Talk:Rosalind Picard

Getting a consensus

Progress... User_talk:Hrafn42#Forget_I_said_anything

Okay. Given it is a connection highlighted by the NYT article, it seems a comment pointing out that Picard is not a biologist, or that here field does not directly relate to evo-bio will not constitute OR.

However, it is still perceivably WP:SYNTH (IMHO, a textbook case) to relate this back to the failed appeal-to-authority value of A Scientific Dissent. Is consensus for or against the inclusion of this?

Previous text, which may or may not reflect final content:

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

_{I will be deleting any off-topic banter or trolling by any party, arguments have been presented numerous times by all parties involved, I don't think it really serves any purpose to continue.}

For

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

Against

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

Comments

Looking at the source[1] carefully, it seems to me that a sentence added after the first sentence in the existing paragraph could summarise the statement in a neutral way:

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

I did try "The Times noted that more than 350 of the signers, including Dr. Picard, were nonbiologists.", but that seemed to be going a bit beyond the source. ... dave souza, talk 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Merger proposal

Given that we appear to be at an impasse on gaining a consensus on disputed content in this article, and given that the non-disputed content is quite minimal, I would like to nominate that this article be merged into Affective computing. I make this nomination on the basis of WP:MERGE and specifically these two "good reasons":

2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

Picard is notable for little beyond the field of Affective Computing, so overlap should be obvious. Additionally, there seems little likelihood of much expansion of this article (none at all as long as it remains protected, but much debate for little or no gain even if it is unprotected again). There is quite frankly little further to be said about Picard that could not be better said on the article on Affective Computing.

This proposal will require getting the template {{mergeto|Affective computing|Talk:Affective computing#Merger proposal|{{subst:DATE}}}} inserted into this (protected) article. Unless anybody wishes to object to me making this proposal (as opposed to objecting to the merger itself), I will seek a {{editprotected}} to get it inserted (alternatively, if an admin wanders in & decides that this proposal is a reasonable one to make, they might insert the template without me having to go through channels). Once we get the template onto this article, I'll place the complementary template on Affective computing . Hrafn42 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Please read WP:MERGE and point out where it lists notability as an impediment to merger, or where it makes any mention at all on whether or not an article is a stub. Hrafn42 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the disputed paragraph should be left out unless there's a consensus on the talk page to reintroduce it. My feeling is that she's just about notable enough for an article, but it's not a strong opinion. To allow discussions to progress I've unprotected the page, If edit warring ensues it will be reprotected. .. dave souza, talk 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZayZayEM's recent accusation of WP:DISRUPT

• It was ZayZayEM's insertion that introduced the figure of 254 into the article [2]. It was perfectly legitimate to remove this obviously contradictory sentence until the specific error could be identified & corrected.
• Given ZayZayEM's very zealous enforcement of WP:NOR on previous matters, it is unreasonable of him to object to my seeking a similar enforcement on his edits, specifically his insertion of the unsupported adjective "emerging".
  • On ZayZayEM's argument for reinsertion, even if <20y.o. = "emerging" weren't WP:SYNTH, most fields in Computer Science are of similar youth (it is after all a very young field), so this is non-notable. Hrafn42 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• The List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" does not show "five hundred scientists and engineers", it only shows the 23 of them that somebody has gotten around to entering. As such this link is both confusing and misleading.

Hrafn42 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visitor from MIT IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both the alleged Picard edits were 18.85.10.xx numbers[3][4] and, as Filll says, this new edit changes the heading to "Anti-evolution petition" which Steve and Moulton had been fighting against. .. dave souza, talk 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Non-biologist

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

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

350> vs 128 is majority, so I don't think it is too bad to say that Picard is one amongst the majority of nonbiologists who signed the petition.--ZayZayEM 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what you are saying, but I wanted to note that she works in the field of emotions and intelligence which, even if it doesn't deal directly with biology, is a field that is attached to biology in the same manner that sociology, linguistics, psychology, etc, are attached to biology. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another review [5], Further "future/robot" news articles at The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Boston Globe.

Google testing [6] alone brings up one resource that refers to the petition, her wikipedia article... notable indeed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm also not sure why the article is giving so much weight to this issue. It's the last sentence that is clearly undue weight here. Yes, she was in a NYT article, but please read it more closely - her name was mentioned in passing, she is in no way discussed in the article. To hang this sentence about the Discovery Institute's misdeeds off the end of this short article is simply not appropriate. And after clicking on a few names from [7], it seems even less appropriate, since other articles - like Philip Skell - contain either no or only a short mention. If the reason is we're afraid of handing Moulton and his fellow haters at WPR a victory, then that's stupid. They stand victorious whenever we make a decision based on criteria other than what's best for the encyclopedia. - Merzbow (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are over 1000 faculty members at MIT [8]. How many of them have articles on WP? The bylaws of the IEEE allow as many as 10 percent of the members per year to be promoted to the position of fellow, and there are about 400,000 members of the IEEE, so literally tens of thousands can be IEEE fellows. 300 have been promoted in 2008. Do you think all of these have WP articles?--Filll (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) The "why it is significant part" should be directly associated with the person whose biography we are writing and remains a matter of editorial interpretation (see Fill's investigative essay above) unless it has been notably commented on and can be cited as such. There doesn't seem to be any such notability or at lest no one here seems to be offering any evidence of it. As such why can't we just say she signed it with a link to the full entry where there is ample discussion about petition itself? Some minor discriptor could be added as well. Something like this for instance: "In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the controversial 'A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,' petition in support of intelligent design." In this example there we say it is controversial and that it relates to intelligent design. I'm still struggling to understand how a sentence about what the Discovery Institute has done with the petition belongs here and am still in hope that someone can explain that. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reworded sentence

Can we start with a version of PelleSmith's sentence:

"In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," which supports intelligent design."

and possibly expand it somewhat to find a consensus version? Or perhaps,

Picard has expressed support for intelligent design theory, and was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."

