Talk:Rosalind Picard/Archive 2

Proposing some language

I think the comment Merzbow made pretty much describes what I was trying to get at - we will have a hard time trying to describe the petition. Taking the article by Skip Evans into account (and the Chang article), I think we can't really describe the petition - all we can do is describe how is it used.

Yesterday, before Kim disrupted the proceedings, I had written (but hadn't posted) this:

OK, now for the difficult bit: how do we phrase the statement about the petition (variable areas are in italic and bold italic

Current wording:

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

KC's proposal:

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.

My wording

Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition which was circulated by the Discovery Institute and used in their campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools

Dave's wording

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

RR's wording

Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition circulated by the Discovery Institute. The petition has subsequently been used by the institute to promote intelligent design

Ignoring the first part (which really isn't a substantive difference, IMO), we have

1. that questions evolution and is used by the institute to promote intelligent design. (current)
2. which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution. (KC)
3. and used in their campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. (me)
4. which has been used in campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. (Dave)
5. The petition has subsequently been used by the institute to promote intelligent design. (RR)

Since then, we've generated a few hundred k of text.

Working with those five versions, I decided to modify them to reflect the conversations we've been having. If we follow Evans and treat the petition as difficult to interpret, we need to strike the whole "questions evolution" bit. It may. Or it may not. We don't really know what people thought they were signing. We also don't know how the petition was presented by the DI, so I don't think we should make any strong statement on timeline. So I think we need to strike "subsequently". That adds a level of precision that we just don't have. While the DI is the driving force behind ID, the petition has been used more broadly by ID supporters (try googling the phrase). So rather than saying it was used by the DI, I think we should say that it was used by the ID movement. Finally, the issue of casting doubt on evolution is a real part of the issue. We can't say that the petition itself questions evolution (no one knows what it really says). Chang said 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. In other words, the way in which the petition is used is to cast doubt on the fact that evolution is universally accepted by the scientific community. KC said that already, so let's stick with her wording. Finally, let's keep thing simple - in the interest of brevity, we probably don't really need the word teaching...KC's version was ok without it.

1. that questions evolution and is used by the institute the intelligent design movement to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.
2. which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.
3. and used in their campaigns by the intelligent design movement to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
4. which has been used in campaigns by the intelligent design movement to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
5. The petition has subsequently been used by the institute by the intelligent design movement to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

Working from KC's version (since she's just so much cooler than any of the rest of us), we end up with: (drumroll)

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

Can we work with that? Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

@Guettarda: there were about 2 or 3 things I could have done that looked like they might work, and I picked one. Possibly I picked the wrong one, or possibly all the options I saw were wrong. Either way, the approach didn't have the intended effect. My apologies. I'm going to figure out why what I did failed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what went wrong. I posted a statement pushing for a particular state, when that point had actually just been reached by others. In my defense, there was so much text prior to that point that I was forced to speed read to catch up again (and the shift in consensus thus eluded me), but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility of having made the mistake. My apologies once again. I'll try to modify my methods so it won't happen again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it was fine. It wasn't as if I hadn't argued for that point already. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I think that looks very good.--Filll (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That version is fine with me; I don't see it as implying that Picard supports ID. I think it will fit well with the rest of the paragraph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. Sharp analysis. - Merzbow (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fine distillation of the issue which accurately describes the conflict without implying that Picard has taken any side in it. Well done. FCYTravis (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes this solves the issues presented by the absurd language of "the petition promotes intelligent design." Yes, no doubt in the world, and yes I support this version so that we can move on from this mess. Yet I can't help but feeling like I've been had. With the ease at which Filll et al accept this proposal it becomes abundantly clear that hours were wasted arguing over that other more radical construction, for naught. Why is that exactly? This new version only seems like a compromise in light of that other absurdity, but it really isn't much different from the original version that started this mess. The original language read: "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." The new language simply changes Discovery Institute into the more vague entity "intelligent design movement" and removes the specificity of the promoting of intelligent design "in schools." That said, is Picard part of "the intelligent design movement?" Did she consciously and/or unconsciously lend tacit support to what the movement is doing? These are all suggestions that continue to arise through what is still a "guilt by association approach," since it is clear to anyone with half a brain that those who signed the petition have "doubts about evolution" and we would now be claiming that "casting doubt on evolution" is the mechanism through which the ID movement is promoting intelligent design. The real difference between then and now, what actually tones down the guilt by association, comes from the surrounding information that we have from the newer source, in which Picard directly addresses intelligent design. The question remains however: Why do we need to comment on what the ID movement is using the petition for if Picard isn't known to be part of that movement? The answer given then was "context," but context is only important if it is meaningful to the task at hand, and how is this context meaningful to Picard's biography? In order to associate her with intelligent design, and perhaps even worse, with the "intelligent design movement?" The original questions and concerns have now been washed away in a sea of useless argumentation over nothing, but if you are OK with this new version at least realize that it hasn't changed much. If consensus forms around this version then so be it, and as I said at the outset this is infinitely better than that other absurdity, but I still feel had.PelleSmith (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think the "subsequently" in my version added useful, relevant information, but am pleased by the "used". --Relata refero (disp.) 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm blushing! Yes, your version works for me - lots of hard work there, Guettarda, which is much appreciated. I think we now have a version which works for everyone. Well done! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a useful analysis, Guettarda, and for a concise well worded basis, KC. Looking it over, the proposal does seem to give a good balance though it's disappointing that it doesn't mention the teaching issue which had been the centre of about a year of wide publicity and discussion by the time the NYT article came out. However, intelligent design proponents seem to be using this petition more generally so guess that's fair enough. Any inference from the juxtaposition of points is clearly there in the NYT article, and it's unsourced speculation (and original research) as to whether Picard signed the petition before or after it began being used by the DI for their purposes, or indeed why more than five years later her signature was still being used for that purpose without any evidence of protest, thus giving tacit support either intentionally or by default. The interview last November does help to clear that issue up, and the proposed wording in the context of describing that interview without giving the dates bends over backwards to give Picard the benefit of the doubt, which is probably for the best. Thanks again for the insight, we do seem to have been talking at cross purposes and that clears things up. .. dave souza, talk 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the wording of this is incredibly clumsy. If something is used to promote intelligent design, it is close to being a sine qua non that it is used by the intelligent design movement. The two things do not necessarily need stating separately. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources that support Guettarda's version

