject in reliable sources. (And as for the rest, as far as I am concerned ID=creationist. I imagine thats true for you as well.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Our job is not to explain the information in our articles clearly? My that is new to me. I thought we were writing an encyclopedia here. And I could care less about what you believe about ID and creationism. Me thinketh you do protesteth too much, especially as I have seen the kind of weak cases here and elsewhere you have tried to make over and over and over and over against all reason and consensus.--Filll (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, someone's upset and sputtering. Never mind. What you need to focus on is whether this supposed context is directly linked to Picard. If not, it doesn't belong, since this petition is not relevant to her notability, except I suppose to the sort of person who uses Wikipedia for political activism, of which sort I am sure we have none round here.

Thanks for the lack of caring about my opinion, btw. That doesn't affect how I edit. You might want to give that approach a try, its what we expect from our good editors. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't pat yourself on the back too much. This is all your own fantasy. I am not upset. And I guess you just have a problem with reading sources. That undercuts the entire point of an encyclopedia, to misrepresent what a source says. And I am not the one engaged in activism and broadcasting my personal beliefs over and over and over. I am not the person making the outrageous claims over and over and over against policy and consensus. And I would not take anything from you as definitive about what a "good" editor should do; you are not the arbiter of what is "good editing" here, or had you not noticed that?--Filll (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear fellow, I wasn't patting myself on the back, I was making excuses for you by saying that you must be upset. Still, if you wish to make those excuses redundant...

I agree misrepresenting sources is a major problem. Can you point to which sources are being misrepresented?

Sorry, which personal beliefs am I broadcasting over and over? I only ever have made two claims to personal belief in my time here, and both were to you, weeks apart. Oh, except for the bit where I confess to a CoI because I've written a creationist textbook and my children will starve if the article on Picard doesn't recommend that schools in Georgia use it to teach biology. (Now that is an outrageous claim.) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<ri>So, apart from (a) good writing style, and (b) not requiring people on slow connections to click through every time they come across an unfamiliar concept...apart from, you know, trying to write something that someone could actually read and understand, yes, there's the added point that if someone printed off the article they'd have no clue what was going on...apart from trying to write something that's useful to the reader, I can't see any reason to include that sentence. Nor can I, of course, see any reason to produce an encyclopaedia at all. So after you discard "usefulness" from the list of reasons for producing an encyclopaedia, what's left? The MMORPG aspect of Wikipedia? I'll pass on that one, and stick to the idea of trying to produce articles that are useful to readers. Since without readers, we really do have no reason to be here. Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If they don't have a clue, that means the petition perhaps isn't notable at all... are you suggesting we delete it? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that seriously what you take away from what I had to say? You really think that we should delete content from articles that the average user would be unaware of? Guettarda (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an argument that has parity with yours in nuance, which is why I made it. WP is supposed to be both useful and not indiscriminate. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is certainly more balanced than it was a few days ago, with the addition of her own, actual, views on the subject. Technically, it still needs another source that specifically says DI is using the petition for its campaign, like this one, which should be copied over. We can disagree on whether the NYT cite says this, but I can't see an objection to making it clear by adding another source. - Merzbow (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that I don't think any of us ever questioned how the DI was using the petition. The problem is that editors here are falsely suggesting that the NYT not only named Picard as a signer, but also implicated her in some larger scheme, like the one practiced by the DI. That is simply false. Either those making this argument are so inundated by the larger literature that they cannot divorce it from the NYT article or what is known about Picard, or they are being consciously disingenuous with the "that's what the sources say" argument. That is not what the only source listing Picard says ... not one iota. I think an explanation is in order. I've answered this claim several times above, when text from the NYT has been quoted, and not surprisingly the trail ends with my answer, then hours later miles down the discussion it pops up again with accusations that we want to twist the sources around. Hogwash. The source says nothing of the sort. It only says the woman signed a petition.PelleSmith (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash yourself. The source sets out the implications and use of the petition, and notes that Picard signed it. Five years after signing it, she was still giving it de facto suppoort, almost two years later she issued the disclaimer. We note the essential facts, concisely letting the reader know what it's all about without having to follow links and without drawing any conclusions beyond the sources. ..dave souza, talk 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OR and you know it. You don't have a source that claims that "five years after signing it, she was still giving it de facto support." The inferences you draw from the fact that, as far as you know, she has never distanced herself from the petition are, however reasonable they may seem, not relevant here. I don't doubt that this woman believes something very akin to ID, and the interview with her clearly articulates this, but again, the issue here is that we DO NOT attribute beliefs to living persons that we cannot source. Please explain to me what is so evil about trying to keep an entry inline with that idea.PelleSmith (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The OR part is only relevant in the article. Was that in the article? Somehow I missed that. We know much more than is in the article of course. Including other published statements of Picard that I alluded to that support ID. What you seem to forget is that she signed the petition about 2000. Several years later the NYT contacted her for comment. Over and over and over and over. She refused to clarify her comment. We have the emails from the NYT reporter describing this. We had numerous conversations with Picard and her associates asking for a statement to clarify the position since her associates were frantic to reword this article. Although statements were promised, nothing was forthcoming. So I think we can take that as evidence of something. I would not suggest it go in the article, but it is something we know. As always happens in writing these articles; the editors know far more than appears in the article. Is that a problem for you?--Filll (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If these facts relating to your own research activities and inferences do not relate to the entry then I suggest you stop bringing them up. They have been brought in to justify what is in the entry, which is no better. Nice try to confuse the issue, but your independent research and conclusions about someone's beliefs and motivations does not justify the "guilt by association" approach you take anymore than they belong literally in the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Our job here is to provide information in a succinct and accessible form. The sources say a woman signed a petition. The reason she appeared in the NYT is she signed a very unusual petition for someone in her position. A singularly unusual petition. What makes it so interesting that the NYT would even write about it? Well that is what makes it newsworthy. And that is what makes it notable for Wikipedia, isnt it?

Look on the front page there are lists of awards she has won. About 90 percent of those are meaningless and should probably be removed, because they are not interesting and not notable and we have no context for understanding them in the article. It reads like a CV, and that is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be.

You would have us state that this woman appeared in the NYT for something that she did that was surprising given who she is, but we cannot tell you why it was surprising and why the NYT wrote about her and what it was that she did, aside from putting her name on a list. We cannot tell you more about the list or why the list is interesting to the NYT.

People who wanted to make your sorts of arguments months ago tried to argue that the NYT was not a good source, or that we should include a paragraph or two about what a piece of incompetent disreputable $#%^& the NYT is. They wanted to call this "good online journalistic ethics". You want to call what we are doing "twisting the sources". Amounts to about the same. Nonsense.--Filll (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. So aside from Relato's string of rude and insulting comments, and Travis' declaration that his OR trumps sourced statements, is there any reason that we should not explain the petition? Quite simply, if there's a BLP problem with explaining the statement, there's a BLP problem with including the fact that she signed the statement. But we have have a rock solid source that discusses her signing the statement. So obviously - we include the fact that she signed the statement. Which means that, unless we have abandoned the idea that we are supposed to supply information to readers, we explain what the heck we're talking about. I have yet to see someone come up with a coherent reason why we don't explain things we refer to in articles. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My string of... wha-? Examples?

I'll let FCYT defend himself.

We don't "explain" things in the way you mean, ever. We provide context and link an article. That's it. We particularly try and avoid little caricatures of political hot-button issues. Well, when I say "we".... --Relata refero (disp.) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda -- while I've disagreed with other users here (like Travis) I think their participation has been, on the whole, a good thing. The same is not true of Relata, whose participation here has consisted mostly of insulting other editors and divorced-from-reality claims about both the merits of the petition and its effects. Raul654 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlike your participation, which first claimed that this person was not notable for anything except the petition and then said we regularly keep articles on people notable only for one thing? (Oh, and asking for a citation for the statement that the NYT focuses more on politics than science.) Right.

If you have specific diffs to cite about my involvement do so, otherwise discuss the article, please. Or answer any of the many questions. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand by all my above statements - she is notable for one thing (signing the petition), we do have articles on people notable for just one thing (and I named two classes of those articles - one-hit-wonder musicians and internet memes), and yes, I did ask for a citation for your ludicrious claim that "The bar for inclusion in the NYT in terms of participation in a hot-button dispute is considerably lower than otherwise". I notice you still haven't provided one.

As for you, you have been rude and insulting since the moment you got here, and I for one have just about had my fill:

• "You have a point here, perhaps? "
• "If you feel like stating four irrelevant things before breakfast who am I to stop you?"
• "Sad that you haven't moved on from that...."
• "Right above you. if you squint sideways at the top of this page, and the light is good, you might get to see the title of this page."
• "which is argument on par with all his others on this page, viz. pretty useless."
• "Next time take your own advice on taking my advice and don't just read what you have written, read the replies."
• "Right, does any of that impact the article? Otherwise this isn't a forum, so perhaps you could just remove it, unless its meant to be light comic relief."
• "Oh dear, someone's upset and sputtering."
• "You might want to give that approach a try, its what we expect from our good editors."
• "My dear fellow, I wasn't patting myself on the back, I was making excuses for you by saying that you must be upset. Still, if you wish to make those excuses redundant"
• "It is unfortunate that Picard has not spoken to you, but I begin to see a glimmering of what might have warned her not to."

You will be civil on this page, or I will block you myself. Is this clear? Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Boy, are you completely and utterly out of line with this. You have, to start off with, no business threatening to block someone with whom you are involved in a disagreement, as per plenty of recent discussion. More on that later.