I'm sure we can find a wording everyone agrees with. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe these versions "explain what might otherwise be a confusing statement," in extreme clairty without delving into what it "has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute," for. We should not be forcing inferences about petition signers onto our readers based upon what other people or institutions are doing with their signed petition. If there are reliable sources reporting on such inferences, or making them in a critical capacity, then its fair game, but that appears not to be the case here.PelleSmith (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The DI's petition is used to promote intelligent design, period. It is one of the centerpieces of the Discovery Institute's ID campaign. The article will need reflect this easily verifiable fact or else be under constant attack. Let's not gloss over the facts. Odd nature (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable reference source that specifically identifies Picard as a supporter of intelligent design theory, or is that being extrapolated from her signing of the petition? Risker (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The first suggested sentence makes no such inference, but you make a good point. The petition itself is not even explicitly in support of "intelligent design" but instead "skeptical" of Darwinism. Are you suggesting it should be reworded?PelleSmith (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that such nuance in a couple of words is impossible. We don't need the last sentence at all. "Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". should be enough for our purposes. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Please address the points raised. If by "above comments" you mean "Effectively cloaking the meaning, importance, and notability of that fact that she signed it" - so much more pleasant to hear than "whitewashing", by the way - those concerns have already been effectively answered by the fact that (a) we don't know the meaning of why she signed it (b) its neither particularly important in terms of her bio nor relevant to her reason for notability. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Because it makes her look bad. And people are attempting to distort the meaning of BLP (which is designed to expiate the removal of libelous content, which this is not) to turn this article into a hagiography. Raul654 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The problem is that currently we do not "explain what the petition is." The disputed sentence discusses what the DI has used the petition for, and not what the petition states. That is not explaining "what the petition is" and it infers that the person who signed it supports this use without presenting any verification of this fact. With outside sourcing it would not be a problem, and the fact that a zealous editor here has tried to do his own primary research and infers X, Y and Z from Picard's lack of response to him does not cut it by our standards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith is exactly right here. The sentence in question is a broadside against the Discovery Institute and has nothing to do with Picard, nor even discusses the petition. Plus I don't see why people are conducting investigate journalism here by contacting Picard and the New York Times. Unless she files an OTRS ticket or makes her views known via a reliable source, we can assume nothing about what she thinks about this article. And again, it appears we've lost all sense of perspective here - the NYT article mentioned her name in passing, that's it. - Merzbow (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, as Merzbow has pointed out twice now, her name was only mentioned in passing. People here keep on discussing the NYT article as if it were primarily about Picard's signing of the petition which it is clearly not.PelleSmith (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Raul: if Picard's actions make her look bad, so be it. We can't help that, and we should say she signed the petition. My impression of the current wording is that it discusses the actions of the Discovery Institute in order to cast a negative light on Picard - that's the BLP issue. The sentences above let the reader click the links and come to their own conclusion about Picard's actions, and that's exactly what we want for NPOV here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When there's more about this evil petition than anything else in her entire career, there's something wrong with the biography. What the petition is used for, is not up to Picard. I agree with CBM - link people to the debate about the petition and let them decide. Anything else is undue weight and coatracking. I'm a strong opponent of so-called "intelligent design" and the Discovery Institute and their tactics, but to rub their tactics all over Picard's bio strikes me as unfair and unnecessary. If there's evidence that she's actively participated in the movement beyond signing this thing, provide it. Otherwise, just say she signed it and leave it at that. FCYTravis (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