The intelligent design movement employs "doubting Darwinism", where Darwinism is used as a synonym for common descent and other features of evolution as a way to promote intelligent design. It does this by trying to present a dichotomy where one has to choose evolution or its alternative, intelligent design.

For example,

ID and creation science share the belief that the mainstream scientific discipline of evolution is largely incorrect. Both involve an intervening deity, but ID is more vague about what happened and when.

Indeed, ID proponents are tactically silent on an alternative to common descent. Teachers exhorted to teach ID, then, are left with little to teach other than "evolution didn't happen."[1]

and

ID creationists have no empirical data to support ID. Like earlier creationists, they have established a false dichotomy between evolution on one hand and ID on the other, betting that if they can sufficiently discredit evolution, ID will be seen by potential supporters as more credible by default.[2]

Newsweek on February 7, 2005 weighed in to state:

In fact, the Discovery Institute doesn’t call for teaching I.D. in school either, only the “controversy” over Darwinism. But most scientists don’t believe there is one. The institute’s “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” whose operative sentence reads “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” has been signed by about 350 scientists. (AAAS has 120,000 members.)[3]

So Teach the controversy is just one of the Discovery Institute methods of promoting their ideas. They try to create the impression there is a controversy, and present a choice between ID and evolution, which they try to cast doubt on. They do not promote ID directly by this technique. They only try to weaken the other alternative:

And, adding insult to injury, Newsweek didn’t go for reporting unopposed the DI’s favorite trick, their list of 300-some scientists (well, some of them aren’t scientists, and most of them aren’t biologists, but whatever) who signed the DI’s ultra-vague, non-ID-supporting statement.[4]

Even those on the "creationist" or "intelligent design" side agree that this "Dissent from Darwinism" petition is just meant to promote intelligent design by attacking "Darwinism", that is, evolution:

...These words of wisdom are found in a document called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which has been signed to date by 400 scientists from various scientific disciplines. Since Darwin's theory has been entrenched in the public arena, you would expect a controversy to arise when scientists disagree about its claims to explain life on Earth. A battle of Darwinian proportions is raging in the public arena, but not over the "evidence" for Darwinism. This battle is over whether Darwin's theory should be challenged at all. It is a battle for survival.

This war is being waged against what we know to be 'Intelligent Design'.[5]

Clearly, the purpose of the petition is to promote intelligent design by casting doubt on evolution. This is recognized by both critics, the mainstream media, and supporters of the intelligent design movement.--Filll (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't think it's NPOV enough. I think it could be made more neutral by saying the petition "questions evolutionary theory and promotes intelligent design" (although I'm still a bit queasy on the second part, it's still NPOV). The way it appears now makes me think:

1. Is questioning evolution and promotion of intelligent design the original intent of the petition?
2. If not, is what the petition is used for relevant to the article?