• "You have a point here, perhaps?" is neither rude nor insulting when quoted completely: "Are you unaware that the political pages of the NYT are largely irrelevant to an academic's career?", which is a direct response to the pseudo-statistic you quoted.
• "If you feel like stating four irrelevant things before breakfast who am I to stop you?" follows a description of why the four things are irrelevant, and in response to a statement that said "wants to edit war and generally march around in high dudgeon here". It is also humourous, and an attempt to defuse tension with reference to a children's classic.
• "Sad that you haven't moved on from that...." is a direct response to (a) "Better educate yourself before you commit another faux pas" and (b) a claim that I haven't moved on from "that". Yet I am uncivil?
• "Right above you. if you squint sideways at the top of this page, and the light is good, you might get to see the title of this page." Again, the entire statement reads ".. this page. It says "Rosalind Picard". It does not say "Discovery Institute". This potty little signature is a tiny infinitesmal fraction of her notability except for those obsessed with this petty political debate." Explain to me how you think that is rude rather than just something you disagree with.
• "which is argument on par with all his others on this page, viz. pretty useless." Sorry, this one was directed at you. Yet I understand that current interpretation of incivility regulations do not mean that we extend our respect for editors to respect for their arguments. Has this changed?
• "Right, does any of that impact the article? Otherwise this isn't a forum, so perhaps you could just remove it, unless its meant to be light comic relief" is a pretty mild response to being accused of being disingenous or an "intellectual cousin" of Ben Stein, wouldn't you say?
• "Upset and sputtering" - wow. That was actually the mildest possible response to a claim that I was a creationist POV-pusher: "Me thinketh you do protesteth too much, especially as I have seen the kind of weak cases here and elsewhere you have tried to make over and over and over and over against all reason and consensus." especially as I continues "... Never mind. What you need to focus on.." and resume discussing the article, something which the other person wasn't doing.
• "You might want to give that approach a try, its what we expect from our good editors." I have nothing to say. I don't have to assume every editor is a good editor, only that they edit in good faith. I definitely don't have to assume that when invective is being hurled at me.
• "My dear fellow, I wasn't patting myself on the back, I was making excuses for you by saying that you must be upset. Still, if you wish to make those excuses redundant" - you're not even trying now. What on earth is rude about that?
• "It is unfortunate that Picard has not spoken to you, but I begin to see a glimmering of what might have warned her not to" is again, remarkably mild.

To sum up: you have little or no case that any one of those above statements meets the standards set out in Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.

You also seem to have forgotten that you aren't supposed to block someone with whom you are disagreeing over content; and the recent responses to blocks of MONGO and Giano should have amply demonstrated that the community has no tolerance for those who block people for incivility in response to perceived incivility directed at them - or in response to a direct request from an admin who has been the target of that perceived incivility.

Please don't repeat this threat, or I will escalate this to AN/I, something I never do. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul, your enjoinder to be civil would carry a little more weight if you applied such requests more evenly. While I wish Relata had done a little less wise-cracking in the middle of a heated debate, there was certainly an abundance of incivility on the other side of the argument. We all have our biases, so please consider how yours might be affecting you in this case. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that was at the heart of the BLP issue to begin with. This is not an article about the petition, it is an article about Picard. We should say Picard signed the petition, but there's no need to go into the long history of the petition here rather than on the article that is devoted to it. The version of the article yesterday morning was a textbook example of WP:COATRACK. The present version is significantly improved in my opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am totally mystified about why people want to continue to fight about this. About 10 months ago, we removed a copyright violation. People claimed we had an WP:UNDUE problem. Ok now that is fixed. People claimed Picard did not mean to sign the petition so we had a WP:BLP problem. So we asked for clarification and we now have it. So what is the problem? Why are people so frantic to continue to fight unless there really is something else driving this? --Filll (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Affective computing?

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)

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)

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

What on earth is your problem? Have you seen what a lousy article that is?--Filll (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

So get yourself an account and fix it. Make sure you include a more accurate history about how the Japanese were doing affective computing years and years and years before Picard.--Filll (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Question

Being WP:BOLD with perhaps a touch of WP:IAR, I've archived this thread speedily with no action.

'Twould drama generate

and mountains of hate

consuming the kilobytes endless,

all indexed by Google

to boggle your noodle.

So this is one time when more is less.

- Original doggerel by Durova; GDFL licensed (if anybody cares)

Let's give this a month's breather and reopen if anyone still sees a need. Durova^Charge! 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Archived without action?

Will that gain traction?

So far it's hard to tell;

But archived now it is

All part of the Wiki biz

Though the author may wish us to go to hell.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious

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)

Right, does any of that impact the article? Otherwise this isn't a forum, so perhaps you could just remove it, unless its meant to be light comic relief. (I don't get paid by the Discovery Institute unless I get results both on the article page and on the talkpage.)--Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Filll past arguments are not apropos to the current discussion. Please attribute the accusations that so unattributed only function to erect a straw man.

1. Who has argued that Picard "had been tricked into signing a blank petition?"
2. Who has argued that "ID is reasonable and one should be proud of supporting it?"
3. Who has argued that the "New York times never reported that she signed?"
4. Who has argued that "no sources describe the petition as being part of the Discovery Institute campaigns against evolution?"
5. Who has argued that "the petition is not used as an attack on evolution?"

Who are your interlocutors here Filll? A phantom army of the ghosts of editors past? I see none of these arguments made by any of the editors arguing here. Please attribute these accusations, or admit that they are not actually directed towards anyone presently arguing against you. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, there have undoubtedly been problems in the past. However, there have been great improvements to the article generally in the last couple of days. I think everyone's agreed that the petition issue has to be covered properly, and at least there's no longer any question of it taking up a dispropotionately large part of the article. .. dave souza, talk 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling it a "whitewash" was the signing a bad thing? I just see an article about a LIVING human being that centered around ONE EVENT in her life and practicly ridiculed that, changed into an article that shows the accomplishments of this LIVING human being and highlights her achievements (the article on which you have shredded but hey alls fair it seems) and mentions the part about her signing (which seems oh so important to you) in passing, where it should be. The Wikipedia BLP's would be a WHOLE LOT better off if people remembered that they are writing about LIVING PEOPLE. Just because you disagree with someones statements doesn't mean you have to go to war against them o.O 195.216.82.210 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Answered where? Misrepresentation where? -- from the well-known meatpuppet and proxy for a banned editor Relata refero (disp.) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

All in good time. There is no rush, is there? And perhaps by this simple friendly caution, people will come to their senses and start to act sensibly instead.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [50] 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)

ROFL. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You believe that is following WP:AGF? Well I can see where your heads are at. Go ahead, you are characterizing yourself in a very interesting light. Don't let me stop you.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

KTC, don't think you are anonymous. And you should be ashamed of yourself.--Filll (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

And what threat is that? KTC parades himself around making outrageous statements on the internet. It is pretty much public knowledge. And yes the statements he makes are about this article and relevant to this article. A little investigation reveals a lot.--Filll (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

All in good time. I just believe that we should give people plenty of warning and lots of second and third and fourth chances, but if they continue, then we give them the rope to hang themselves. Do you not think we should try very hard to keep our fellow editors out of trouble?--Filll (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

With all due respect, I reserve the right to defend myself from repeated personal attacks. If it escalates further, I will move it to their talk pages, and to assorted noticeboards etc.--Filll (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome your efforts, sir. Please take this to ANI, please. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The method recommended by 4 out 5 dramamongers. Odd nature (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll am I to understand this statement to mean that the mounting evidence of proxy editing that you will deal with in due time refers to me personally? Please put up or shut up. You've accused everyone who doesn't agree with you of violating basic policy directed towards etiquette and now you're insinuating left and right that these people may in fact be violating some more serious policies by editing for banned editors. Please do consider this a personal attack, the one that took you over the line, and bring this to AN/I already. We will all benefit from some administrative scrutiny of your edits here. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed, there is already plenty of administrative scrutiny of this situation. And guess what? They do not appear to agree with your arguments. Oh well. And in addition, I will decline to accept the WP:BAIT.--Filll (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Whatever.--Filll (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article writing basics

The article lead says:

Picard is the author of Affective Computing, a text-book that describes the importance of recognizing human emotions to the relationships between people and the possible effects this recognition would have on robots

First we make a statement

Picard is the author of Affective Computing

Then we explain what it is

a text-book that describes the importance of recognizing human emotions to the relationships between people and the possible effects this recognition would have on robots

We would do that even if we had an article about the book. That's because we explain statements after we make them. According to Relato, we should delete this because people don't know about it. According to Travis, we should delete this because is isn't it based on third-party sources and it's attributing all sorts of crazy beliefs to the poor woman. Oh, and Travis and Relato would see this as a coatrack upon which we are using to try to create and attack on the woman's beliefs about robots.

Yes, this is all ridiculous. As is the venom with which a hundred new editors have descended on this article to fight for this person that they keep making horrible statements about. If you hate Picard with the fury you keep expressing, maybe you're too personally invested in this article. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The fatal flaw in this argument is that we can source that statement about the book from the book itself. Attempts to do this with the petition have been overrided by you and others. In order to "explain" the petition, you claim, we must explain how the DI uses the petition. That is not akin to describing the contents of a book, but akin to explaining how the book is used by others. A description of the petition's contents would only amount to the statement about it being critical of Darwinism. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Relato, we should delete this because people don't know about it.