We don't need a whole second sentence to tell us what the petition is. That can be folded into the existing sentence - the petition questions the modern evolutionary synthesis. All the rest is politicking. We also don't need to say that the "New York Times reported that she signed it" - that makes it sound like some striking act of investigative journalism. The fact that she signed it is self-evident. FCYTravis (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Dave Souza: Well, again. That is what other people are saying the petition means; it doesn't actually explain Picard's position. The link above given by Pelle Smith includes direct quotes on her position, and is far more useful than someone else's interpretation of what that petition meant, and whether or not she agrees with how it has been used or interpreted by others. I would have no objection to the use of Pelle Smith's reference, and would suggest it should actually take primacy over the petition since the article includes her own words. Risker (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to gloss over the facts. The petition is a centerpiece in the Discovery Institute's ID campaign. Any attempt to gloss over easily verifiable facts like this will only result in the article being under constant attempts to update it. Odd nature (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your re-write is false. The petition may be part of a "campaign to promote intelligent design," the petition itself is only critical of Darwinism, which may be a prerequisite of belief in ID but it is itself not positive support of that specific theory. There is no whitewashing going on here. There was already ample explanation and wikilining before you rendered the sentence actually false. Ontop of this we have an RS that states that this individual is not in specific support of ID though her perspective may be similar, making the insinuation based on the falsehood a larger problem.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be clueless on the subject. Read the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism and Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns articles and try making that claim again. Odd nature (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears you don't understand what I said or you're trying to be confusing. I have read both of those wikipedia entries. The petition is used in a larger campaign which promotes ID, but the petition itself which I've read several times, and amounts to two sentences, makes no positive claim. Its only claim is negative, or "critical." The sentence, as it stood, made the claim that the petition itself promoted ID. Do you understand the difference?PelleSmith (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the entry you have linked yourself: "The Discovery Institute presents the list in an appeal to authority to support its anti-evolution viewpoint." The petition supports the negative claim, against Darwinism but not the positive claim, for ID. Now if other documents, programs, or what have you that the DI uses along with this petition in various ways promote ID then that is another matter, but that's not what I objected to.PelleSmith (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Picard's only claim to notability is simply the fact that she is part of DI's campaign to discredit science. Otherwise, I doubt she'd rate an article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. She has been the subject of at least two article-length profiles in reliable sources. The ID petition, judging by Google News, is a fractionally small proportion of her notability. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm mistaken because ???? I don't know science? I'm not well educated in this area? Because I'm not a scientist? This article was mostly edited because of her ID position. There are thousands of other scientists who do not have articles on here, and the fact is they have done much more than this Creationist has done. Especially since her work isn't science, it's more applied engineering. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If the only claim for her to have an article is that she was one of 514 people who signed something, then she shouldn't have an article at all. Please stop reverting legitimate edits with the claim that it is "whitewashing." You are assuming bad faith and refusing to engage in good-faith consensus editing efforts. FCYTravis (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. I have made one edit in language and one edit in MOS today. Where do you get off making that attack??? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because every time you revert someone's rewrite, you scream "whitewash" - which is neither true, nor helpful. It serves to entrench positions and fuel the flames. I could just as easily accuse you of single-mindedly attempting to portray this person in as bad a light as possible - something which policy and good practice frowns on. Are you here to stop the evil whitewashers, or are you here to work in good faith on this article? FCYTravis (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

OK then, if you want to go there. If I'm here to whitewash, you're here to smear, making this biography as negative as you can possibly make it, using her signing of the petition as a coatrack to hang all manner of inferences and speculation on her. So I guess between my whitewashing and your smearing, we'll find a balance. FCYTravis (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter for us to determine by way of WP:ACADEMIC. The very context in which the NYT mentions her name is one of notability. As in she is one of a very few notable academics who signed this petition, so I doubt this assertion very much.PelleSmith (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Last go round it was hard to find much to support her notability, but enough was found and added. Glad to see more being added. The petition is obscure in itself, her significance was that she continued to give it tacit support at a time when it was being used in campaigning, as shown in the news article. Her statement of November 2007 sort of distances her from ID, and it is appropriate to show that. .. dave souza, talk 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Source

This is the source mentioned above, in case anyone is confused: http://news.therecord.com/article/264978. In this source she says she's not happy with Intelligent Design though her own perspective is certainly similar. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've incorporated it along with revisions to clarify the petition situation – the petition doesn't say anything about modern evolutionary theory, but makes a vague expression of skepticism about "Darwinism". Glad to see more sources and information being found, previously it was hard to find much to confirm notability. ... dave souza, talk 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well your rewrite brings us back to pretty much the same situation we were in before it was cleaned up. Again we have the actions of the DI reported here as if by inference she supports them through her signing, yet we have not verified that this is true, and in fact we have reason to believe that she does not support specifically the teaching of ID. So good job bringing the BLP problems back full swing.PelleSmith (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent the petition, and my edit does not say she supports ID. Read it carefully. .. dave souza, talk 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Writings

http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap13/thirteen1.html

Something about this chapter might be useful in the article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Undue complaint

It is complained that for this biography, there are two parts:

• A, about Picard's career
• B, about Picard's signature of a petition

and that B is too large compared to A. The only reason that there is an article here is because of B. Others claim that A justifies the article, even if B was not true.

To make A larger than B, either B can be reduced, or A can be increased. For those who claim that there is plenty of A to justify an article, they should be able to expand A. Stop complaining about it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for months on end and just do it. Just do it. Is that so hard? Do it.

And so instead of attacking the two sentences of B, add to A. The reasonable way to increase the ratio of A/B is to increase A, not decrease B. If you claim there is not enough A to use to increase A/B, then lets just get rid of this waste of time. And set the size of A and B equal to zero.