If question one is true, that would mean we don't need to say how it's used. If question one is false, then the description of the petition moves into minor coatracking territory, and may contradict the later statement about Picard's skepticism of both theories. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The original statement is ambiguous and deceptive, and as these various sources say, it is used by "intelligent design" proponents to give the false impression that there is scientific doubt about evolution in order to promote their claim that supernatural intervention is needed. The carefully agreed consensus wording explains that as concisely as possible, and the essay "coatrack" does not override the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ to concisely explain the majority view. ID is not a theory in the scientific sense, and Picard's skepticism about it is combined with rather similar ideas about DNA. As beliefs about an area outside her scientific expertise, such ideas are valid as a religious view and it's unclear if she's claiming that her beliefs are testable science. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the majority view is that ID is unscientific, and that would be a brilliant viewpoint on the ID article. And there's only one source in the article that says its been used as such (see [6], four are given, the more the better). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, you're not only ignoring consensus, you're ignoring NPOV as well. You've replaced a neutral description of the petition supported by the New York Times as a source with the view of ID proponents supported by a highly partisan source, the Discovery Institute. I agree with Dave Souza and the consensus. Don't go around reopening old wounds just because you're bitter about he RFC. Odd nature (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean "let's stick with it forever". It's against BOLD. I think using just one opinion from a secondary source to describe anything is inadequate to a "horses mouth" description from a primary source. The quote actually makes the sentence more compliant with NPOV/OR/etc, because we don't synthesise anything. Why can't the description be lifted from the ASDFD article: 'a petition expressing skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism"'. Presumably that's neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Only in the context of the preceding sentence, that it's "a petition which [the DI] produced and continue to use to promote intelligent design." Your recent revision was original research, presenting a synthesis using a primary source in a way which supports an extreme minority viewpoint promoting pseudoscience, and conflicting with the next part of the paragraph. This proposal of yours would be no better, suffering from the same problem of taking DI spin at face value out of context. Which is why we base articles on reliable secondary sources giving expert mainstream opinion. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the exact wording in the Wikipedia article for the petition. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And if you look at the sentence before it in that article, you'll find where the context I cited came from. Of course Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the wording okay for the petition article but not for this article? Besides, what the DI use it for is irrelevant to Picard's activities - the statement is still skeptical of Darwinism, regardless of how it was used. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording is okay for the petition article because it's shown in context, and "Darwinism" is explained. It would be possible for this article to show similar detail, to the extent that it's supported by the relevant sources, but the statement should be kept concise to avoid undue weight being given to this issue. Picard's activity was that she signed a petition, the petition is notable for its use which should be made clear in the article in a way that doesn't go beyond the source. While it suits the DI's purposes to use terms like "Darwinism" misleadingly, our obligation is to give a simple, clear and accurate statement reflecting the sources. . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sceptre here, I was never completely comfortable with the way it was worded. I think of it this way: if someone gave me a petition that said "I support our American troops", I might sign it because it says nothing about the political question of war. Now, if someone used that petition in an ad supporting the war in Iraq, I'd probably be peeved. And if my Wikipedia article then said "so-and-so signed a petition that was used to support the Iraq war", I'd object strongly, even if the Times said it. Given that we have direct quotes from Picard criticising ID, I think it's improper to give any impression that she supports it, especially based on this one-sentence petition that never even mentioned ID. ATren (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Sceptre's edits violated WP:UNDUE and WP:CON. Odd nature (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really not as simple as ATren tries to make it. Unless we knock scientists off the pedestals we've created for them. Think about it. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I don't understand what you mean by "unless we knock scientists off the pedestals we created for them". ATren (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a period in the see-also's

....must......fix.......argh! Xavexgoem (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there other issues

It looks like we have some agreement on the wording of the description of the petition. Are there other issues that need to be discussed before the page is unprotected? If not, let's go to RFPP to have it unlocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. - Merzbow (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, agree. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I thought about asking for unprotection late last night, but I figured it should wait until there were more eyes around. Anyone have a problem with one of us here unprotecting the article, or should we ask for someone outside to do it? Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask on WP:RFPP just for the sake of having a third-party do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I put up Guettarda's sentence. Double-check to see if it's right. - Merzbow (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Limits of science

{{editprotected}}

Delete dismisses the idea that "science can develop anything" and in the Religion and science section. Fake quote and complete distortion of the cited article, which in fact reads, "One school of thought in the scientific community is that science can develop anything. But that's changing, Picard says." I didn't check for anything else but that sentence struck me as an obvious red flag. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops: Thanks, CapitalR, belatedly! 86.44.28.186 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's semi-protected, not full protected, so get an account and in a few days you can help to contribute :) The paraphrase was inadequate, but the point she expresses is significant to her beliefs. The article says:
"One school of thought in the scientific community is that science can develop anything.
But that's changing, Picard says.
"All that euphoria about how we can compute anything, even consciousness, is . . . fading."
On that basis, it would have been better to say "she is dismissive about the idea" rather than "dismisses", but I've tried to clarify it a bit more. .. dave souza, talk 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording in the article accidentally turned the meaning of "anything" around, from "anything they want to", to "anything at all". In formal logic terms, it turned (the negation of) a universal qualifier ("for all...") into an existential qualifier ("there exists..."). It is an ambiguity of the English language that some words can mean either, given different contexts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed the glaring problem. It still exists, though the current wording is more suggestive of the correct meaning. Given that this ambiguity exists, why revert my requested edit to re-instate what are after all the words of the journalist making a linking statement? The quote from Picard is ""All that euphoria about how we can compute anything, even consciousness, is . . . fading." (Is that even a remarkable point?) Given that we are already making an editorial decision on what quotes to pick (and giving them the permanence of the present tense, more suited to statements made in a work or lecture of Picard's than in a newspaper interview; this should read "She has said" as in, here's something she said once to Mirko Petricevik of The Record, Ontario), why the insistence on using the journalist's bridging statement, complete with ambiguity?

Offtopic: Mr. Souza, feel free to direct me to the semi-protected edit request template rather than the full protected one. It seems to me you would be a better wikipedian if you asked the s-protecting admin to unprotect rather than asked me to register. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you would be a better wikipedian if you asked the s-protecting admin to unprotect rather than asked me to register. Huh? ...wow that is quite a statement. And sorry if that offends anyone.--Filll (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not offended at all, speaking for myself. Why is that quite a statement? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems a bit Irish ;) You were advised on 1 May to create an account, and had you done so you could have edited the article. . . dave souza, talk 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but no-one else unregistered could have, and we should not compel people to register. It's always worth looking at whether the article needs s-protection rather than saying "Sheesh, just register!" (I know you were being helpful, but you see what I mean, I trust.)

In this case the article was s-protected perhaps a tiny bit aggressively, a few hours after a single edit judged to be meatpuppetry on terms that have been more or less debunked at ANI by the likes of Lar and Sam Korn (though they were not referring to a new user's first edit), and meatpuppetry on behalf of a user who may be just indef blocked, rather than banned, though i didn't quite follow that part. In any case, it's unlikely that it is going to overwork anyone if this article was unprotected.