Relata. And that is not what I have said. Please do read the section you're misquoting again. (Also, where did either I or FCYT or anyone else say you were misquoting her beliefs about robots? This is getting surreal.)

What I and FCYT both claim is that discussion of the petition in this article is inappropriate. That's all. Others have claimed variously that it provides essential context or it provides information and thus cannot be removed (!!). Those are the only sets of arguments here that are at all relevant.

About your particular example above, may I point out that any summary of the book in a reliable source would directly link the subject of the book to the author? And the difference between that and the use of the petition should be obvious? --Relata refero (disp.) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda appears to make a very compelling argument. Ok Relata refero, since no one knows about Picard, lets just AfD this mess. Seems like the same sort of reasoning. --Filll (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Another key difference is that there is another article on the petition, but not another article on the textbook. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that if there were an article on the textbook that sentence should just read

Picard is the author of Affective Computing

Guettarda (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Strikes me as a singularly poor writing style. Nevertheless, that is what is being argued for.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Guetarda, yes, that's the general idea; perhaps a one-clause description of the book could be included :But we are not that sparse with the description of the petition. The article currently says:

"Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed[21] "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition circulated by the Discovery Institute that questions evolution and is used by the institute to promote intelligent design."

So we do have a description of the petition in the article at the moment. Do you think that more description is needed, given that there is an entire article on the petition? If so, what would you like to see added? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we have a brief description, although I think it could be better. But the dispute began with Krimpet's deletion of the entire description, and most of the voluminous comments by the anti- side above appear to be saying that we shouldn't have any description (Relata), or that we should not have any description beyond what can be gleaned from a "plain reading" of the petition (Travis; of course that's nonsense, since replacing the description provided by a secondary source with your own reading of a primary source is OR). So what I am trying to do is to establish that we should have a description of the document. We need to establish that baseline first. Once that's established, then we can move on to the second problem of what the description should say. Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we have to have a brief description. The only question is whether we have one that repeats the DI's own rhetoric (obviously not) or one that simply states the aim of the petition. Currently the article repeats the DI's rhetoric. Odd nature (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way does it do this? The current language is

"Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition circulated by the Discovery Institute that questions evolution and is used by the institute to promote intelligent design."

In contrast, the previous language was

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers, out of 514 scientists and engineers, whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". The petition, a two-sentence statement, has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of its supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

I think the newer language does a better job of not implicitly associating Picard with the DI merely by virtue of her signing the petition. For example, the original version leaves the question whether Picard is one of the "supporters" open. Also, Picard is not responsible for how the petition is used, the Discovery Institute is; but the older language seems to implicitly tie her to its use. The other quotes by Picard in the newer version also help to convey Picard's position in her own words. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that issue is a bit less important now that we have the language from the Windsor Record in which she distances herself from the ID movement even while expressing opinions which are similar to theirs. (Which makes sense - it's one thing to believe that "some things are too complex to have evolved", it's quite another to say "we can prove that scientifically". The first is an entirely reasonable belief. The second is at odds with reality.) Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having a good source for her opinion (like her own words) makes a tremendous difference. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As much controversy that has been generated by this article...

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)

Thanks. Although many are extremely angry about the progress, clearly. Oh well.--Filll (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I try. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't notice. Odd nature (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

Things have been very heated for a few days at this article. Google does index talk pages, unfortunately, and I'm concerned that some of the commentary here is indecorous. Let's remember that this is a living person's biography. Suggest a judicious early archiving of some of these threads, and/or implementing expandable box format. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those walking in the footsteps of the banned user Moulton, we wouldn't be enjoying this fine conversation. Moulton's been recruiting meat puppets for this article for months at WikipediaReview culminating in several large threads over the last 2 weeks and I have the diffs to prove it. Now in 24 hours we've had a wave of disruption from editors totally new to this article. Any of these who are active in the discussions at WR are simply acting on the behalf of a banned user, IOW, meat puppetry. I wonder if I'll see any names there I recognize from here? Odd nature (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think Durova is talking about the comments about Picard. Some of the comments about her (whether serious or sarcastic) are pretty indecorous. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with you on your assessment of the situation. Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, increased scrutiny on a living person's biography from established editors and admins is not considered "disruption." Your repeated references to WR are nothing more than a red herring. This biography is broken, in the opinion of many established editors and admins. That this happens to coincide with the views of some WR members is neither here nor there. FCYTravis (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, there were two big complaints (1) WP:UNDUE after we removed the material that violated copyright. and (2) WP:BLP because we did not have a direct statement from Picard on intelligent design. We have remedied both of these two problems. BOTH OF THEM. And yet, there is still vicious fighting and claims "it is broken" and so on, instead of realizing that we have addressed the two major problems. Very unfortunate. And creates an awful impression.--Filll (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has had contact with Moulton, both before and after his block, I consider the meatpuppet allegations absolutely false. While he has consistently been upset with the past status of Picard's and Tour's articles (I do not know what he thinks of the current versions), he has not stooped to suggesting specific edits to me, and I find it unlikely that he would. Asking for others to look at problems with an article is perfectly legitimate, just as it is legitimate for them to make edits based on their own judgment after being asked.

Moulton is not Amorrow. His behavior was the major issue behind his block, not the content of his edits. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to assign blame, just pointing out the effect of Google indexing. We're all human and when things get heated few of us are at our best. Suggest the editors at this talk page prioritize the early archving of threads by this metric: put yourselves in Professor Picard's shoes, and if you suppose she would be unsettled by a thread - and the thread isn't contributing to encyclopedic progress - then move toward swift archiving by mutual agreement. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If she's going to be dancing with a controversial and polemic PR campaign like the Discovery Institute's, she's going to need better shoes. And to expect controversy. Odd nature (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems to be a sense of self-righteousness amongst those producing the possibly unsettling language. No matter what you believe this type of attitude is a problem.PelleSmith (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think most of this should be archived. It is essentially pointless and I do not know what people are still arguing about, given that the WP:BLP problem has been addressed by including her statement and the WP:UNDUE problem has been addressed by including more material on her career. In other words, the main sources of complaint for 10 months or so have been resolved. This is over people. Nothing to see here.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can actually agree with this. Time for us all to declare both victory and defeat and go home. - Merzbow (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Durova: as I have said recently on wp-en-l, I am an aggressive courtesy blanker, and will like to do so here unless someone views that as whitewashing something. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. FCYTravis (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A what? aggressive courtesy blanker. What in the world does that mean? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 05:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Jimbo [51] and to Morven [52]. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are we?

Trying to stay on track, there are two issues here as I see it

1. Should the article explain the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (or do we just leave bald statements and expect people to click through), and
2. If we can agree to 1, how should be describe the petition.

There are other issues, but these are the two main ones. So - does anyone still maintain that we should include a bald statement that she signed the petition with no explanation of what the petition says? Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that there is general agreement on the following points:

• The article should say that Picard signed the petition, and reference the NYTimes article.
• The article should include at least one clause describing the petition, and link to the main article on the petition.

Areas of disagreement include the amount of depth and detail in the discussion of the petition, and how the petition is characterized. I agree it's better to start with areas of agreement and work from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with CBM's statement. Also with Guettarda in so much as I believe the "explanation" should only consist of one very succinct descriptor of the actual petition.PelleSmith (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So do I. This was my most recent edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep to both Guettarda and CBM. Odd nature (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is very encouraging. Now we can starting thinking about actual phrasing. Guettarda (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Next question - does anyone have a problem with my renaming the section "Religion and science"? I thought "Faith" was too nebulous, and missed the point that this was about the interaction between her religious beliefs (I don't like "faith", it's too ambiguous), her research and her views of science. "Religion and science"? "Faith"? "Hair colour"? Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion and science is OK with me - that's an accurate descriptor. FCYTravis (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, religion and science is the best one I've heard yet but I remain open.PelleSmith (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better than Faith. Works for me. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think Guettarda has it about right.--Filll (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

very short

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)

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)

I support KillerChihuahua's version and point. Odd nature (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

KC's point stands as valid: we must explain, not simply connect. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

"Nuanced"? Oh come on. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As I stated above, it is good writing style to make our articles self-contained, so something like what KC is suggesting is probably better.--Filll (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The current wording, as suggested by Travis, is in fact the most faithful to the entry A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, which states:

• This list is published in a document together with an introductory statement claiming that its signatories dispute assertions that evolution fully explains the complexity of life and that all known scientific evidence supports evolution. Dissent From Darwinism is one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by creating the impression that evolution lacks broad scientific support. The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint.