This is not rocket science here. Just stop whining and work.--Filll (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that straw man. It is complained here that the nature of B (in the version you prefer) makes inferences about the subject that are not correct. The way to fix an error is not to add more unproblematic text as if pilling on the roses makes the shit stink any less. No offense but this is getting a bit tiresome. Can you at least stick to the actual complaint, and stop telling people that things they consider important simply amount to "whining."PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wording

Dave's version

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

Current wording

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

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

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

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

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

This article is not about the petition or its campaigns. There are entire other Wikipedia articles for those issues. The petition specifically says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." That is "questioning modern evolutionary theory." That is what she signed on to. Whether or not she supports the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, is not known, and to attach that to her without evidence is guilt by association. FCYTravis (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're accusing a stone-cold atheist of being an ID fan. That's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. Perhaps you'd like to check out my over 1000+ posts as "Merzbow42" over at the IIDB board (for example, [9])? - Merzbow (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, I hate to point this out to you Travis, but you're arguing for a passage that promotes a particular point of view. That the petition questions evolution is happening to used to promote intelligent design is itself a view. One which plays the Discovery Institute's hide the ID in the appearance of a legitimate but ultimately contrived dispute, read Teach the Controversy. Reliable sources and the facts show that the the ID/creationist text book Of Pandas and People came up with the notion and term of ID which was then picked up by the Discovery Institute which then founded the ID movement. The Discovery Institute's Wedge strategy set forth the aims and governing principles of the movement, and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is simply one the invidual Discovery Institute campaigns which seek to misrepresnt evolution as "a theory in crisis" subject to sweep doubt in the scientific community: [10][11] Portraying A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism as anything other than what it is -a part of a campaign promoting ID- is to purpetuate the Discovery Institute's own PR rhetoric. Protraying it petition that questions evolution and just happens to be used by the DI (the source of both Dissent From Darwinism and the ID movement I remind you) demonstably violates NPOV's Undue Weight clause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS, you are missing the point. This person signed a petition in 2000 or so. Maybe she was duped into it. Maybe she was confused. Maybe she was just really really stupid. Maybe she was delusional. It does not matter. She signed. Now, for the last 8 years or so, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over this petition has been used again and again and again and again and again in a massive multimillion dollar campaign to declare that science is nonsense and scientists are evil and on and on and on and on and on and on. On radio and on television and in state legislatures and in congress and in books and in newspapers and in magazines and in movies and on the internet and in court rooms. This has been an immense attack with public relations firms involved. Did you miss it somehow? Well no one who has not been in a coma in the United States could have missed this. Several people who signed the petition and realized that they had been lied to had themselves removed from the list. Several people who had signed the petition and realized that the petition was being used in ways they disagreed with made public announcements when questioned about it that they thought the uses the petition was being put to were wrong and it was deceitful. Picard was questioned, repeatedly by the New York Times. Her answer? Nothing. We asked her over and over and over. Her answer? Nothing. Several others have asked her over the last few years. Her answer? Nothing. Finally last fall, in November, she has issued a statement half distancing herself from the goals of the petition. Ok, so we report that. And what exactly is your problem? We have things partly clarified now. What is wrong with that exactly?--Filll (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the biggest mistakes that writers of hyperlinked documents make is assuming too much of the readers and letting them just click for clarification of all the unfamiliar terms and all the details. This is extremely poor writing. A reader who has to constantly click to understand a piece of text will quickly get lost in a series of links, and not be able to read the original document and absorb the material. Just because hyperlinks exist on Wikipedia does not excuse us from writing clearly and accurately in a self-contained, self-explanatory manner.

We do a terrible disservice to readers to demand that they have to look everything up. For one thing, many people's internet connections are not able to cope with these sorts of demands. Also, many people's attention spans are not able to deal with this sort of sloppy writing. Our articles should be readable and accessible.

This idea that we can bury all the material in links 2 or 3 or 4 levels deep, and to heck with the needs of the reader is just outrageous and abusive. And the impression I get here is that people want to adopt this incredibly sloppy bad style of writing on purpose, to obscure the nature of this petition. Perhaps they believe it is embarassing to Picard. Perhaps they have bought into the intelligent design movement's strategy of obfuscation, to obscure the fact that Intelligent Design is just a form of creationism, and is essentially an anti-science religious movement that aims to roll back science to its position before the scientific revolution.

It does not really matter why people want to write vague sloppy inaccessible documents with no explanation of the details, demanding that readers have to click and click and click and click over and over and over on all kinds of wikilinked terms to understand an article. The bottom line is, we should not be asking anyone to do this. It is lousy writing. It stinks. And we should not stand for it.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, this coat is getting very heavy on my shoulders. Do you have anything for me to hang it on? That's it for me. Adios.PelleSmith (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess you are in favor of lousy writing then and incomprehensibility and illiteracy? Ah ok fair enough. Well dont let the door hit you...--Filll (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the biographies of living persons policy, we have no evidence to suggest that Picard endorses or supports its use to promote the teaching of ID in schools. The fact is, the petition, in its plain language, states that the signatories "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." It says nothing about intelligent design. What the Discovery Institute may or may not have used the petition to do, is irrelevant. There is no substantive "controversy" over evolution in the scientific community - which is why "Teach the Controversy" is bullshit. But there is no evidence that Picard supports this effort. She signed a statement saying she's skeptical of Darwinian evolution. I think she's flat wrong, but it's not a "crime against science" to say so. Nor may you use that fact as a coatrack to hang the DI's neo-Luddite ID-in-schools efforts on her, unless you have reliable sources saying that she endorses that. We may not make any inferences about her silence. That is prohibited original research and synthesis. It is a fact she has signed the statement. Anything beyond that is coatracking. This is not an article about the Discovery Institute and their campaign. This is an article about a living person who has done nothing more than affix her name to a two-line statement that says she questions evolution. Guilt by association is not acceptable in biographies of living persons. There are plenty of articles which make it clear what this is about. We are not going to turn every single biography of every single signatory into a rehash of the ID debate. That is right out. FCYTravis (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny that Teach the controversy exists? Why are you so frantic to deny readers any information about this "denialism" petition? One or two words describing what it is and what the Discovery Institute is are completely reasonable. And who said that Picard subscribed to all the Discovery Institute agenda? In fact, we now have sources that after 8 years, she has decided to distance herself, at least partly, from some of their agenda.--Filll (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

we have no evidence to suggest that Picard endorses or supports its use to promote the teaching of ID in schools

Irrelevant - it's our job to explain what the petition is. We can't just say "she signed X". Now go figure out for yourself what that is.

