User talk:Hrafn

Fictional Multiverses

I notice that you and I have been going back and forth on the Fictional Multiverses section of the Multiverse page. I'm wondering exactly what your problem is with what I am writing. All I am doing is trying to make sure that Marvel Comics gets some mention (preferably equal coverage) on the topic of comic book multiverses. I even took out unnecessary information and replaced it with a link to another page about it the specific topics. Could you please talk to me about WHY you keep deleting any mention of Marvel comics? If you have a problem with WHAT I wrote, surely you can come up with something better (or some improvement on my writing) that talks about how Marvel uses the concept of the Multiverse.--BigBang616 (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the two templates that I had placed on this section:

1. template:unrefsect: Your additions (like the rest of this section) are unsourced, in violation of WP:V.
2. Template:Fictionlist: "An article about a nonfiction topic should only contain fictional references of historic importance so as to not overshadow the main topic." None of your additions (nor any of the other contents of this section) is of even the slightest "historic importance" -- they are mere fan trivia.

I am therefore deleting the entire section. If you want to write about fictional parallel universes, you are welcome to do so in the appropriate article: Parallel universe (fiction). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be fair here, you're suggesting that I not add to an article without citing, etc. Well, how about you not DELETE AN ENTIRE SECTION without first discussing it. You've done that twice now. All I want you to do is (a) NOT DELETE THE ENTIRE SECTION, fictional multiverses do need some mention, and there is nothing wrong with the way there were mentioned before you deleted it, hence, I undid what you did and (b) talk this through, perhaps come up with some compromise about what to do. As I mentioned before Wikipedia prefers that information be presented poorly rather than not at all. So perhaps we can find a better way to CONTINUE presenting the information in a better way, because this back and forth between you and I is getting really ridiculous. And I don't want some bull about you sending me to WIKIPEDIA GUIDES, I've read them and know what they say. I read them way before you pointed them out and way before I edited the section. I still think the information contained within the section is pertinent to the situation, what problem do you have with the article discussing at the end a few paragraphs on multiverses in fiction, explicitly stating not only at the section header but also within the section itself that it's fiction. Everything I said was true, I even took out the things I said that would have needed references, basically all that is stated within these paragraphs is that the concept of the multiverse is used and, in some cases, how. Why do you insist on making this a big deal? Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against me for undoing your revisions? Keep in mind that WIKIPEDIA isn't yours, it's everybody's and you don't get to make all the big decisions, if you want to make a change this drastic you should discuss it with some other users first, rather than just doing it. And considering I seem to be the only user who cares enough to do something about it, don't you think you should discuss this rationally before doing something like this. --BigBang616 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I don't know if you get it, but AS I KEEP MENTIONING, I would like to discuss this before you do anything drastic YET AGAIN. And yes, the Official Handbook does indeed count as a source, apparently you didn't check, or care to check, out the source. Also, it is a work in progress, I will eventually fill out the sources more thoroughly, and will continue to restore the section no matter how many times you delete it. So, until you're willing to discuss this before deleting it again, I will see you then.--BigBang616 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All this because I won't let you insert your Marvel fancruft trivia into a serious science article. You are being utterly ridiculous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it at all, do you? I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you, trying to discuss the potential of making changes, trying to come up with a compromise before any changes are made, but what do you keep doing? You read what I'm saying, take a few words out of it, use them in an "argument" against what I said, then do whatever you want. Please, just consider the idea of a compromise between what you want, entire deletion, and what I want mention of the content (all the content) that's already there. I know you'll completely disregard this, do whatever you want (delete change, whatever) without even considering what I'm saying, but I still feel compelled to bring up the idea of a rational discussion. --BigBang616 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what, you win. I'm tired of this whole thing. You're right. This is a science/fact-based article and the information I'm trying to save belongs somewhere else, in another article about fiction, just as you suggested. I won't interfere or undo your removal of the section again. You have won. P.S. I've removed the information I put in there in the first place and replaced it with a link to the page you suggested in the first place. Congratulations. --BigBang616 (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New Religious Science Re-Draft

Hi Hrafn...Please see the Religious Science talk page for my re-draft, based on your latest suggestions. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments on your Religious Science / Science of Mind edit

Hi Hrafn, Please see the subject talk page for my response to your latest edit. Thanks again, --Wonbillions (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. On a personal note, it's been a pleasure working with you, since you appear to be very objective and scientifically oriented.