This entry also makes the nuanced distinction which is essential, between what the petition states and what the Discovery institute is doing with the signed petition. Those who think the other wording stating that the petition "promotes ID" is more faithful please have a look at the full entry.PelleSmith (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue I am concerned with is that, if we say the petition supports ID, we imply that Picard supports ID, something that is contradicted by Picard's own words quotes lower in the paragraph. Her quotes imply to me that she is skeptical of both evolution and ID. On the other hand, saying she signed a petition which someone else uses to promote ID doesn't imply she supports that use of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Verification Needed

Can we please have a source that verifies the "fact" that the petition itself "promotes ID?" It seems that the only hitch here now is between two propositions: 1) That the language should say that the petition itself promotes ID and 2) that the language should clarify that the DI uses the petition to promote ID. The factuality of the second proposition is not disputed, so I think those who support the first as more accurate or otherwise preferable to the undisputed fact that the DI does so use the petition should come up with some verification.PelleSmith (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this, another hoop for us to jump through, shifting goal posts or just raising the bar for us again? Read the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism article, it's covered there in depth. Your doubts here are a non-issue again. Odd nature (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's simply an attempt to make sure the article doesn't insinuate something that isn't true. I strongly believe the second option is the better wording. The petition itself does not support ID, but has been used to do so. As I stated over at James Tour, we know that Tour and Picard were not intending to promote ID by signing the petition, based on their own statements. Using the first wording implies that they were, which is clearly false. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε}

No, the people who created the petition and promote the petition and maintain the petition are doing so. And they have created an instrument to try to confuse and mislead the unwary into signing, even if they disagree. And this is covered in depth at A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, including some interesting links in which it is explored even further. Interestingly, we have had a variety of intelligent design supporters and other creationists who have edit warred to try to remove that part of the article, since they do not like the insinuation that the petition is vague on purpose and many people have been tricked into signing it, or when surveyed later renounced intelligent design. They want to believe that there are secretly huge numbers of scientists that secretly agree with THEM. Maybe a majority...yeah right...--Filll (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is one source or reference. As it stands the primary source does not support the specific wording in proposition 1 but has no conflict with proposition 2. One reference. With something that is covered in this amount of depth it should be no problem to get one source for. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I'm not completely sure what you are saying "No" to, as it appears we are in agreement. The petition itself does not support ID, though it has been used for that cause. Correct? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal view, which disagrees with some sources, is that the petition is written so vaguely that every single scientifically literate person, would agree with it. Even people vilified as the Devil incarnate like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. It says there is a problem with something it calls "Darwinism". And this petition has been used for many purposes, including attacking evolution and promoting ID.--Filll (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just relax. We have them. They will be presented when we are good and ready. There is no rush here. The article is locked. And you have any doubt that such sources exist? Please....--Filll (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We are trying to iron this out now so the time to present them (or at the very least one of them) is now. Are you just teasing us or is there some reason not to present one source at the very least?PelleSmith (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope lots of sources exist of course. You can easily find them yourself if you want. I will not present any until it is time however.--Filll (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want us to assume that there is no source that supports the statement that "the petition supports ID?" Again, we all know that the petition was created by an institution that supports ID and that this institution uses this petition in campaigns to promote ID ... neither of those ideas are contested. We are trying to move on here and to determine how it is appropriate to mention ID, if at all. With all of the bickering that has taken place here over the last two days, please, for the sake of collegiality either give a source or tell is there is none so that we can move on. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they exist. How many times do I have to say this? Do you doubt this is true? Do you not think you could find sources yourself? There is no rush.--Filll (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me that it is improbable that such a source exists. I think the best course of action at this point is to say that until a source appears we need to not use language that claims that the petition itself promotes ID. Innocent until proven guilty. Of course when a source arrives this may change. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If editors know it is true then it is common knowledge. QuackGuru 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope that was meant in jest.PelleSmith (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this argument may be over a misunderstanding. Filll, didn't you just comment that the petition is vague, possibly intentionally so? Wouldn't that make us all in agreement, that the petition itself does not support ID, even if it has been used to do so by DI? That would mean that the argument isn't over what the facts support, but what is the best wording. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One would think so, but my understanding is that Filll and others want to claim that the petition itself promotes ID. He has also many times now said he has sources. These sources remain a mystery to us all.PelleSmith (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's your source, straight from the horse's mouth, Bruce Chapman President of the Discovery Institute writing to the New York Times:}}

"Contrary to "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker", more scientists than ever support intelligent design and criticize Darwinism. ... the number of scientists who have signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwin" list has now passed 470."

Here we have the president of the Discovery Institute stating using the petition to promote ID in the New York Times. Time to move along now folks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice ellipses. This source does not say that the petition promotes ID at all. Here is the entire letter to editor Felonious is quoting selectively from:

"Contrary to "Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker" (Week in Review, Dec. 4), more scientists than ever support intelligent design and criticize Darwinism. A recent European conference on intelligent design - held in Prague and ignored by The Times - attracted 700 attendees, and featured leading scientists from Britain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the United States.

At home, recent articles in The Wall Street Journal and Knight Ridder papers have described intelligent-design scientists at major universities (including Iowa State, the University of Minnesota and the University of Georgia). One National Public Radio story alone featured 18 intelligent-design scientists, though most "would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs." There is far more support, indeed, than appears on the surface.

Meanwhile, the number of scientists who have signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent From Darwin" list has now passed 470.

Yes, there is strong, organized opposition to intelligent design, but that is nothing new. To my knowledge, none of the critics quoted in your article supported the theory in the past. So their opposition now is hardly a surprise."

This letter does not claim the petition promotes ID. Please explain to what you meant to show us here.PelleSmith (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? How does your claim Chapman is not using the list to support ID stack up against this source then? Here in it's FAQ on ID, "Top Questions", the Discovery Institute says "Challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design" followed in the very next paragraph by "Are there established scholars in the scientific community who challenge Darwinian evolution on a scientific basis? Yes. Various tenets of Darwinian evolution, and the evidence put forth to support it, has been scientifically challenged by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. Over 300 scientists have signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwin statement since it originated in 2001." It then goes on to say "Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution."

BTW, I'm not going to be playing the "does not say exactly promotes" game here. I can see where some may want to, but there's no requirement in WP:V, [{WP:RS]] or WP:NPOV that says articles must cite sources verbatim, while there are several guidelines that encourage summarizing sources. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but you just quoted the following (emphasis added): "Challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." So in what you quote we have two different things here 1) Challenges to Darwinian evolution and 2) Intelligent design. You go on to show how the petition clearly promotes the first aspect, which again, you have established as being "not the same" as the second. How does that prove your point?PelleSmith (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In case you were unaware the major point of contention left here revolves around insinuating that those who signed the petition must support ID. We all agree that those who signed the petition support "challenges to Darwinian evolution," yet many of us don't like the language that makes claims that the "petition promotes intelligent design," since this would imply that those who signed it did. The petition says nothing about ID, and we are still waiting for an external source that says it does. The source you have provided makes a strong case against the claim that the petition promotes ID.PelleSmith (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already provided here two primary sources showing the institute using the list to promote ID. Here's a third: Here Discovery Institute founder and president Bruce Chapman writes "The public hasn't been told most of what I have just described. Many in the media typically define ID as a proposition that "life is so complex it must have been the product of a supernatural power." But that mixes a scientific proposition with its philosophical implications. ID scientists don't do that. Media also typically greet reports of evolutionary success with uncritical acclaim,while growing scientific dissent from Darwinism (more than 700 scientists have signed a "Dissent from Darwin" statement16) and production of peer-reviewed science publications by pro-ID scientists are ignored. Even a federal judge in Pennsylvania copied a false American Civil Liberties Union and Darwinist canard that there are no such peer-reviewed publications friendly to ID." Thje only question here is whether the "petition promotes intelligent design", and Chapman, DI founder and president certainly thinks it does. Whether the signatorees think it does is a non sequitur. And provision has already been made for including Picard's view on that, so let's stick to the issue. To that end, time to move along. This is all starting to smack of POV obstructionism. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute - you just argued that the DI isn't an acceptable source for the statement that the petition does not equal an endorsement of intelligent design. And yet now you are asking us to accept the DI as a source when it fits your agenda? The logic is tortured at best, fatally flawed at worst. If it's an impossibly POV source for one thing, then it's still going to be an impossibly POV source for another. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what FM said? "[T]wo primary sources showing the institute using the list". 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. Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are trying to say that the DI is "using the list" to this aim then there is no disagreement. The verification asked for above was for the other claim that the list itself supports ID. Perhaps there is some confusion here. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

KC's version: Putting it all together...

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)

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)

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)

"...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What are you panicking about? This article might stay locked for weeks, or months, the way things look. Why are you in such a rush?--Filll (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New Source emerges - case closed?

Thanks to FeloniusMonk we have a new source from the Discovery Institute which explicitly differentiates between "challenges to Darwinian evolution" and "proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design." Here is what the Discovery Institute has to say in answer to the question, "What is the difference between a scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution and the theory of intelligent design?":

Challenges to Darwinian evolution are not the same as proposed solutions, such as the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution include unresolved debates amongst scientists over issues such as the peppered moth, the myth of human gill slits, Haeackel's embryos, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution address problems for which adequate solutions have not been presented.

The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.

The institute then goes on to answer the question "What is the 'Dissent from Darwin' list?"

Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Now whatever their usage of this list may be in other campaigns, this source makes a pretty incontrovertible point that the list itself does not "promote intelligent design," but instead promotes "challenges to Darwinian evolution." Right from the horses mouth. Can it get any clearer? Can we drop this language now and stick with the current version?PelleSmith (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is deja vu. These so called "arguments" (and pseudoscience is based on arguing rather than anything like scientific method). These so called 600 scientists have few, if any, natural scientists of even minor note amongst the signees. It's anti-science, it's pseudoscience, and your wordsmithing is just trying to keep the POV as if these non-scientists really do something scientific. They don't. They promote ID, that's the only reason they exist. So, your tendentious editing notwithstanding, the case is clear as crystal to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to be relying on the strategic statements of a partisan group conducting the PR campaign as the definitive source of whether their list supports their claim. Maybe you find their promotional rhetoric conclusive, but we've been dealing with ID for a long time and am more circumspect than that. Particularly since the ruling of a federal court in Kitzmiller found that ID proponents support their assertion by misrepresentation [53] the DI remains a reliable source only as a primary source of what the DI says, never of what something is. For that we rely upon secondary sources and any primary sources which happen to support the secondary ones.