The fact is, the petition, in its plain language, states that the signatories "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." It says nothing about intelligent design.

So you have taken it upon yourself to replace reliable sources with your own opinion? Your own reading of the document should supplant sources? Nope - we have a policy which precludes that sort of behaviour.

What the Discovery Institute may or may not have used the petition to do, is irrelevant.

Again, nope. We work from sources not from "plain reading" that ignores context and reality.

There is no substantive "controversy" over evolution in the scientific community - which is why "Teach the Controversy" is bullshit. But there is no evidence that Picard supports this effort.

Interesting, but irrelevant to this article. It doesn't say that she does, and I don't think it ever has.

She signed a statement saying she's skeptical of Darwinian evolution. I think she's flat wrong, but it's not a "crime against science" to say so.

Again, this isn't about your opinion.

Nor may you use that fact as a coatrack to hang the DI's neo-Luddite ID-in-schools efforts on her, unless you have reliable sources saying that she endorses that.

The statements in the article are sourced.

That is prohibited original research and synthesis. It is a fact she has signed the statement. Anything beyond that is coatracking

I'm really not sure what article you're talking about. Surely not this one?

This is not an article about the Discovery Institute and their campaign. This is an article about a living person who has done nothing more than affix her name to a two-line statement that says she questions evolution. Guilt by association is not acceptable in biographies of living persons. There are plenty of articles which make it clear what this is about. We are not going to turn every single biography of every single signatory into a rehash of the ID debate. That is right out.

We need to provide context. She signed this petition. The average reader would say "what's that?" If we want to write a good article, it's our job to explain what things are. You seem rather worked up against ID. Perhaps your dislike for them has clouded your judgment. The article you are describing isn't the one we have written. Please calm down, and take a second look at the article. The one you seem so upset about doesn't resemble the one we have here. Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about your opinion either. She signed a petition saying that she is "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." You may not use that statement to make any further inferences about her beliefs and her opinion of intelligent design. This article is about her, not the so-called petition. If you want to go on and on about the petition, there's a perfectly good article you can use to explain the different views of what the petition means. We do not need to create guilt by association by explaining it in detail here. FCYTravis (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Look - you can't replace sourced content with your "plain reading". More importantly, why are you removing sourced opinion from the article? Do stop. Guettarda (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you are dead set against using any description of the petition other than your own. That's OR, but I suppose you are too worked up to see that. But I really can't figure out why you have chosen to replace Petricevic's take on Picard's opinion with your own. Really, when you find yourself in the position where your own opinion trumps those of articles about Picard, you really need to take a deep breath, stop, have a drink - something to step away from the computer for at least a few minutes. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions of what the DI does with the petition are not "descriptions of the petition." Can you please explain why you keep on making this claim about providing an explanation of what the "petition is" when you are actually providing an explanation of "what the petition is ... used for." Also I challenge you to show where in the NYT article or any other that actually connects Picard to the petition it is implied that she has anything to do with "what the petition is used for."PelleSmith (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways to describe the petition. I could describe it as a file on a computer, which would be completely accurate, but not useful. I could describe it as a list of words, which would be completely accurate, but not useful. I could describe it as a list of names, which again is completely accurate, but not useful. None of these sorts of "descriptions" are wrong, but they are worthless to the reader. You are arguing in favor of a completely worthless but accurate description that serves the needs of those who use this petition for propaganda, which is its most accurate description. Why are you so anxious to buy into the agenda of those who created the propaganda? Do you really think that describes the petition best? --Filll (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't yet explained why we need to explain what the petition is. So far I have heard no explanation for that except Raul's "what if someone prints the article out?" which is argument on par with all his others on this page, viz. pretty useless. I have reworded it, and unless in the next 12 hours a good reason is provided, I shall remove it. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Really?[12], [13], [14], [15]. For someone who seems to prefer condescending remarks to actually addressing the underlying question[16], you seem pretty unwilling to take your own advice and, you know, actually read what people said. Guettarda (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it quite clear that all those were pretty poor arguments. I addressed (1) specifically, (2) has been answered already in that explanation is problematic when it becomes caricature, (3) and (4) are based on the demonstrably false premise that Picard's notability rests on this petty petition. Next time take your own advice on taking my advice and don't just read what you have written, read the replies.

Our job isn't to provide "context" that is a coatrack for "look at this horrible creationist." Our job is to say "she signed this petition, which some people, most of whom are apparently on Wikipedia, think is a big deal." --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that our job isn't to provide context, or it isn't to provide context to people who you think are horrible? No matter how much you dislike her, you need to set your opinions aside. In the last year or so, I can't recall anyone saying "look at this horrible creationist". Quite frankly, I don't think anyone has even called her a creationist. Read what the article says, not what you imagine it saying. Guettarda (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny.