I'm not sure what's so amazing about my statement, I hope Filll returns to tell me. I hope there was no implication taken that you were a bad wikipedian; on the contrary, I admired your work on the jazz article last year and elsewhere. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In this instance I will follow Thumper's precept and decline to engage you. Thanks and have a nice day. I am sure it will all work out fine.--Filll (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You would have done better not to "engage" me in the first place instead of disrupting conversation with inappropriate comments and things you won't quite say, no? 86.44.28.186 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Go ahead do whatever you like. Register, or not. Your choice. You know the advantages and disadvantages of each. If you don't like it, you have lots of other options, right?--Filll (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed the position. I don't think I've indicated otherwise. Reading it as a response to an IP unprotect request by a protecting admin it's less than ideal but far from atypical. Probably would have been better if, say, souza brought it up. :D 86.44.28.186 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says

One school of thought in the scientific community is that science can develop anything. But that's changing, Picard says. "All that euphoria about how we can compute anything, even consciousness, is . . . fading."

In other words, she is creating a reductionist straw man, and then using it to dismiss reductionism.

So I wrote

She dismisses the idea that "science can develop anything" and believes it likely that there is "still something more" to life, beyond what we have discovered

Replacing it with

She says the idea that science can develop anything is fading, and scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure.

misses the point that "science can develop anything" is a caricature. And she is clearly dismissive of it, and reductionism as a whole.

"All that euphoria about how we can compute anything, even consciousness, is . . . fading." But even if science were able to bioengineer or build a living humanoid robot, Picard argues, that would not disprove the existence of a soul or spirit. Picard draws on the idea of aliens to illustrate her point. If aliens came to Earth and built a functioning radio from an instruction manual, it would be incorrect for them to assume they understood music.

The "science can develop anything" is a caricature of the sort of 50s or 60s "better living through chemistry" mindset. It isn't really what most people think these days. As long as the statement is within quotes, it's better to leave it that way. But that the section of the story actually says is that she is dismissive of reductionism. of course, she goes beyond dismissing reductionism into the world of vitalism, although she backs into the assertion through a negative statement, which is far less quotable.

Those who argue that humans are composed only from molecular biology and nothing more aren't basing their argument in science, Picard says.

Anyway, when I wrote that line I missed the possible reading that Hrafn raised. So why not just condense the whole thing down to

She is dismissive of scientific reductionism and said that scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure.

Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside there's an interesting conservative view that evolutionary biology should contest a reductionist view on the basis of emergent complexity, without invoking the supernatural "Maker" that Picard finds necessary. .. dave souza, talk 11:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave--"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosalind Picard article." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the final characterization seems fine for the article. I think you need "has said" or "says" rather than "said" for it to read well. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality of writing

I appreciate that this page has attracted a lot of controversy, but all the editing and re-editing has rendered the quality of writing appalling. The article is packed with clumsy and barely coherent sentences, ridiculous clause order and generally stale phrasing. I would attempt to try and combat this, but I am concerned that people will jump on me - I have no wish to take sides or add to any controversy. I have no interest in the intelligent design debate and find most of it childish in any case. Would it be likely that I would be able to rework the article substantially without getting shouted down, accused of being a meatpuppet of one side or the other, or summarily reverted and/or banned? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the article (including the sentence you just tried to change) is the product of an unbelievable amount of discussion and compromise. So don't take it personally if you're reverted, just come to talk. - Merzbow (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This might help: WP:CON. Odd nature (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of consensus version

I notice that this edit changed from the consensus wording agreed at Proposing some language above to a vague and uninformative statement, with the edit summary " this slight change appears to better represent available sources. See Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". Numerous sources are given on that talk page that support the version which has now been restored, and which closely follows the cited NYT article as well as other sources discussed above. . . dave souza, talk 08:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what is the sentence trying to say? We have a page about the petition, and she even states in the next sentences that she didn't know how it would be used, and didn't believe anything. So, I'm confused as to why this is an issue. Unless you want to push a statement about something that, based on weight, has almost no purpose of being talked about for more than a line. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