What you propose is for this article to present a view based upon a highly partisan and biased source as outlined at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources. Your suggestion turns Wikipedia verifiablity policy on it's head and will never fly. I should be surprised you thought it would, but your suggestion fits the allegation made elsewhere that you're promoting a particular view. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Felonius you brought this source here to prove a point. When the source didn't support your point you now claim that the person who has pointed this out has an agenda. Spare me. My only agenda is not implying things about a living person that are not supported by sources, including this one, quite clearly. Thanks again for bringing the source in, but lets be clear that you in fact brought this source to this talk page. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then stop asking us to accept the DI as a source elsewhere. This is the height of disingenuity - citing the DI when the source agrees with your agenda and dismissing it when it doesn't. Hilarious. Or at least it would be if this wasn't a biography of a living person. FCYTravis (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source, except for their own opinion. And when that opinion corroborates what everyone else says, then they are a useful corroborating source. But on one of the central fictions of their campaign, when they contradict reliable sources, then they really aren't. It's like any other talking point - just because they are talking points doesn't mean they are false. But neither are they reliable unless they are supported by other sources. Guettarda (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I get it. You all are willing to do anything it takes to make it look like Rosalind Picard endorses intelligent design, when we have no source saying that she does. That includes selective use of sources when they fit your agenda and dismissal of the same source when it does not. It also includes willful dismissal and denial of the plain language of the petition in favor of subjective interpretations of what the language may or may not mean to different people and groups.

We have the undisputed fact that Picard signed a petition saying 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. There is no language anywhere in that petition which makes reference to intelligent design. Subjective interpretations of that language do not belong in the biography of the person who signed it. We do not and cannot (absent a statement from her) know what her position is on intelligent design. We know that others have used the petition to promote intelligent design - therefore I have no objection to saying that the DI has used the petition for such. We do not have any sources that say she has done so. Thus, to imply in her biography that by signing the petition, she "promotes intelligent design" is unfair, unsupported and untenable. FCYTravis (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like using Mein Kampf to expose the thoughts of Hitler without giving them credence? (Yeah, Godwin's law, blah, blah). The DI is a good source for explaining what the DI wants to spew, but not a good source for what is science. It's really no more complicated than that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 06:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy said it better than I ever could: I would remind people that our legal counsel is now Mike Godwin, so violating Godwin's Law in the context of debate on talk pages is now self-referential as well as unbelievably lame. Good grief. FCYTravis (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, right. Whatever you say. Really. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 07:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Sparky, who created the list and for what purpose? (Not like we all haven't been through this conversation before). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You're talking about speculating as to her motives and inferring them based on the motives of the petition's creators. That's impermissible original research. FCYTravis (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)BTW, your argument is like saying Ben Franklin really didn't support separating from England, he just signed the Declaration of Independence on a whim and then wrote more copies of Poor Richard's Almanack in real life. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 06:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me that we have sources which verify that the esteemed Mr. Franklin did a little bit more for the Revolutionary War effort than simply signing a piece of paper. Just a hunch.

Furthermore, your analogy is quite broken, because the Declaration of Independence is a clear-cut statement of... well, declaring independence. By contrast, the petition says absolutely nothing about intelligent design and hence does not in any way link Picard with support for intelligent design. It links her with being a skeptic of evolution. Those are not synonyms. FCYTravis (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Odi stultos. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 07:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because its in Latin doesn't mean its not rude. Dura lex sed lex. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on one's definition of rude I s'pose -- I don't see a statement of fact as bering rude. But, that's just me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a plain statement of fact isn't rude, its the implication that its applicable here that is.... :) --Relata refero (disp.) 11:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And I think well-meaning people are so hell-bent on taking down the Discovery Institute's crackpottery that they can't see the glaring signs in the road that say "Stop, you're taking this way too far. Enough already." Sorry I couldn't fit that into a cute little two-word Latin phrase, but oh well. FCYTravis (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed one hundred percent. Discovery Institute = crackpottery, but this is taking it too far.PelleSmith (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire discussion has veered into irrelevancy. We all agree that the DI is using the petition to promote intelligent design. As FM said, "I've already provided here two primary sources showing the institute using the list to promote ID". If that's agreed upon, then why the objection to saying in the article "petition is used by the DI to promote ID" instead of "petition promotes ID"? In almost any context but that of a BLP, this semantic difference would not really be that important. But the BLP issue is that "she signed a petition which promotes ID" very strongly implies that Picard knew she was promoting ID when she signed it. From her future, sourced, statements, we know she is skeptical of ID. If we can just agree on "petition is used to promote" instead of "petition promotes", then the issue goes away. - Merzbow (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So we change reality to suit one person? Uh, no. If what Merzbow says is true, use that, don't try to change the scope of the petition. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Change reality? The reason why I reproduced this source after Felonius brought it in is because it very clearly shows that even from the DI's perspective equating 1) the dissent from Darwin with 2) the positive support for ID is not a given forgone conclusion. I don't see how the source is unreliable for the statement of this opinion. I also don't see how this opinion is irrelevant here when people are hellbent on claiming the opposite ... that declaring "dissent from Darwin" amounts to support for ID ... and are hellbent on justifying this claim through the intentions of the DI. Now again we all agree, even without sources, that the DI is using the petition to promote ID. Why are some still fighting tooth and nail to state that the petition itself supports ID? I have yet to understand how that amounts to "reality."PelleSmith (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. So you'll change it cross-WP? Good luck, given that it either supports ID or creationism. You decide. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like dishonestly cherry picking sources is there? Well what else would you expect from those who like to quote mine?--Filll (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I did not bring the source here, FeloniusMonk did. I don't really appreciate the various inferences drawn about me from the false notion that I brought this source into the discussion. How about from now on when you make a statement about me you provide evidence of what you are saying. Please either provide diffs that support my "quote mining" or retract your statement. The same goes for any such statements in the future. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You can try to spin it however you like. I think the evidence is clear.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Scylla and Charybdis &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No one needs to change anything across WP. In most cases there is no explanation at all of the petition, only a link saying someone signed it. The fact that the main entry opens with the statement that it "is a petition promoting intelligent design" is perhaps not ideal given what we know, but at least the text of the entry explains the situation in more detail and subtlety. Why is it that no one supporting this claim can source it? We've been told repeatedly that it is sourceable clearly but no one wants to provide a source. Please consider Travis' advice. The Discovery Institute promotes an untenable theory and engages in crackpottery, but this takes it too far. We are talking about the Biography of a Living Person and not the Discovery Institute.PelleSmith (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In most cases ... So where is the dissent from most cases? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"In most cases" means in all cases where this list is linked in the text of a BLP ... Go to Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and start clicking. I will copy here the wording used for the BLPs in which the petition is mentioned in the entry itself so you get an idea (Note that a vast majority only provide a category at the bottom and make no mention in the main entry):

1. D'Abrera is listed as a signatory on the petition known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a campaign begun in 2001 by the Discovery Institute.
2. Robinson is also a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory".
3. [Henry F. Schaefer] is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement, and the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, and a signer of the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution letter, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
4. Sewell is signatory to the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
5. Philip S. Skell is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
6. [Richard Sternberg] is also a signatory to the Discovery Institute's Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition.
7. Tour is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," a controversial petition that has been used to promote intelligent design by questioning evolution.

As you can see in no other BLP do we claim that the "petition promotes intelligent design." The closest to this entry is that of James Tour, and even there it says that the petition "has been used to promote intelligent design." So where exactly do I have to run around changing things?PelleSmith (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We do NOT source Wikipedia with Wikipedia. Or didn't you know that?--Filll (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And where did I suggest doing that? The above only goes to disprove the notion put forth above it that if we use the current language as opposed to the "petition promotes intelligent design" there is no need to go around all of WP making similar changes, because in fact all other BLPs already do this. You know very well what this was answering and that I'm not suggesting it as a source for anything.PelleSmith (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Then of course you know that by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we do not care and this is irrelevant.--Filll (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see in no other BLP do we claim that the "petition promotes intelligent design." That's easy enough to fix. Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Duh of course we can source it. And we can source it in an honest NPOV way. And if we do as PS suggests, we will take all the creationism and intelligent design articles in Wikipedia, about 500 of them, and turn them into religious tracts. Somehow I think that does not serve our readers or NPOV well. However, there is this place called Conservapedia I have heard about that you might be interested in... --Filll (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the most disingenuous argument I've ever heard. What about WP:V don't you understand? This whole discussion has gotten completely out of hand. This entry is not a "creationism and intelligent design article", it is the BLP who signed a petition. Get some perspective please. If my school district was trying to teach ID or was telling my kids that evolution is "just some theory" I would be fighting tooth and nail with anyone I could to get such hogwash obliterated. But that's not the case here. We're talking about a woman who signed a petition. Can we recognize the basic human right to be judged by one's own actions and not by the nefarious aims of some institute? This really is taking it too far.PelleSmith (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And we are talking about a petition produced by an institute. And that petition and its associated programs are viewed and characterized in a certain way by well over 99 percent of the experts in the relevant field. And you would prefer to present the institute's version, not the mainstream version. And we think that NPOV is the way to go, and the mainstream description is more reasonable, not the institute's version. You are the one arguing frantically to present the view of this institute.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What mainstream version? You have yet to produce any sources. Now one of your fellow agenda pushers brings in sources that are primary from the DI and/or its president and you conveniently dismiss them once it is clear that these sources don't promote what you want them to. I don't prefer taking the Discovery Institute's word for anything, but we lack any verification of the idea that the petition itself promotes Intelligent design, outside of your opinion of course. Please see WP:V and come up with some sources to support this "mainstream version."PelleSmith (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you in some kind of rush? Did you not notice the page is locked? Is this a matter of life and death? You think that such sources do not exist? Well if you believe that, you do not know this field very well I would say. By the way did you realize that " agenda pushers" probably violates WP:CIVIL, an offense for which you can be summarily sanctioned? Possibly blocked or banned? So just a word to the wise to clean up your language. --Filll (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Civility Patrol strikes again. According to you, it's a-OK for Jim62sch to call us fools, but if we call you agenda pushers, we'll get blocked. Well, no, sorry, as Jim62sch put it, "I don't see a statement of fact as bering rude." You're pushing your agenda here. That's a statement of fact. FCYTravis (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agenda? If that's what you call "trying to get an accurate article that conforms to policy". Sure. Are you saying that you have a problem with that agenda? Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My quick take