Please see "Further Tweaking" on Religious Science / Science of Mind talk page

Hello again Hrafn...Please see the subject comments. Thanks, --Wonbillions (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to Further Tweaking is on Religious Science Talk Page

Hi Hrafn....please see the subject responses and suggestions. Thanks again.--Wonbillions (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Hrafn, please do not denigrate other wikipedians, or their views, or their religions. Please do not call them "paranoid" or suggest that they wear tinfoil hats, as you did in this comment. Doing so violates an ironclad Wikipedia rule: WP:no personal attacks.

Also, please stop deleting other people's comments from the Talk page for Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed, and hiding them with {{hab}} templates. How can we hope to achieve WP:consensus if you will not allow other editors to discuss the article and its problems? NCdave (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to characterise unsubstantiated accusations of persecution as "paranoid", per WP:SPADE. This template is illegitimate WP:HARASSment from an editor whose disruptive and tendentious behaviour would lead many to characterise him as a "troll". Deleting pointless WP:SOAPBOXing from talkpages is explicitly permitted per WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seen this?

Expelled at Conservapedia It's a laff riot, too short though. Be sure and read the notes and talk page - you'll find some of the usual suspects there. Anyhow, it cracked me up. Angry Christian (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

<Yawn> The usual half-baked crackpottery & poor editing. Really it has to be completely carpet-chewingly bugfuck for something from Conservapedia to get my attention these days. Now if somebody could get the article to stably claim that Expelled-roused wingnuts are storming science departments and putting preachers in charge of them, or that Stein is the second coming, then I'd be impressed. :D Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of language

Hey Hrafn,

I think your expertise would be amusingly received (by me anyway) at Talk:Origin of language#Evolution Disclaimer. WLU (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn, you rule. I feel like I'm the laser range-finder, you're the missle. Shock and awe. WLU (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting close to boilerplate, I don't think a claim was made that I haven't seen a hundred times, and haven't had to rebut a dozen times. Originality is not their strong suit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Need a source

I think it's true, but it needs a source per WP:PROVEIT. [1] Guess who is my go-to-guy regards all things creationist? WLU (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Added -- the ref actually came from Intelligent designer, due to a timely reminder of its existence in [this article] by Peter Irons. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn

I appreciate the rewrite on Maya Angelou at Unity. It is a helpful example of how to best use the news article as a reference.

One question: Is there any problem if I use the cite template rather than the freehand format? Example: Freehand versus Template

1. Please sign your comments (with ~~~~).
2. If you want me to comment on code, you need to surround it with <nowiki></nowiki>-tags (otherwise I can't read the code): "Freehand <ref>[http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/83-03292008-1510872.html Maya Angelou at 80: Life is still an adventure], Hillel Italie, Phillyburbs.com, March 29, 2008</ref> versus Template <ref>{{cite news |last=Italie |first=Hillel |url=http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/83-03292008-1510872.html |title=Maya Angelou at 80: Life is still an adventure |publisher= Associated Press|date=2008-03-29 |accessdate=2008-03-29}}</ref>"
3. I have no strong preference, but tend to use freeform unless there's a compelling reason not to (it's quicker, less likely to make a mistake with & is easier to read the code of).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Sorry, I forget my sig a lot it seems then have to go back and add it. Bad habit I am trying to break. (2) I didn't know about nowiki (there's much to learn here) so I appreciate your showing me. (3) I think in time I will learn the freehand form, for now the template is helpful to remind me of any fields I need to use. Thanks again. Low Sea (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A half-baked accusation

Hrafn, We have been watching your posts. It seems clear that you are a hater of New Thought have a serious personal problem with these psychologies, faiths, or philosophys etc.. Since you have a continued personal interest against these groups, you should be banned from commenting or vandalizing these pages within Wiki. I personally am not a member of these groups or faiths, but it is apparent that you hate or dislike certain religious groups who are affiliated with new thought, religious science, or Christian based success writers. We will continue to report your vandalizing or removing information related to famous new thought authors, faiths, sects, or important organizations related to new thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.24.185.200 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this gross violation of WP:AGF. I have nothing against the New Thought movement, but a strong dislike of badly written, badly sourced (and especially completely unsourced) articles. There are a large number of these in the New Thought area, so for the last month or two I've been making an effort to prune them down to what is WP:NPOV, verifiable & notable. If these "authors, faiths, sects, or important organizations" are "famous", you should have no problem finding reliable sources to verify this information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

delete entire YEC article before you get WP sued

I have no associations with icr.org or its principals. But, you are going to get WP and yourself sued if you continue to believe WP's rules supercede laws regarding defamation. 50MWdoug (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your legal prophesies of doom are about as credible as your reliance of Biblical quotations was. Far more prominent people have said far worse things about the ICR in far more prominent fora. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thin ice