O really? What sentences say that? . . dave souza, talk 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that you could have seen it for yourself, since I said the next one. But here you go: "Though some of her beliefs are similar to intelligent design movement beliefs, Picard has expressed reservations about the intelligent design movement". Its quite clear that she has stated quite contrary what the previous sentence says, and since the previous sentence is not about her, it does not fit under weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't read that way in plain English, your interpretation can only be described as original research. Weight is established by the sources. . dave souza, talk 15:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statements are OR synthesis. You take a signature. You combined background on the group that uses it. This is in direct violation of OR. Now, back to English, my reading is quite clear, and your actions are going against Weight and OR synthesis. I think you need to back down and stop this. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally lost here. What is OR synthesis? Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a rule everyone working on BLP's should know. WP:SYN. You find information A (signed petition), you find information B (petition used for ___), then you combine the two together. That is OR Synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the source. We find information that a petition of this significance was signed by Picard as a notable signatory. See the NYT. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Claiming her signature was notable on Wikipedia does not make it so. The NYT article does not make it so. As can be seen from the article, it is a signature. She dismisses it herself, as do other articles about it. You are propogating a point of view against due weight and using original resources synthesis to add in an explanation of the petition, i.e. that it was used by another group to mean something, which is completely different. Therefore, you are transgressing the three biggest BLP rules, and I ask you to cease and desist immediately. As Jimbo stated clearly, BLP deals with respect, and these rules make it certain where the respect lays. She is known as a computer research who is head of an important field. Not as a toy to soapbox with. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, but it isn't in keeping with the way things are done here. When someone's activities get covered in the NYT, that counts as notable. As I've said before, it's very unfortunate that things are so badly skewed, and that innovative engineers like Picard don't get covered for their really interesting work. But we are about what is, not about what should be. Guettarda (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that I've completed many BLP pages and fixed such problems, so yeah, I have a lot of experience. And a simple listing of a name in one minor article not done by an expert does not make it worth mentioning. Before there was the information that I put in, and only the information from your Times source, Raul said that the page wasn't notable enough. I established notability. Raul proved that the Times article did not. It doesn't hold weight. Sorry, but you are practicing synthesis for an article and putting more weight than the subject deserves. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have lots of experience then you should know better. Of course, given your obtuse behaviour below, where you claim that a sentence lacking an object is "quite clear" (when it is, in fact, gibberish), I'm probably unreasonably optimistic, but I'm still hoping you will start making sense at some point in time... Guettarda (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Claim what you want, but your "prefered" version violates many basic BLP policies, and personal attacks against me wont change that fact. Also, its rather ignorant to keep claiming that my words are gibberish, when the problem rests within your own inabilities. Now, I suggest you stop this behavior. You are proving that you aren't here to be encyclopedic, as you have not actually contributed any encyclopedic material to this page, unlike the people who you keep fighting against unnecessarily. Your disruption is unwelcomed, and your "contribution" is against all fundamental aspects of BLP. If you have anything more to say to me, don't. Because you already proved that you are only here to make personal attacks, as you have provided no substance beyond that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks? You left out a crucial bit of the sentence that appears to be the central point of your complaint. It's no insult, it's a simple typo, I presume. But that typo turned the sentence into gibberish. Much to my amazement, you have refused to fix what must be a simple typo. I find your behaviour shockingly rude. You have now escalated from simple rudeness to outright attacks, calling my comment a "personal attack". Please re-think your behaviour. This is a collaborative project. Your obtuseness, now escalated to outright incivility, is not conducive to a productive working environment. I am simply interested in clear communication. Guettarda (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to actually discuss the topic, are you going to persist in your disruptive behavior and personal attacks as you demonstrated above? I have proven my ability to work on this page to keep it from being removed as unnotable. You have added no encyclopedic content to the page, and insist to put forth something that doesn't even come close to being appropriate BLP wise, and fight tooth and nail to keep it in. Why? Wikipedia is not for you to use as a soapbox, and I hope you will one day realize it before someone shows you the door. And yes, you are being very tenditious for no good reason. Maybe you need to take a break so you can gain some perspective. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to communicate in a civil manner in English. You call that tendentious? So far, you have a claim that coverage in the New York Times isn't notable, and another complaint which has a typo...which you refuse to clarify. Your response is to fling insults my way. I am trying to figure out if there are any real concerns here. All I get from you are insults and threats. Again, I ask that you try communicating clearly. Please fix your typo so that other people can clearly discern what you are complaining about. Or don't, and stop complaining. But whatever you do, please lay off the insults and the bluster. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Claiming I am not being civil, while I am clearly being civil, is one of the basis of being tenditious. I asked you to stop before, and you persist. Now, you continue to avoid the point, and continue to drag this on while failing to actually make any contributions to the body of the article about notable topics. I will ask you once again to recognize your actions and stop. This is a talk page about the article, and instead, you are turning it into a message board. I will not join in with such things, as I am here to work on the page. If you actually want to bring up something about the page that fits the Wikipedia concepts of weight, notability and BLP, please do. However, until then, you wont hear a response from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't civil to refuse a good faith request that you clarify your sentence. It wouldn't be civil to respond with threats and bluster, even if you weren't the one refusing a perfectly reasonable request. You say you have two problems with the article. You claim that one is self evident, when it obviously isn't. You refuse to convert the other into clear English. And you complain that I am failing to make any contributions to the body of the article. I am asking you to clarify your concerns. You respond with threats and insults. Quite frankly, I don't care about your incivility, I care about trying to figure out whether you have some real concerns with the article or not. Given your unwillingness to discuss the matter, I am unable to conclude what it is your are talking about. Oh well. Guettarda (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also not very polite to mislead people. You claimed expertise on the issue of BLP, but you have edited remarkably few articles about living people, and rarely (if ever) more than a handful of edits. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence: Its quite clear that she has stated quite contrary what the previous sentence says, and since the previous sentence is not about her, it does not fit under weight. There seem to be some words missing there - I can't figure out what you were getting at. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know how to help you, because I was quite clear. The sentence is proven as going against Weight, and she, herself, has declared that she does not believe in intelligent design, so to suggest a signature deserves to have multiple lines with OR synthesis claiming that it means she does believe in intelligent design violates Weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Six years after signing the petition, she has stated beliefs which the source describes as similar to intelligent design beliefs. She 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. Translating that as "has declared that she does not believe in intelligent design" is at best a gross exaggeration and misreading of a carefully nuanced statement. Unless of course you've found another source and aren't just imposing your own view on the statement. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"she has stated beliefs which the source describes as similar " Original research. Not credible. Just because you can claim something does not make it true. This is an encyclopedia. Please respect that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You really don't seem to get the idea of no original research. As the source says, "Picard raises the notion of there being 'a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are.' DNA, is enormously complex, she says. 'It takes a lot of faith to believe it arose from purely random processes. There's definitely the mark of intervention in that.' It sounds similar to the intelligent design debate that has been raging in the United States." In contrast, your assertion that "she, herself, has declared that she does not believe in intelligent design" appears to be entirely unsourced, unless of course you're read it on a blog or the like, which would not be a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 11:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a source, "sounding similar" is the basis of original research. This is especially true when she stated that the media has divided people into two camps, and says that she does not believe in either of the false extremes, the false extremes that you keep trying to promote. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You do seem to be rather confused here. "It sounds similar to the intelligent design debate" is a straight quote from the report by TheRecord.com cited in our article as the source. Which does not feature a statement that "she does not believe in either of the false extremes" which you seem to have synthesised from other parts of that interview. To quote, "Picard also laments that the news media put people who are of different minds on the intelligent- design debate into just two distinct camps -- 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.'" <end quote> So she's in both camps. That doesn't say what you say it says. . . dave souza, talk 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ottava has a point about that line. The article is definitely not correctly representing the source regarding that line. As you pointed out, the source says, "It sounds similar to the intelligent design debate", but this article says "some of her beliefs are similar to intelligent design movement beliefs." Those are two very different things, for two reasons. 1) The source only refers to one statement, yet the article extrapolates that to "some". 2) The source is referring to a statement sounding similar, not a belief being similar. The article is extrapolating a surface similarity to mean there is a deeper one, which is not known for certain. Belief in a creator does not mean there is a connection to ID (as seen with the Clergy Letter Project.