From what I have read about this petition and the users who signed it, it was not presented to them as it currently is to the public. I t was presented in a straight forward manner saying "Do you agree with this statement?" and either sign it or not. The way it has been used after the fact is the problem for many of the people who signed it (or they are backpedaling, who knows...). This is the crux of the current debate. Do we present the petition to the readers as it was presented to the person who signed it or as it is currently being presented? I would support the former. I know I have done things in the past that have been twisted to support someone else's agenda/cause even though the intent was not to be that. spryde | talk 11:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, like everything else in intelligent design, there are different ways to view it. We can describe the intelligent design petition as:

• intelligent design supporters view it
• as the Discovery Institute presents it
• as the scientific mainstream presents it
• as competing creationists describe it
• as the NCSE describes it
• as those who have announced they were "duped" into signing it describe it

and so on. If you disagree with WP:NPOV, then of course you will argue for weeks and months on end with how NPOV dictates how it is described. I suggest that we use NPOV, since, oh my gosh, this is Wikipedia! Or did we all forget that?--Filll (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That leaves the question of what the NPOV description would be. It looks to me that: the plain language of the text doesn't mention ID; that everyone here agrees ID supporters have used the petition as part of their argument in support of ID; and it is not clear that Picard intended to support ID by signing the petition. Do other people agree with those statements? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You and I have no idea why Picard signed the petition. All we have is a statement later in which she says she is skeptical of intelligent design, and her idea is X, where X is almost identical to intelligent design. But since you have joined in fighting world war III to promote the idea that we not assume why Picard signed, then why have you decided to change your mind? You cannot have it both ways; demanding that we assume what Picard meant when it suits you and a certain agenda, and then not assuming what Picard meant when that appears unsuitable. --Filll (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow - I didn't say I know why she signed it either. My viewpoint is that we shouldn't imply that she signed the petition to support ID unless we actually have a source that indicates her reasoning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to follow the plain language standard here, you will state that ID is science. If you follow the plain language standard here, you will state that ID has nothing to do with religion. If you follow the plain language standard here, you will state that intelligent design is not part of creationism. However, it turns out that the mainstream of the relevant field states that ID is not science, that ID is meant to promote religion and in fact is a strategy to try to trick the US judicial system by hiding sort of the existence of God in the language of the "theory" (nudge hudge wink wink), that intelligent design is just warmed over creationism and is essentially indistinguishable from creationism as presented in private to its "base" of fundamentalist biblical literalists when they are trying to raise money. We do not follow the "plain language" standard here. We follow the NPOV standard. Perhaps you have heard of it?--Filll (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, the Discovery Institute is founded on the idea that they can redefine what science is, redefine what biology is, redefine what religion is, redefine a huge range of things. To them, ID is science, and evolution is not. To them, magic must be included as a cause in science. To them, ID is not creationism. And so on.

If we blindly and slavishly just take the Discovery Institute's word for it, we would be producing religious tracts here. But we are Wikipedia, and we do not do that. If you want religious tracts, you can go to Conservapedia or any number of other wikis with that orientation. We are different. Deal with it.--Filll (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the DI relevant here? This article is about Picard, not the DI. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the DI relevant here? Well you want to follow the "plain language" standard. Who do you think wrote that "plain language" that you want to use? The DI of course. So if you follow the "plain language" standard, you are just using the DI's interpretation and version and hermeneutics. But that is not NPOV, is it?--Filll (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't follow. I don't see that it matters how the DI interprets the petition; what matters is how Picard interpreted it, which we don't know. The petition itself doesn't say it is about ID, it just talks about evolution. What exac tly is the motivation for using the DI's interpretation here? Picard isn't a spokesperson for the DI or responsible for what they say. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well of course we can remove all explanatory material from this article, as Guettarda suggested. But then it would not be much of an article. Wikipedia is not a list of links. And if you go with the "plain language" you are going with the DI's interpretation, aren't you? And of course Picard is not a spokesperson for them. Who said she was?--Filll (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My concern, as before, is only that we don't imply that Picard takes the positions that the DI takes without evidence. In particular, I don't believe we know that she signed the petition in order to promote ID, and so I don't think the article should make statements which imply that was her purpose. If we say she "signed a petition which promotes ID", that does imply that she promotes (promoted) ID at that time, which we do not know to be accurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Duh.

Anyway, no one can know why anyone signed the petition, but, to be honest, it wasn't so abstrusely worded that ther could be any question what is was about. The choice I suggested above is really the only choice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was very clearly worded to refer to evolution, but didn't mention intelligent design. The natural conclusion is that it is possible for a person to sign the petition because they think more examination of evolution is worthwhile, without necessarily also supporting intelligent design. If the DI dupes people into misinterpreting what the petition actually says, the article on the petition can discuss that in depth. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So one asks what the NPOV description of the petition is? Well I think that should be pretty obvious to anyone who understands what Wikipedia is. What field is the petition purporting to be in? Well it purports to be a petition about scientific ideas and science, not about religion. It purports to be a petition about biology and evolution. So when there is a range of views about something, we present the views in proportion to their prominence in that field. Which field in this case? Evolutionary biology. What do evolutionary biologists feel about intelligent design and this petition? Over 99.9 percent of evolutionary biologists and every major scientific organization, covering literally millions of scientists reject intelligent design. So in NPOV, what is the view that is presented most prominently? It is the view of mainstream science and in particular mainstream evolutionary biology. And what is that view? It is that this petition is vague, but is an attack on evolution and a promotion of intelligent design. And are there sources? You bet. We presented some. And we will present more. Of course if you insist on taking a source that is presenting the minority position, like the Discovery Institute, you will be violating NPOV. So...--Filll (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources that say that the petition promotes intelligent design? A vast majority of scientists do think ID is bunk, and a vast majority of scientists also think that evolution is pretty right on. Where is the source that says that a majority of scientists think this petition promotes ID as opposed to simply criticizing evolution?PelleSmith (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you so desperate for? Is this some crisis that needs to resolved to save the world right this instant? What is your problem? Do you have ants in your pants?--Filll (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We'd like to work with you to reach a consensus compromise on this matter so that the article can be reopened for editing as soon as possible. It's obvious, however, that your group of agenda-pushers (statement of fact, as per Jim62sch) have no interest in doing so - your intent is to simply stonewall until we give up. Well, that's not going to happen. I propose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer. FCYTravis (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, it would be far more constructive if your plan was to talk and consider evidence rather than fight to replace sourced material with your OR like you insisted on doing earlier. Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When you stop twisting sources around upside down and backward to implicitly depict Picard as an ID supporter, we can come to some sort of an agreement. Until then, we've nothing to debate. FCYTravis (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well...I can't stop doing what I've never done. But thanks for your willingness to admit that you are replacing sourced material with your own opinion. At least your willingness to admit that you are violating policy is a start. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Next step - work to change your behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What source supports the wording that claims the petition itself "promotes intelligent design?" No such source exists. Please provide this source. we are all in favor of " ... and has been used to promote intelligent design." If the latter version is not being debated then lets stop this, if the former wording is sourced, then by all means give us the source. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some sort of problem? What are you so anxious about? Do you not think such sources exist? How many times do you have to be told, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that these sources exist and will be forthcoming? Just relax. You might live longer. You will definitely edit longer.--Filll (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we can work together - I'll stop violating WP:OR just as soon as you stop violating WP:BLP and smearing a living person. What say you, good sir? Shall we join hands and sing Kumbaya? FCYTravis (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagine if newspapers and the rest of the "media" had our goofy BLP system -- the news would be pretty dull, yes? @@ &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is a direct admission of violating WP:NOR. We do not know if Picard is or was an ID supporter. We do not know if Picard is not or was not an ID supporter. We have a statement from her, in November 2007 where she sort of half denies ID, and then states that she believes in X, where X is almost identical to ID. And that is what we quote. We do not state that Picard is an ID proponent. We do not state that Picard is an ID supporter. And you do not know if Picard is or is not an ID supporter. And we are not proposing that Picard be described as an ID supporter. All we know is that Picard signed a petition and remained on a petition produced by the organization that promotes ID, and invented ID, along with many other ID supporters. The petition is of course vague, and since you do not want to have too much detail in this article, we leave that discussion of its vagueness to the linked article. I am sure if we proposed putting that in this article, many would throw terrible tantrums about WP:UNDUE etc. But instead of just stating "This woman signed a petition you probably have never heard of created by a group you have never heard of and have no idea why it is relevant or why the New York Times wrote about it in a story but we wont tell you but you can click on these 5 links, and then 5 links more after that, and another 3 links after that, to find out maybe if you want but we wont tell you because we are Wikipedia the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and we dont want to be unfair nyah nyah so there", what we are proposing is just a few words from secondary sources describing what this petition was and why anyone cares.--Filll (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

She signed a petition that questioned evolution and has been used to promote ID. That's all we know. The rest is speculation, guilt by association and vagueries. You admit that the petition is vague. In the face of this vagueness, we cannot insert your favored interpretation into the biography of a living person. FCYTravis (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the place in Wikipedia policy which dictates I must produce these sources for you within some set period of time. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing what it was that people signed or why they signed it. That's very true. In Chang's article he mentions someone who signed it but says "a pox on both your houses" to both evolution and ID. (I don't understand what he really means, but that's beside the point). Anyone who signed it after it was published in 2001 should be assumed to know that what they were signing, although even there, some people did not understand the DI and it's mission until the Dover trial.