Take it to the RS & BLP noticeboards
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi! Listen, I am as sympathetic as the next man to keeping creationists from misusing WP, but you are not helping. WP:BLP is firm on the subject, and it doesn't hurt to keep things off. Can you please do so for the period that this is being discussed? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) No, you are WP:POINTing -- a book IS NOT a "living person" (so [[WP:BLP does not apply) & TalkOrigins Archive is widely regarded as a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 12:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Widely where? and that part of it that is merely a usenet archive is by our standards not. Incidentally, please do read WP:BLP sometime to count the ways in which you are wrong. Apologies accepted between 0900 and 1700 hours UTC by appointment. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry RR, you are incorrect. I do not think you are understanding things here. And tell me how a review of a book violates WP:BLP?--Filll (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Read the damn policy, people! As and when a review implies negative statements about a living person, BLP comes into play, regardless of the nominal subject of the article! I don't believe either of you have been some of our most productive and useful editors without apparent familiarity with this policy! --Relata refero (disp.) 12:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I am sure you realize under our new more stringent policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA you can get in huge trouble for a statement like Read the damn policy, people! So what policy are you referring to? I did read the policy. People that are notable and experts are themselves reliable sources, even if they publish this themselves in a blog or a self published book. And I still do not know who is supposedly being defamed and how? Behe is being defamed because a reviewer did not like his book? What on earth?--Filll (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, report me, do, because it really begins to sound like you haven't read it carefully, if at all. Self-published sources should not be used for contentious material; statements in a review that go towards being statements about the person who wrote the book are subject to BLP; etc., etc. See Talk:A Moral Reckoning for some really dicey problems that this brings up. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education?

[Moved to User talk:Nukeh -- from where it should not have left in the first place. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) ]

Why did you revert without discussion

I was rewritting the section like the plate said neede. If you disagreed with the revision you should tell me which parts and why, not erase the whole thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced & most probably WP:OR. Source it or lose it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I added sources, not the Bible, one at a time, but you earased them when you violated the three-revert rule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhunt (talk • contribs) 05:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

christianactionforisrael.org is hardly a WP:RS for anything beyond their own viewpoint (a 'primary source' per WP:PSTS, that requires a reliable secondary source for any interpretation). In any case, you provide it only as the source for a single sentence out of a multi-paragraph addition. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A source that doesn't even verify the statement cited to it, I might add -- as it makes no mention of "Jesus" or "chosen people". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

YEC

Hi. You said that the "cited source explicitly states Justin Martyr." very well, it does now that I look... but I didn't take away without thought, and I did add Clement of Alexandria to the list :). Just fyi, Justin Martyr is very unclear on where he stood. Both sides appeal to him. Even your source has to use vague language like "assumes" and "implies" for Justin's view. And that's only talking about the text that says "with the Lord one day is like a thousand." Even YEC believe that so that's not saying much. Cheers,  Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious Science

Hey, through out the Science of Mind text the Bible is referenced Teachings of Jesus, New and Old Testament. One of Ernest Holmes (founder) most popular books - besides the SOM text - is The Hidden Power of the Bible. He believed Truth is Truth and we are open at the top as well as the SOM teachings. Take care.66.108.3.236 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this religious babble mean anything, let alone have any relevance for editing Religious Science? Wikipedia isn't really big on revealed WP:TRUTHs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But in any case, as Malaclypse The Younger said{{fact}}[The correct tag would in fact be a {{citequote}} after the quote -- and if you can't find where this quote is from then you should return your wiki-editor badge. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC) ], "Even false things are true." Fnord! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging FAs