To clarify: Our job isn't to provide additional material to articles that is purportedly for context but works instead to coatrack in negative opinion not directly addressed at the bio subject in reliable sources. (And as for the rest, as far as I am concerned ID=creationist. I imagine thats true for you as well.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Our job is not to explain the information in our articles clearly? My that is new to me. I thought we were writing an encyclopedia here. And I could care less about what you believe about ID and creationism. Me thinketh you do protesteth too much, especially as I have seen the kind of weak cases here and elsewhere you have tried to make over and over and over and over against all reason and consensus.--Filll (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, someone's upset and sputtering. Never mind. What you need to focus on is whether this supposed context is directly linked to Picard. If not, it doesn't belong, since this petition is not relevant to her notability, except I suppose to the sort of person who uses Wikipedia for political activism, of which sort I am sure we have none round here.

Thanks for the lack of caring about my opinion, btw. That doesn't affect how I edit. You might want to give that approach a try, its what we expect from our good editors. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't pat yourself on the back too much. This is all your own fantasy. I am not upset. And I guess you just have a problem with reading sources. That undercuts the entire point of an encyclopedia, to misrepresent what a source says. And I am not the one engaged in activism and broadcasting my personal beliefs over and over and over. I am not the person making the outrageous claims over and over and over against policy and consensus. And I would not take anything from you as definitive about what a "good" editor should do; you are not the arbiter of what is "good editing" here, or had you not noticed that?--Filll (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear fellow, I wasn't patting myself on the back, I was making excuses for you by saying that you must be upset. Still, if you wish to make those excuses redundant...

I agree misrepresenting sources is a major problem. Can you point to which sources are being misrepresented?

Sorry, which personal beliefs am I broadcasting over and over? I only ever have made two claims to personal belief in my time here, and both were to you, weeks apart. Oh, except for the bit where I confess to a CoI because I've written a creationist textbook and my children will starve if the article on Picard doesn't recommend that schools in Georgia use it to teach biology. (Now that is an outrageous claim.) --Relata refero (disp.) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

<ri>So, apart from (a) good writing style, and (b) not requiring people on slow connections to click through every time they come across an unfamiliar concept...apart from, you know, trying to write something that someone could actually read and understand, yes, there's the added point that if someone printed off the article they'd have no clue what was going on...apart from trying to write something that's useful to the reader, I can't see any reason to include that sentence. Nor can I, of course, see any reason to produce an encyclopaedia at all. So after you discard "usefulness" from the list of reasons for producing an encyclopaedia, what's left? The MMORPG aspect of Wikipedia? I'll pass on that one, and stick to the idea of trying to produce articles that are useful to readers. Since without readers, we really do have no reason to be here. Guettarda (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If they don't have a clue, that means the petition perhaps isn't notable at all... are you suggesting we delete it? --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that seriously what you take away from what I had to say? You really think that we should delete content from articles that the average user would be unaware of? Guettarda (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an argument that has parity with yours in nuance, which is why I made it. WP is supposed to be both useful and not indiscriminate. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is certainly more balanced than it was a few days ago, with the addition of her own, actual, views on the subject. Technically, it still needs another source that specifically says DI is using the petition for its campaign, like this one, which should be copied over. We can disagree on whether the NYT cite says this, but I can't see an objection to making it clear by adding another source. - Merzbow (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that I don't think any of us ever questioned how the DI was using the petition. The problem is that editors here are falsely suggesting that the NYT not only named Picard as a signer, but also implicated her in some larger scheme, like the one practiced by the DI. That is simply false. Either those making this argument are so inundated by the larger literature that they cannot divorce it from the NYT article or what is known about Picard, or they are being consciously disingenuous with the "that's what the sources say" argument. That is not what the only source listing Picard says ... not one iota. I think an explanation is in order. I've answered this claim several times above, when text from the NYT has been quoted, and not surprisingly the trail ends with my answer, then hours later miles down the discussion it pops up again with accusations that we want to twist the sources around. Hogwash. The source says nothing of the sort. It only says the woman signed a petition.PelleSmith (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogwash yourself. The source sets out the implications and use of the petition, and notes that Picard signed it. Five years after signing it, she was still giving it de facto suppoort, almost two years later she issued the disclaimer. We note the essential facts, concisely letting the reader know what it's all about without having to follow links and without drawing any conclusions beyond the sources. ..dave souza, talk 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OR and you know it. You don't have a source that claims that "five years after signing it, she was still giving it de facto support." The inferences you draw from the fact that, as far as you know, she has never distanced herself from the petition are, however reasonable they may seem, not relevant here. I don't doubt that this woman believes something very akin to ID, and the interview with her clearly articulates this, but again, the issue here is that we DO NOT attribute beliefs to living persons that we cannot source. Please explain to me what is so evil about trying to keep an entry inline with that idea.PelleSmith (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The OR part is only relevant in the article. Was that in the article? Somehow I missed that. We know much more than is in the article of course. Including other published statements of Picard that I alluded to that support ID. What you seem to forget is that she signed the petition about 2000. Several years later the NYT contacted her for comment. Over and over and over and over. She refused to clarify her comment. We have the emails from the NYT reporter describing this. We had numerous conversations with Picard and her associates asking for a statement to clarify the position since her associates were frantic to reword this article. Although statements were promised, nothing was forthcoming. So I think we can take that as evidence of something. I would not suggest it go in the article, but it is something we know. As always happens in writing these articles; the editors know far more than appears in the article. Is that a problem for you?--Filll (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If these facts relating to your own research activities and inferences do not relate to the entry then I suggest you stop bringing them up. They have been brought in to justify what is in the entry, which is no better. Nice try to confuse the issue, but your independent research and conclusions about someone's beliefs and motivations does not justify the "guilt by association" approach you take anymore than they belong literally in the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Our job here is to provide information in a succinct and accessible form. The sources say a woman signed a petition. The reason she appeared in the NYT is she signed a very unusual petition for someone in her position. A singularly unusual petition. What makes it so interesting that the NYT would even write about it? Well that is what makes it newsworthy. And that is what makes it notable for Wikipedia, isnt it?