That said, if you read Picard's comments in The Record interview, she endorses what Sober called "mini-ID" (the idea that some aspects of the natural world are too complicated to have originated through natural processes). Despite this, she is distancing herself from ID and calling on Christians to offer more scrutiny. Since this was November 2007, it should be taken as a direct response to what went on here. She never mentioned the petition, she made no attempt to distance herself from the DI, never said "I don't approve of the way my signature was used", never said "I didn't know what I was signing". Of course this was an interview, not a press release, so there's the added filter of Petricevic, but in general we trust journalists not to screw things up too badly.

So - the way the original petition was presented to the first signers is unknowable. The language has some red flags that should have jumped out at anyone with a solid background in biology, but a lot of the people who signed it aren't biologists. So for most signatories it could not have been seen as a petition aimed at their peers - it was a political statement aimed at an "other". If I signed a petition about the problems I have with string theory, it would be as a lay person, my PhD in biology notwithstanding. It would be a political statement, not a statement from a peer or to a peer.

The NCSE approached signers for clarification. So did Chang and others. After the fact, when it was clear how the DI intended to use the petition (initially to attack the PBS series on Evolution, later to argue for Teach the Controversy, etc.), some people distanced themselves from what they had signed. Picard did not. She was approached by several people during and after Moulton's disruption here. Her only response appears to be what she said to The Record.

We have the facts. Picard signed an obviously political petition. The petition has been used by the DI in its campaigns. Picard has been asked to respond to the use of her name in that way, and her response was "we need to be more skeptical about ID". She has said she belongs to neither camp. But she did not say anything about the way her name is being used by the DI. The fact that she said nothing about the petition despite being asked about it strongly suggests that she has no problem with it. So regardless of what she knew beforehand, Picard has made no attempt to distance herself from the way the petition is being used. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We might not know all the details, but there are facts which we know. And not all of these facts will find their way to the article, but they certainly inform our thinking about the situation.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We do not know what her response to the petition is. Silence is not an admission of guilt, nor a defense. It's just silence. Therefore, we should avoid implying what her position regarding the petition is. She signed it, then it was used to promote ID.

I find it really odd that Filll and FM have both used the very wording that PS, Travis, and others are arguing for, yet still fight on for their version. This isn't a contest, is it really so hard to admit someone else might have the right idea? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

She signed it. It was used to attack evolution and promote Teach the Controversy (and other DI campaigns). She made no attempt to distance herself from it. Silence isn't consent, but in response to the question "do you support the way your name is being used" she replied "I don't want to be placed in either the ID or the evolution camp". She does not say "I don't like my name being used to support ID". There is a difference.

I'm not certain what PS is saying, but Travis is saying that we need to work from a "plain reading" of the petition, instead of what secondary sources say about it. I think that's what PS is arguing as well, but I'm not sure. To replace a secondary source with your own reading of a primary source is a violation of NOR. Guettarda (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOR: "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." AND "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."

What I am saying is simple. We can "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source," (e.g. the petition) unless we have a secondary source (which of course is preferable). With only a primary source, stating that the petition "questions evolution" is entirely fine since it is descriptive of the actual petition. It is also fine to state that the DI has "used the petition to promote intelligent design" since we have independent sources attesting to this. However, stating that the "petition promotes intelligent design" is not fine unless we have a secondary source that states this. If we don't this amounts to "original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." It is this secondary source that I keep on asking for and Filll keeps on teasing me about, claiming that of course it exists but he's gonna take his time to bring it into the discussion. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Some secondary sources have been produced. And more are to come, if people will not get so upset. My goodness. No rush here.--Filll (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't want to be placed in either the ID or the evolution camp." Good job, Guettarda. That is, right there, all we need. She had a chance to make an overt statement in favor of ID, and she did not. This closes the case. You cannot use this petition to make it look like she supports ID. The fact that she did not say what you think she should have said, is irrelevant. The direct quotation from the article subject refutes any claim that she intended to endorse ID. FCYTravis (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is trying to state that Picard supports ID. This is a complete strawman and just being used as an opportunity to continue this pointless fight.--Filll (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We aren't trying to use the petition to make it look like she supports ID. All I am interested in at this point is accurately describing the petition. Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, you say that "It was used to attack evolution and promote Teach the Controversy (and other DI campaigns)". This is very similar to the language FM and others here have use to describe the petition, and is trivially clear from the sources presented, but as I pointed out above, this is not the same as the language you appear to be advocating for the text. What's wrong with "petition is used to promote"? - Merzbow (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually at this point I am not advocating any language. I am trying to hash out broad ideas that underly the issue. I was working toward language when Kim, in his usual style, threw a spanner in the works. If we can hash out the underlying issues, then wording becomes just an issue of style. If the underlying issues aren't addressed, then we end up, inevitably, with another round of edit wars and arguments. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe things have gotten quite muddied, but it basically comes down to how to describe the petition. As has been said before, describing it as supporting ID suggests that Picard signed it intending to do so. I do not believe we have evidence to suggest that. However, we all agree that it has been used to support ID. Phrasing it that way does not make any implications as to what Picard may or may not have intended by signing the petition. Whether the petition "promotes ID" or "is used to promote ID" is the issue. I actually feel that Filll and FM have both stated the latter multiple times, so I haven't quite figured out what they are fighting for. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said this over and over and over on this page. But somehow, no one listens. Interesting. 10 months ago, there were two major complaints about this page. WP:UNDUE because a large volume of copyright-violating material had been removed. This has now been corrected. WP:BLP because we did not have a direct statement from Picard to include, although the New York Times had asked for one over and over and over, and we had asked for one over and over and over. This has now been corrected. So the two major complaints have been answered. However, the fighting continues. And why? Well as I said before, obviously something else is going on here. People have what they wanted, supposedly, but they still want to fight. Hmm...--Filll (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Filll, you have already agreed with "them" on this page multiple times. Why do you continue to fight? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only "them" I am agreeing with are those who want to have an NPOV article that follows the sources and does not violate copyright. I have been involved since I volunteered to fix this article at Moulton's request back in August and told him exactly what we needed (1) more content on her career that is not plagiarized and (2) a statement from Picard on her position. We have (1) and (2) now, and we also have a huge volume of people who have appeared out of noplace (I wonder why?...hmmm....) and for who (1) and (2) are not enough and in fact there is plenty of sabre rattling for far far far more. Well I will just try to make sure this article follows Wikipedia principles, following up on the task I have been doing since last August. Is that a problem?--Filll (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd for you to say that Moulton is your reason for being here, since you edited this article before he did. As for the other editors, I know a couple focus heavily on BLP issues, so were probably brought in by the BLP noticeboard posting. I've had the page watchlisted myself, though I was busy previously and didn't see the conflict until yesterday. Really, your unfounded insinuations are getting a bit silly. If you feel something untoward is going on, have some actual evidence and do something about it. Otherwise, quit the attempts to poison the well, as it's increasingly apparent to me that's all you are trying to do, as you just make excuses when asked for actual evidence. Logical fallacies do not become you.

The current issue is very specific. I just explained it quite simply above, I believe. The issue is whether or not we are going to use wording that implies something we don't seem to have any knowledge, much less proof, of. Is there something you don't understand? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The second epsilon (χαιρετε) should be an eta I think. Still, very cool. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll admit my Greek needs a lot of work, but I believe in this context the epsilon is correct. Ending in an eta might be necessary in the context of some sentences, but it's spelled that way when used as a salutation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, I'm not real sure on this one. I know that when pronounced it's got an eta sound, but ... Of course, I'm too lazy to get my Liddel-Scott out right now.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like making negative insinuations and taking a few liberties with the facts, is there? Let me try to address this latest unfounded attack:

• Odd for you to say that Moulton is your reason for being here, since you edited this article before he did.

Is that so? Well Moulton first edited this talk page [54] 3:07 August 23, 2007. Filll first edited this talk page [55] 4:08 August 23, 2007, 1 hour 1 minute later.

I called Moulton and spoke to him for several hours on the phone because of his pleading for assistance on that day. I still have the phone records for this. You should know this from reviewing the materials associated with the RfC, if you were being at all diligent before making such outrageous accusations.

I did clean up the main page considerably on August 8, 2007 [56]. But I have generally paid very little attention to this article's mainpage, and have edited it 7 times to date. Four of those edits were on August 8, 2007.

Moulton first edited the main page on August 22 at 00:52 [57].