Please don't tag Featured Articles. If you want to see another cite added, either add one yourself or take it to the talk page. Tags such as that can get the article delisted as a FA, and that's a bad thing. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a rough draft on Falsifiability and evolution that includes Daubert and ID if you want to look at it. It might help you. Email me. --Filll (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The paragraph in question was already tagged -- I merely replaced a tag for something I could rectify with a tag for something I couldn't.
2. The article uses "critics say" far too liberally and at times loosely. On many occasions it is at least cited (and on some even includes explicit identification in the article of some of the critics), but the tagged point is not the only time that it lacks even a citation. But even cited, its overuse cheapens it.
3. I can see nothing in WP:FAR to indicate that a tag would precipitate an immediate review of FA status, let alone its loss. I would suspect that it would only become a problem if tags were allowed to accumulate and/or go uncorrected for long periods.
   1. Given that the tag I replaced had been there since January, it would seem to be far more problematic than my own one. If tagging an article is as dire as you make out, why wasn't that tag corrected long since?
4. I think it would be more accurate to state that FAs shouldn't need to be tagged than that they shouldn't be tagged. Forbidding tagging when needed would appear to be promoting the appearance of robustness above the promotion of genuine robustness. I will however attempt to keep my tagging of FAs to a minute minimum (but will not revert a legitimate tag to an FA if I realise that I've I inadvertently added one, as was the case here).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiverse

Why are you assuming WP:SYNTH here? Please assume good faith. Imad marie (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The first version was clearly SYNTH/OR/unverfiable -- as the quaranic verse said nothing about Dunyah. The new version largely avoids these troubles, but at the cost of not actually saying anything about multiverses -- and is thus irrelevant to the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

I removed the Mathis-Miller comment from the Expelled article here. We all know this article is long enough as-is, and since this note is more about Miller (or Mathis) than the film, I removed it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is about the film in that it indicates the producers willingness to exaggerate the religion-science conflict aspect of it & their inability to accept those who accept evolution as being genuinely religious. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahalo, Hrafn. I was a bit confused. Thanks for rewording. --Ali'i 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Transitional Fossils

Thanks for your redit of my materail on transitional fossils and punctuated equilibrium. I feel it is much better now. Regards

John D. Croft (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Re: [2]. Not that I disagree with the archiving, but I'm a bit miffed by the edit summary. When I added my comment, the thread was not archived (though it probably should have been...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it had been archived for some time -- NCDave simply decided to 'nowiki' the archiving templates so he could continue on soapboxing. Sorry you got caught up in it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I don't think there's any need to put these kinds of templates on people's pages,[3] particularly someone who has been editing for three years. If we're concerned about off-topic discussion, there's a lot of work that could be done all around. Of course, you can also tell someone you think their comment is off topic without putting a template on their page saying that they'll be blocked, you know? Mackan79 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79: I no longer give the proverbial "pair of fetid dingo's kidneys" what you think. Your 'thoughts' to date have been a stream of ludicrous defences of a tendentious, disruptive and throughly objectionable editor, whose editing career has been marked by lengthy blocks for egregiously poor behaviour and a stuborn inability to learn from his past mistakes. Given that I have absolutely zero opinion of your judgement on this matter, I would suggest that in future you keep these thoughts to yourself -- as my calling a WP:SPADE a spade about what I think of your thoughts may offend. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Michael Dowd ?

As you are an excellent debater on the evolutionist/creationist subject I was just curious if you were familiar with the work of Michael Dowd? You can download his book for free at his website[http:\\www.thankgodforevolution.com]. I ran across his work while doing New Thouhgt research and while I like the way he presents his materials I am not qualified to critique it (which would be a SYN anyways) however he seems to have good credentials and a lot of interesting sources. Just FYI. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Michael. I met him and had a long talk with him. I previewed his book before it was published and he asked me to be one of those endorsing the work on the book jacket. I sent him several pages of comments. I have several more I did not send him. I have thought about writing an article about this material. It is sort of "New Age Feel Good" material, but it is not particularly accurate scientifically. Maybe I will dig out my notes and write an article about it here, or expand one or two of our current articles.--Filll (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably too far off the target audience (in that my personal spirituality is radically non-theistic) to give a meaningful opinion -- it'd be like a deep-sea fish reviewing a book on mountaineering. But here's the "asking Satan to review The Secret" view and a Wired article on the subject. Hope this helps. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article links. Interesting reading, including the comments left by readers. The person who gave me the head's up on Rev Dowd is a New Thought (specifically Science of Mind) adherent who is an aetheist! She believes there are laws similar to gravity that can be manipulated by mental energy. She does not believe in God as an intelligent being, but she does believe (loosely paraphrased - wished I had recorded the conversation) this:

It is possible that the universe itself is one -- or more -- enormous organisms of vastly intricate complexity. If we are made of billions of atoms and molecules then why could there not be organisms made of billions of solar systems and galaxies? We just don't have a clear enough grasp on the science to know how these things work so we are fools to say it cannot be so. Imagine a universal amoeba -- if you will -- who's "biological" systems include solar-fusion and entropy. As the white blood cells and defensive antibodies in our immune systems can display quasi-intelligence by reacting to bacteria in the bloodstream, then is it not concievable that we, humans, are like those same cells within the body of a universal amoeba? It is difficult to imagine something so vast, yet it is equally difficult to imagine the vast number of atoms, dna strands or even just the white blood cells inside you now. If there is an organism which we are a part of, and that organism has been on a journey of evolution beginning with the Big Bang, then we are merely evolved cells inside that organism. Thus it makes sense to me when Rev Dowd says "When you look through a telescope to the stars you ARE the universe looking at itself".

This lady is a biogenetic researcher at a respected lab so I asked if I could quote her and she said I could use the ideas but not her name. She did not wish to become the target of ridicule at work or of "Fundamentalist Aetheists". To tell the truth her theories vaguely remind me of an old Star Trek episode but you do have to wonder if from a scientific viewpoint she could be right? Are we just complex cogs in an intergalactic biological machine? -- Low Sea (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II

Need you back watching. DI whitewashing by Ducks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I view Marks' 'duckishness' as somewhat marginal as yet -- his involvement seems to have been limited to date to one website, one ID conference & one interview for a movie (most of the grandstanding over the EIL was from Dembski himself). I would also consider him to be a fairly obscure ID proponent, rather than a "noted" one (his Expelled appearance may raise his profile however). To say that he's "been involved in several of the more notable controversies" is a definite exaggeration -- he's only been involved in a 'persecution' controversy & Expelled's repackaging of this 'persecution' theme. The problem with documenting the IDM, is that its 'big tent' strategy makes the actual edge of the tent quite indistinct & generates a considerable 'penumbra' of ambiguous supporters/fellow travellers. I'll give you what help I can, but would suggest caution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And the only report of the conference (by far the most solid piece of evidence to date) that I know of is a blog-report which is excluded per WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did a fresh Google-search & it seems Marks has been kind enough to put the Wistar appearance on his CV. I've reincluded it. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

idle chit chat of no consequence

I've been following the ID movement for 5 years or so and what's interesting is all my reading has been primarily from the legal, scientific, or academic viewpoint, well and I read alot of ID wingnuts too. What Expelled is doing it bringing ID to the masses and it's fascinating to see the reaction from the mainstream press who typically don't seem to know anything about science or evolution. It's one thing for the science community to call Expelled a shitty propaganda piece but to see the media come to the same conclusion is an interesting development that I didn't expect. Anyhow, I'm rambling but from one ID observer to another I find these mainstream reviews to be an interesting glimpse of how the ID position is viewed by an audience that has no dog in the fight. The DI is going to be very busy monkeys as they try to spin every major news outlet in America. I'm having a ball watching all this unfold. PS - I'm in the market for a Ben Stein bobble head! Cheers. Angry Christian (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most journos know very little science, so most of ID's arguments go over their heads. They would generally however have a reasonably well-developed propaganda-filter (journos who believe everything they're told soon get made to look like idiots), so the heavy-handedness of Expelled is probably ringing all sort of alarm-bells as well as irritating them in a 'how stupid do you think we are?' sort of way. I wouldn't be surprised if playing Lennon's Imagine over communist parades severely pissed off a few of the more trendy-lefty ones as well. This may end up backfiring for ID movement, if a mainstream 'this is bull' effect outweighs the 'invigorating the credulous base' one. I'm sure far more people read movie reviews than read the science page. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah backfire is a very good word for it and I think you're on the money regarding Imagine being pimped. I'm having a blast watching this unfold. Angry Christian (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

[Spurious warning returned to notoriously WP:DE & WP:TE sender Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC) ]