Look on the front page there are lists of awards she has won. About 90 percent of those are meaningless and should probably be removed, because they are not interesting and not notable and we have no context for understanding them in the article. It reads like a CV, and that is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be.

You would have us state that this woman appeared in the NYT for something that she did that was surprising given who she is, but we cannot tell you why it was surprising and why the NYT wrote about her and what it was that she did, aside from putting her name on a list. We cannot tell you more about the list or why the list is interesting to the NYT.

People who wanted to make your sorts of arguments months ago tried to argue that the NYT was not a good source, or that we should include a paragraph or two about what a piece of incompetent disreputable $#%^& the NYT is. They wanted to call this "good online journalistic ethics". You want to call what we are doing "twisting the sources". Amounts to about the same. Nonsense.--Filll (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima works her magic

And yet the meaning is obscured

In a way that truly is so tragic

but by many is ignored

The truth she hides in a whitewash attic

Where other myths are stored

None of which’s held in high regard

When the alleg’d victim is Rose Picard. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To dance a dance, one must follow in turn
Iambic form, or will their partner go;
Stay with the beat or be you forced to yearn,
And crave after meaning! Will you say no?
Your form is brute, your words do only burn
Paltry readers, whose delicate minds so
Desiring beauty and all they will get
Is unpolished words saying only
- :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To dance a dance without stepping 'pon feet

To hear the song in their ears with a hum

That gathers long the imperial beat

That peasants hear as funereal drums

And yet as I in th'Imperial seat

Care not a whit for the bleating of bums

For they whine in tune to the sounds of night

Mistaking joy for their incessive plight.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To wash some whites, to bleach the rest,

Quietly now, or they shall hear;

The topic long past, that awful pest

Why ever would one keep it near?

A quicker pace, a turn thats best

And words that shall confuse a seer:

The topic we can soon ignore,

Because wasn't it just a bore?

- :) Ottava Rima (talk)

That topic past, today it burns,

That topic passed, in olden days

As truth t'all to whom hea'n yearned

The Primal dream of the godly gaze

Still they flock, hist'ry unlearned

to learn is naught but to be amased

By fairy tales and other dreams

Virtue engender'd is all it seems.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that whisper heard I come near

Messenger of that coming night?

Sweet death's little brother none fear

And few of him would ever fright,

But he of course can make it clear

To silence words with his soft might.

And as the moon beckons me so

I'm 'fraid that I must stop and go.

- Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I must quit drinking the bong water. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Affective computing?

Maybe link the top Affective Computing to the relevant article? Although Fill, Jim and OrangeMarlin seem to have done what is best described as "revenge editing" there...

/sigh 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF. They're all mature individuals, I'm sure they wouldn't do anything so painfully juvenile. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

What on earth is your problem? Have you seen what a lousy article that is?--Filll (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilarious

Every time there is some complaint about this article, and it finally gets answered, then some new complaint "magically" appears. Makes me think that we have some who are being disingenuous, or who are only here to fight. For example:

• At first it was claimed there was a problem with WP:UNDUE after we removed violations of copyright. That is no longer a problem but people continue to fight even after there is a lot more material about the main part of her career in the article. I guess that really was not a concern after all, was it?

• It was claimed over and over that Picard did not really subscribe to the statement on the petition, because she had been tricked into signing a blank petition, or a new header was used to frame it, or it was used for purposes she did not agree with. We were bullied because we did not write material attacking the New York Times for bad reporting or incompetence or lousy investigation or being dishonest etc. It was claimed that Wikipedia was therefore violating "journalistic ethical standards". Surprisingly, one dufus after another bought into this ridiculous argument. The proponents of this view were offered the opportunity to find us another source correcting this and balancing things for months and months, by at least 3 Wikipedia editors. There were at least 10 emails and several phone calls exchanged trying to encourage some information that corrected this. Nothing was forthcoming for months and months. All we had were complaints and whining. Now finally we have a partial statement satisfying our request, many months later. And so we include it. Does that satisfy those who are complaining? No, of course not. I guess that really was not a concern after all, was it?