I would never have paid more attention to this article except that Moulton asked for assistance. Even still, I have hardly edited the main page of the article at all. I have put huge efforts into trying to teach Moulton how to operate on Wikipedia, which he steadfastly rejected over and over and over.

• As for the other editors, I know a couple focus heavily on BLP issues, so were probably brought in by the BLP noticeboard posting. I've had the page watchlisted myself, though I was busy previously and didn't see the conflict until yesterday.

Who knows why they were brought in? There is evidence of all kinds of canvassing offwiki, but who knows?

• Really, your unfounded insinuations are getting a bit silly. If you feel something untoward is going on, have some actual evidence and do something about it.

As I said before, is there some sort of world crisis going on that depends on me acting faster? Please give it a rest. What is it to you?

• Otherwise, quit the attempts to poison the well, as it's increasingly apparent to me that's all you are trying to do, as you just make excuses when asked for actual evidence.

That is a vile offensive crock of nonsense. I am trying to get people to stop fighting frantically to engage in OR and make all kinds of assumptions that are at odds with our sources. I also have been bending over backwards to keep my fellow editors out of trouble. Is that a problem for you? Is it against policy? Then if I have violated policy, why not file an Arbcomm case against me?

• Logical fallacies do not become you.

Mind your own.

• The current issue is very specific. I just explained it quite simply above, I believe.

I see the tendentious twisting of logic. Yeah, real simple.

• The issue is whether or not we are going to use wording that implies something we don't seem to have any knowledge, much less proof, of.

We have a few facts and a few sources. And that is what we propose to base the article on. What is wrong with that? Does that offend you somehow? It must I guess.

• Is there something you don't understand?

I do not understand what you hope to gain by continually gaming the system like this.

Have a nice day.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing, etc.

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)

Incorrectly framed, in my opinion. Perhaps a response to Merzbow's of 07:14, 7 May 2008 might be more helpful. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Pellesmith's failure to understand policy

I've created this subheading for transparency.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be nice for you to actually review and understand WP:PSTS instead of just blindly repeating errors and misrepresentations. This is Wikipedia, and we follow certain policies. If you do not like those policies, there are many places that have different policies that you can consider. For example, have you considered:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
CreationWiki Research ID Wiki Conservapedia Iron Chariots Conservapedia Wikinfo

None of these have pesky problems like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and they have different standards for WP:RS and so on. Not every wiki is going to be to everyone's taste.--Filll (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think you should learn our policies first. I am not going to spoon feed you. And I think rather than removing links meant to suggest some helpful alternative to those of you that do not want to follow Wikipedia policies, the time is quickly approaching when we will have to userfy these repetitive WP:TE and WP:DE objections.--Filll (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So you did not know that WP:PSTS is part of WP:NOR policy? Well now you do.--Filll (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

So why abuse Wikipedia procedures on a "whim"? You know that violates WP:POINT, a sanctionable offense.--Filll (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Whatever. I think the policy is clear. We just have some people that want to ignore policy or invent their own.--Filll (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

We favor secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources. Primary sources are used, but sparingly and we use secondary and tertiary sources to interpret them.--Filll (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Relata I think I know what he's referring to. Please allow me to try my best to interpret PSTS since he is not willing to do so publicly. Here are some possibly relevant passages from PSTS with suggestions as to what they probably mean in this context:

1. "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." -- Perhaps he wants us to know that it is original research to claim that the source promotes something (intelligent design) that is not mentioned therein.
2. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." -- Here maybe he wants to bolster the above point by insisting that interpreting the primary source to mean something it does not explicitly state (e.g. that the source promotes intelligent design) requires a secondary source.
3. "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." -- I think this is more of the same. I believe he must feel strongly about those who claim that their secret and "specialist knowledge" enables them to see the source for more than its stated purpose.
4. "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." -- OK so he must feel very strongly about this. No way are we to make claims about what the petition promotes without a secondary source to back it up! Maybe this is a call for a secondary source to verify the claim "the petition promotes intelligent design." I mean it must be.

Relata that is the best I can do. I hope this helps. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well then it should be obvious if you just read the talk page. Obviously we have some arguing that we should go with "plain reading" of primary sources. And it should be obvious what that means in terms of policy.--Filll (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PSTS and OR

• 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?

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[58], for example. Guettarda (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Its all a matter of interpretation, as Guettarda points out. And different sources interpret it differently. The DI interprets things differently than the NCSE for example. And the NAS and the AAAS interpret this differently than Focus on the Family. And what is your rush? No one yet has told me what their rush is.--Filll (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So it is clearly anti-evolution?PelleSmith (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clever.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima works her magic

And yet the meaning is obscured

In a way that truly is so tragic

but by many is ignored

The truth she hides in a whitewash attic

Where other myths are stored

None of which’s held in high regard

When the alleg’d victim is Rose Picard. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To dance a dance, one must follow in turn
Iambic form, or will their partner go;
Stay with the beat or be you forced to yearn,
And crave after meaning! Will you say no?
Your form is brute, your words do only burn
Paltry readers, whose delicate minds so
Desiring beauty and all they will get
Is unpolished words saying only
- :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To dance a dance without stepping 'pon feet

To hear the song in their ears with a hum

That gathers long the imperial beat

That peasants hear as funereal drums

And yet as I in th'Imperial seat

Care not a whit for the bleating of bums

For they whine in tune to the sounds of night

Mistaking joy for their incessive plight.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To wash some whites, to bleach the rest,

Quietly now, or they shall hear;

The topic long past, that awful pest

Why ever would one keep it near?

A quicker pace, a turn thats best

And words that shall confuse a seer:

The topic we can soon ignore,

Because wasn't it just a bore?

- :) Ottava Rima (talk)

That topic past, today it burns,

That topic passed, in olden days

As truth t'all to whom hea'n yearned

The Primal dream of the godly gaze

Still they flock, hist'ry unlearned

to learn is naught but to be amased

By fairy tales and other dreams

Virtue engender'd is all it seems.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that whisper heard I come near

Messenger of that coming night?

Sweet death's little brother none fear

And few of him would ever fright,

But he of course can make it clear

To silence words with his soft might.

And as the moon beckons me so

I'm 'fraid that I must stop and go.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I must quit drinking the bong water. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A new day rises from the bong

Of life and its secrets beheld

'Til sweet death's brother comes along;

Was not by fear many were felled

But 'pon hearing the dirgy song

They curl up and die, bloodless wells

Nay I must stop, ‘tis misery

To speak of death on wiki-P. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Unbound

Of editors, partisans, and those

Of themselves only they care that I sing,

In times when issues not import, I suppose,

Take precedence over those who can bring

Great changes, just helpful; though we once chose

To make Verify and Civil our king,

But these great monarchs now apparent slain,

Leaving only Mischief and Discord reign.

And when editors continue their way,

Constant bicker and controversy stale,

I will tell things not attempted today:

The fight is pointless, the matter is pale,

(In compare with other pages I say)

So why join Frenzy, Whine, Complain and Rail?

By poor talents sufficient for the task

I will before all the matter unmask.

Most generous people (and those of less),

I beseech you to listen to my plea

And stop this redundant editing mess;

Thats all I want, all that ever can be,

Since circular fighting is all I see.

Does she matter, really? To you or me?

I think not. But she is a person, now,

And then why all of this struggle allow?

Simply I put, and simply it is now

To see that she is just a scientist,

But not, it seems, of research's sacred cow

A worshiper, of "fact" in its purest.

Instead she of faith and cynic allow

Doubt to exist; Really? Is this the gist?

A simple signature proves anything not

But causes problems, and thats what we got.

Stop your fighting, please go along your way!

One line, two lines, does it even matter?

What do you hope to prove now if you stay?

But of course, the attacks are to flatter

Opinions, this is clear as night and day.

Why not think of others, stop the clatter,

And go edit pages that dire need work

Instead of staying here to fight and lurk.

I tell you this (and I beseech you all!)

She doesn't matter, her import too low,

She can't harm to you bring, her power small,

Nor does she care of which way that you go

But only of her self and of how you call

Negative 'tention upon her page so;

Tis said, tis hurts, to be part of dispute

That seeks only to ruin one's repute.

Many are details left and details right

Fly around the page like mock angels warre,

Heavenly knights that are of Milton's sight,

And want to take this epic challenge more.

But does this prove your editing might

When in this page trapp'd by Drama's lure?

There is no reason found during this age

To claim such things ever increase a page.

But fight on ye will, oh how you care not!

So far, now, you continue on and on,

And, by you, shall this be poor Wiki's lot

To be cast aside for your egos fawn.

Are there none out there dismayed and distraught?

Oh Fate! Oh Fortune! Whichever you don,

Please free the abused from your horrid clutch.

How can my words really implore too much?

False warriors fight and rage upon the field,

Editing whatever they want and care

Without ever wanting to stop or yield

An inch of this ground that we all should share.

But Truth, though battered, away not yet sealed

Still guides us; sweet Beauty tries to prepare

A time and place when the fighting will stop,

When we will all be willing to co-op.

The time is soon here; the time has not past.

Now, lay down your arms and look at it clear

And witness the destruction that comes fast

From petty fighting. Don't you see? I fear

That few will realize, or come to at last,

There lacks a point. Wiki to us is dear,

So why don't we treat her well and show care

By stopping this fighting over split hair?

- Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was good - very good in fact. I don't necessarily mean that as an endorsement of the gist, but I'm quite impressed -- and I'm not easily impressed. In fact, it reminds me a bit of Byron's Don Juan. Very cool. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)