As a result, we should rework the phrase or remove it from the article. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The recent refinements certainly make the position more explicit, and that's fine by me. Regarding "some", as shown in the preceding paragraph in our article she makes several assertions in relation to DNA, and the current phrasing covers that. The uncited linked article about reductionism seems an unhelpful attempt to relate to her statement about a "school of thought that science can develop anything" so I've changed it to her description and removed the link. Of course belief in a creator does not mean there is a connection to ID or other forms of creationism in the anti-evolution sense, but her assertions about DNA are classic ID creationist arguments, as the reporter noticed and as is now suitably clear in our article. . dave souza, talk 08:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line and rewrote. The second section of that sentence was directly lifted from the Record. So, I feel that I killed two birds with one stone. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

unsourced claim

"a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution" is a claim not supported by the cited references. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, these sources were just added to support that claim: WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless those sources directly mention Picard and mention that Picard agrees with the "intelligent design movement", then any source would violate OR Synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think "Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a controversial petition referred to by the intelligent design movement for its purposes." better meets Wikipedia policies. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole section is undue weight, myself; but I really have not investigated it much. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think saying anything about her more than saying that she signed the Discovery Institute's petition is too much, actually. As this is not a page on the petition, it would be undue to make claims about how the petition was used or why, especially when there is no source explaining how her signature would show that she actually agreed with the DI or what they wanted to use. She makes her stance on the issue quite clear in the rest of the paragraph, and people can take away from that what they want. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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... "Early on, the critics said there was nobody who disbelieved Darwin's theory except for rubes in the woods," said Bruce Chapman, president of the institute. "How many does it take to be a noticeable minority.." ... The list includes a few nationally prominent scientists like... Rosalind W. Picard, director of the affective computing research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology...[7] The current sentence concisely summarises that information, which is needed for a reasonable understanding of what she's signed and comes directly from the cited source. . . dave souza, talk 11:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is quite a false use of logic. Your source says there is A. It says that B signed A. It also says that C uses A. You are then trying to cram them together to say ABC, which the source does not do. Unless the source says anything beyond Picard as anything more than a signer, than it would be synthesis to describe the situation as anything but as a signer. So, find a new source that says she accepts intelligent design or promotes it. There is already a source that says the opposite, so it is unlikely for you to find one. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we say it like this:
1) first show Wikipedia readers what she agreed to in 2001: "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."
then follow that with
2) The fact that some working scientists agree with this statement has been used by the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism campaign to portray intelligent design as a scientific alternative to mainstream scientific views on the evolution of life by natural selection.
then say
3) 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.
--JWSurf (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It could work except for the weight issue, as this petition is an insignificant aspect of her life, and her connection to it is only a brief mention. She is, after all, a major researcher and scientist with many award winning articles, important books, and is the leading expert in her field. The petition page itself should have the above kind of information, but it is severely lacking. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you have said about the weight issue, and I agree that the weight issue is an important concern that we must think about carefully. However, I think it is a fact that there are behaviors that can be seen in one way as "an insignificant aspect" of someone's life while at the same time being of importance to a wide audience. It is a fact of our culture that when a scientist makes public comments about a controversial topic at the boundary of science and religion, those comments often become much more widely known than the scientist's academic work. This phenomenon was not invented by Wikipedia. In cases like this, I am willing to listen to reasoned input from the subject of the biographical Wikipedia article, in this case Dr. Picard. I noticed at the top of this page that claim that "Rosalind Picard, has edited Wikipedia" (I do not understand how this claim has been substantiated). Anyhow, has Picard said if she objects to Wikipedia including some brief commentary about the fact that she agreed/agrees to this statement: "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"? She may herself believe that it is worthy of being in this Wikipedia article...or not. In a case like this, I'm willing to listen to the subject of the biographical article and get input from the subject. We have a problem in judging how widely Picard is known because of her views on science and faith. She may herself know that her views on science and faith are of interest to a wide audience and she might have no objection to Wikipedia briefly describing her views. If so, then briefly describing her views is a win-win-win situation and everyone would be satisfied, people who are interested in the boundary between science and religion would get to read Picard's views, Wikipedia would get to provide that service to the world and Picard would have her views on display to a wide audience. If, on the other hand, Picard feels that it is silly for Wikipedia to discuss this matter, then I'd like to know that. Maybe