• It was claimed that intelligent design was a completely reasonable approach and therefore Picard should not be vilified for subscribing to it. But if it is reasonable, and there is no shame associated with it, why fight so hard to keep all mention of it out of the article? Makes ZERO sense. Now again we have hordes of editors who claim that they do not believe in ID and ID is crap, but why is ID crap? Why is it a bad thing to subscribe to? We have only a minimal statement from Picard to go on that she disagrees with some of it. Ok fair enough, we report that. But somehow people want to have it both ways; that ID is reasonable and one should be proud of supporting it but arguing at the same time that ID is not reasonable and it is embarassing to be associated with it. Sorry people, you cannot argue both at the same time. It really makes no sense. Why not just report it as it is, and leave the value judgements about whether ID is good or not to someone else, like our sources?

• We have people misinterpreting sources like the New York Times, over and over and over for months. It was claimed that tne New York Times never reported that Picard signed, but it did. It was claimed that the New York Times never described what the petition is or what it is used for, but it did. It is claimed that no sources describe the petition as being part of the Discovery Institute campaigns against evolution, but we of course have hundreds if not thousands of such sources. It is claimed that the petition is not used as an attack on evolution, when of course when it was first announced it was titled as a Dissent from Darwinism, where Darwinism is the Discovery Institute (and creationist) name for evolution, and even, thanks to Phillip E. Johnson, all of science and engineering since the Scientific Revolution (that is, methodological naturalism and materialism). This is the same game your ideological cousins who made Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed want to play. Make one sort of statement to the base, and then deny it was said. Well that won't fly here. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. And buying into propaganda and obfuscation does not serve our readers well. We will not be just quoting the Discovery Institute or Premise Media or the Swift Boat Public Relations firm for our sources. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, does any of that impact the article? Otherwise this isn't a forum, so perhaps you could just remove it, unless its meant to be light comic relief. (I don't get paid by the Discovery Institute unless I get results both on the article page and on the talkpage.)--Relata refero (disp.) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it impacts the article. It describes the viscious fighting that is going on to obscure the truth and whitewash the situation. And puts a spotlight on some of the activities of editors here who should know better than to engage in this sort of behavior.--Filll (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll past arguments are not apropos to the current discussion. Please attribute the accusations that so unattributed only function to erect a straw man.

1. Who has argued that Picard "had been tricked into signing a blank petition?"
2. Who has argued that "ID is reasonable and one should be proud of supporting it?"
3. Who has argued that the "New York times never reported that she signed?"
4. Who has argued that "no sources describe the petition as being part of the Discovery Institute campaigns against evolution?"
5. Who has argued that "the petition is not used as an attack on evolution?"

Who are your interlocutors here Filll? A phantom army of the ghosts of editors past? I see none of these arguments made by any of the editors arguing here. Please attribute these accusations, or admit that they are not actually directed towards anyone presently arguing against you. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, you are not editing this article in a vaccuum. There is a history. You might want to read it and see why it was created and how it evolved over the months and what the arguments were about and why it was written the way it was written. Since you want to fight and fight and fight, maybe you should know some background, don't you think? And actually when some editors here make the exact same edits as departed editors and banned editors, appearing to engage in proxy editing for banned editors (which is grounds for immediate banning), and we have substantial evidence of recruiting of meat puppets (which again is grounds for banning of the puppets), then this is a matter of concern for the writing of this article. So this is relevant. Quite.--Filll (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer: NONE CURRENTLY HERE IS MAKING ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS. Are you accusing anyone currently here of editing by proxy or as a meat puppet btw? I'm truly sorry if you had editors here making the claims that you have highlighted, but if those editors have now departed and those issues have now been dealt with then your history lesson is not apropos, and it is disingenuous since it suggests that your current interlocutors are making these claims. Of course, given what you want to keep in the entry, I don't find it particularly surprising that you would employ such tactics. Anyone who signs the petition is a pawn of the DI, and anyone who opposes your edits must also subscribe to the above ludicrous claims. Please take Relata's advice and remove the history lesson unless it has some relevance to the current discussion.PelleSmith (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there have undoubtedly been problems in the past. However, there have been great improvements to the article generally in the last couple of days. I think everyone's agreed that the petition issue has to be covered properly, and at least there's no longer any question of it taking up a dispropotionately large part of the article. .. dave souza, talk 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling it a "whitewash" was the signing a bad thing? I just see an article about a LIVING human being that centered around ONE EVENT in her life and practicly ridiculed that, changed into an article that shows the accomplishments of this LIVING human being and highlights her achievements (the article on which you have shredded but hey alls fair it seems) and mentions the part about her signing (which seems oh so important to you) in passing, where it should be. The Wikipedia BLP's would be a WHOLE LOT better off if people remembered that they are writing about LIVING PEOPLE. Just because you disagree with someones statements doesn't mean you have to go to war against them o.O 195.216.82.210 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, apparently, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, CoI, and proxying for a banned editor. Have I left anything out? You're the expert. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Answered where? Misrepresentation where? -- from the well-known meatpuppet and proxy for a banned editor Relata refero (disp.) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

All in good time. There is no rush, is there? And perhaps by this simple friendly caution, people will come to their senses and start to act sensibly instead.--Filll (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [17] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable. (Someone needs a refresher.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You believe that is following WP:AGF? Well I can see where your heads are at. Go ahead, you are characterizing yourself in a very interesting light. Don't let me stop you.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

KTC, don't think you are anonymous. And you should be ashamed of yourself.--Filll (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)