Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:19, 30 August 2007

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. More information: /  This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Creationism Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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". Misplaced Pages 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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." 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 -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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, and "adapting" what he thought was my work, 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, Misplaced Pages 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:

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:

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

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages from inadvertently publishing false and defamatory material that slipped through the filters intended to examine the evidence with a keenly skeptical eye.

What any Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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:

4. PrNewsWire Oct, 2005
5. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
6. Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'
7. Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory
8. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
9. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
10. Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'
11. Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory
12. Neurosurgeon Challenges Evolution, PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Science Blogs, February 19, 2007 9:32 AM
13. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
14. Dissent From Darwin
15. Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'
16. 2001 "100 Scientists" Ad]
17. Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'
18. 11/29/2001 - Doubting Darwinism through Creative License by Skip Evans
19. Doubts Over Evolution Mount With Over 300 Scientists Expressing Skepticism With Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory
20. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang, New York Times, February 21, 2006.
21. Neurosurgeon Challenges Evolution, PZ Myers, Pharyngula, Science Blogs, February 19, 2007 9:32 AM

Outside offer to mediate

Hi, there. I'm a Misplaced Pages editor with 7000 edits, and strong familiarity with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to say nothing at all than to say contentious things that cast Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. If we removed all "criticism" then Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages?

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Mouton & Hrafn42, WP:COI & WP:NPOV (continuation of dialogue on negative reframing)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang, New York Times, February 21, 2006.
2. Signatories of 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism'

• Start-Class biography articles
• Biography articles needing attention
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Creationism articles
• Unknown-importance Creationism articles
• Creationism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Creationism articles