nobody cares about this topic except a few Wikipedia editors, in which case we should leave it out of our encyclopedia. --JWSurf (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I see the situation based on the initial research I did to save this page from being deleted - She didn't make public comments. She was handed a vague petition and put a signature. No explanation. No asking for view. No real statement. What the petition turned into is different than what she signed, and she was only linked to what the petition turned into by tracing her signature back and applying any later thoughts to her. Now, Picard did not edit herself, I believe, but one of her students or colleagues may have(?). From what I have seen, however, is that most of the signatories have had similar page experiences. Perhaps this is a bigger issue that should be addressed in order to apply weight and BLP over a larger amount of articles (perhaps even all of the signatories)? An RfC might be in order, especially with Jimbo's recent emphasis on ethical aspects of BLP in which we should respect the BLPs. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, the bottom line is that the New York Times, one of the most widely read and respected newspapers on the planet thought that her signature was relevant enough to discuss. If discussion by the NYT isn't notability, then very little is. Moreover, people have successfully gotten themselves removed from the petition or have issued statements clarifying their opinions in regard to it. She is of course welcome to do that. But right now, simply having a banned user repeatedly claim that she was mislead isn't going to cut it by any stretch of the imagination. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you read a different article than I, but I saw one columnist from the times list her as an example and did not go into it. OR and Synthesis would be to make it seem bigger than it is, which, by your comments, seems to be in effect. You regard an off the cuff listing of an example as her having notability to the topic in one source? That doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for notability or BLP weight issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a columnist. A front page reporter. And not a passing mention at all. Indeed, the NYT specifically uses her to show that there are prominent people who signed the petition. And it is unreasonable to claim there is a BLP/weight issue when we have no indication whatsoever other than a banned user's say so that Picard objects to being characterized as someone who signed the petition. Indeed, the only was you can possibly get there is by concluding that there is something inherently negative in signing the petition. That position is POV in the extreme. Finally, as I already pointed out to you, there are many remedies Picard has to get her name off the list if she desired to do so. Until that occurs, none of your complains are valid. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Not a columnist. A front page reporter" and yet it is in the science section where a regular column is featured. This is not news, this is a feature. I work for a newspaper. I have my own column. Furthermore, the article does not make the claims that you wish it to make, and to say otherwise is preposterous. It lists the name. If you think that is enough to push unnecessary weight, then ask Jimbo. If Jimbo agrees, then I will accept it. However, it really seems like an anti-signature agenda pushing, which is against what Wikipedia stands for. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, this was on the front page when it was published. I'll try to track down a hard copy of that day to verify it, Meanwhile, simply repeating that it is somehow undue weight isn't an argument. And I fail to see what Jimbo's opinion has to do with this at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"simply repeating" Everyone can see that I have already proven that it was undue based on what she is known for, evidence from Raul's previous statements, etc. You have failed to disprove it. You have failed to do a lot. And your comment right there is only a repeat of this constant failure. Your persistence is a mark of tenditiousness, and your failure to ask Jimbo if it is "respectful" to include the POV pushing that you wish, along with the others above, into the article, shows a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No, the complaints are relevant. (1)The NYT article is about the petition, not Picard. (2) Picard is significant to the petition, hence the NYT mention, but that does not mean the petition is significant to Picard's biography. It's like meeting a celebrity: it's particularly significant to you, but not necessarily so for the celebrity. As with the petition itself, the NYT article only says that she signed it, nothing further. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor analogy since the petition itself is highy notable. This is like the New York Times mentioning that an actor had an appearance in a notable documentary. Including that in the celebrity's article would be completely reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Claiming it is highly notable does not make it highly notable, nor does it mean that individual signatures are. Your reliance on one brief article that mentions Picard in passing shows that you lack evidence. Your persistence of it shines negatively on your ability to participate on this page in an encyclopedic manner. If you belief that you had a case, you were given the option to take it up with Jimbo, who has stated clearly how to deal with these issues and what respect means. I am still waiting for you to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The analogy is just meant to illustrate my point, that the NYT article only demonstrates Picard's notability to the petition, not the petition's notability to Picard's biography. Keep in mind that it also initially had 105 signatures, and has acquired hundreds more since then. The facts are still that Picard has made very little in the way of contributions to the ID movement, both in the context of her life and in the context of the ID movement, so we should be careful not to misrepresent that by giving it much weight. (Ottava, you seem to be getting a little heated there. Don't forget to keep cool B-) ) Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% calm. If I was angry (or even close), I would only throw out personal attacks and ignore the topic. I don't think I've done anything like that for over 7 months now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since Raul's being cited as supporting the claim that the current mention gives undue weight, I'd a look at what he said –

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)

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

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 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'm glad to say that more has been found about the notability of her career, but that certainly doesn't show Raul saying what Ottava seems to be alleging. Cot a source? . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And conveniently left out is the fact that Raul was the one who initially moved this page to be deleted as not notable. So, I think we have it here folks. Use of flimsy sources. Promotion of material against weight. Wanting his own version put in. Unwilling to treat this as every other biography. Continuing to try and pursue something tendentiously. Dave, why are you even here at this page? Your log shows that you edit just about every ID page. You also promote the same idea in just about every ID page. That really sounds like soapboxing and pov pushing. Is it just by coincidence that the only people agreeing with you happen to be other editors who agree with you on all of those other pages? A group of people following each other to pages to agree does not make a consensus, and actually does the opposite. Does Jimbo or the community know that you are doing this? Does Jimbo or the community support that you are doing this to multiple BLPs? Have you even attempted to go through the community before doing this? Where is the RfC? The Village Pump post? Going to the noticeboards to find out if something is undue weight or not? If it is a reliable source or not? It seems that these are instead done by unilateral decisions held by a few who all reinforce each other across multiple pages. Why is that, Dave? Is that what Wikipedia is? I don't think so. There are other people here who don't think so. A lot of people don't think so. So I'm confused as to what you are trying to do here, on an professor's biography, all about one tiny signature. Do you work for some group that is against the discovery institute by chance? Are you part of an organization that feels that you must label every single person who ever got near that misleading petition with as many denouncements as possible because if you don't something "awful" may happen? Or are you here just for fun and think it would be a good idea that you try to make her "known" for a simple signature? This isn't the Declaration of Independence and Picard is no John Hancock. I'm done talking to you, and if you persist, I think the only option is to take this to the community, to Village Pump, to RfC, to other places and see if the community really backs up your claims as you keep trying to make it seem like they do. I don't think you have consensus. When you push too far, Guettarda takes up your fight. When Guettarda pushes too far, you take up his. I don't appreciate being tag teamed and I don't think anyone outside of your group really agrees with you. I'm done talking to you, because you have made it clear from your first post to me that you don't actually want to talk to me. You wont listen to others. You wont listen to arguments. You wont seek community opinions. Instead, you think if you keep pushing, you'd silence me and get your way. I don't feel respected, and I don't feel as if you are even willing to discuss this matter. I worked on this article, because I work on articles to improve them. I deserve to be respected for my contributions to this encyclopedia and my constant effort to try and improve articles, especially BLP articles, even if I only stay on their talk page, or deal with them on noticeboards, or other such things. I don't appreciate being treated in this manner, and I will not respond to you anymore as long as you refuse to deal with the real issues. Good bye, Dave. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What a strange response. If you want to discuss this issue, you should present coherent well sourced arguments about the article, and not misrepresent the sources as you seem to be doing. As it happens, I rescued this article from deletion a fair while ago as it lacked any secondary sources about her career, so I had a look and found some. So, please present properly sourced reasoning to support your point. . . dave souza, talk 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I had thought all this nonsense was over, but I've seen that a former Wikipedian has decided to start his crusade by proxy again. Rather sad. Of course, even saddder are the arguments intended to support Ottava's proxy claims. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a strong claim to make, especially when this tool would suggest that those arguing on the other side would be closer connected than I to anyone else. It is also a strong claim to make when I was the primary researcher for this article and provided the bulk of the content. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

By primary you presumably don't mean first, or you've not only changed your username from Tempb but you've also changed your opinions. Some of us edited this article before you, and have it on our watchlists. It's good that you've been able to add a lot of content to this article, which means that the concise mention of the petition and its use doesn't give it undue weight in terms of proportion of the article. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Ottave, not strong at all as all of my observations are empirical.

As the primary researcher you are entitled to ... what? Other than the standard AGF you're entitled to nothing. You find the petition, a petition that breaks the signees away from science, to be nothing, when it is clearly quite the defining moment. When an alleged scientist eschews science, said person ceases to be a scientist.

Finally, Dave has explained the tool, and the tiresome and tired cabal nonsense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, in that no-one can own the article or their contributions. That's fair enough. Regarding the petition, that's all your own POV. You're entitled to it, and it would make for an interesting discussion if we were on a different kind of site, but ultimately all that matters here is that it doesn't belong in the article. Regarding the cabal stuff, you're the one that showed up to this debate defaulting to claims of proxy editing. Perhaps you should look to your own "tiresome and tired nonsense." Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, too clever for me. By the way, look up Analysis. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear, Jim, that I am the only one who has approached this article from a computer science article, and that I am the only one to have put a substantial amount of content that was not fought over. The fact that this would even be considered part of a wikiproject for "intelligent design" based on one signature is utterly preposterous. This is a computer science article. It has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with high school education. It has nothing to do with any actual aspect related to the people who seem to want to go on and on about that petition. A signature means nothing. A signature is not a statement of belief. A petition is not a statement of belief. A book is a statement of belief. A speech is a statement of belief. An article is a statement of belief. Shes done all of these, and yet you are focusing on a signature. She probably signs more checks or credit stubs, which are equally as notable to her as this signature. So yeah, make your claims about me being the proxy, because if I am a "proxy", I am a proxy for computer science related biographies that were in threat of being deleted or had other serious problems that I could address. I also weigh in weight issues and conflict of interest issues on BLP. That is two things that connect me to this article. What connects you to this article? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I agree with Ottava here. The Dissent has turned out to be a big deal, but there is little reason to believe that Picard knew it would be when she signed it. If she doesn't want to identify with it now, it is inappropriate for us to emphasize it. Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava has done a lot to improve the article, and it's understandable that an attempt to destabilize the article leads to a response from anyone who has it on their watchlist. There should be no implication that Ottava has been influenced in this by the continuing agitation by a former editor who WAS seems to have a lot of time for, and equally all concerned should take great care not to destabilize a carefully agreed section of the article. This discussion has led to useful improvements, which is much appreciated, so thanks all round and to Ottava in particular. . . . dave souza, talk 08:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, you said: "WAS seems to have a lot of time". I am an old retired man and I have all day every day - especially when on occasion my ills make me bed-ridden. Please don't begrudge me what I do to take my mind off my pains. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)