User talk:ImprobabilityDrive

Welcome!

Greetings...

Hello, ImprobabilityDrive, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! dave souza, talk 10:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

– short greeting in place of WelcomeGreen added by Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I delete the above table please?

Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it seems that you find the WelcomeGreen template rather overpowering, I've replaced it with the shortest welcome template on the current Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table. Feel free to delete it, but it's as well to have something to save well intentioned welcomers from thinking a big hello is just what you need. Oh, and 'Ay ay, fit like?', .. dave souza, talk 10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit over-powering. Maybe a hide/expend feature on the big welcome would be better. ImprobabilityDrive 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on Billy Sunday biographies

Welcome to the discussion on Billy Sunday! Just to let you know.....the McLoughlin biography was the first scholarly treatment of Sunday's life, published as an expanded PhD dissertation in 1955. It's very detailed and represents the most in-depth research on Sunday's revivals. Although it's dated, and also has a negative tone (the author doesn't like Sunday much), it is authoritative. More recently, Bruns wrote a popular, and somewhat inaccurate in details, book; Dorsett (a history professor at a Bible college) wrote an insightful and valuable but short, complimentary, and undocumented book; Martin wrote a careful study of Sunday's Midwestern roots and the influence of his younger years; Firstenberger (the curator of the Billy Sunday Museum) wrote a fascinating and perceptive book on the contents of Sunday's home; and Knickerbocker wrote a detailed book on Sunday's baseball career and his coming of age, including his conversion. (All of those are in the article's bibliography.) The Larson book, it seems to me, adds depth to our picture of Sunday. Rocketj4 21:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hte help and taking the time to write. I'll save your comment and take a look at some other Billy Sunday resources when I get some time. (Have to get a garden in before my seedlings outgrow their containers.) ImprobabilityDrive 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Hi, I-drive, I left your one change alone, thanks for explaining. The other I modified in a way that should please both of us (and, one hopes, other editors), although I think the secular accounts would be more along the lines of criticism (in sense of analysis of qualities and evaluation of comparative worth). Nice quote from Dawkins, by the way. •Jim62sch• 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The quote is from his eulogy for Douglas Adams, if the internet can be trusted. ImprobabilityDrive 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Never trust the internet....well, OK, sometimes trust the internet, as long as what you're looking at doesn't promise free Microsoft Operating System upgrades for life so long as you donate $15 to help some girl in Appalachia who has three eyes and needs to have special glasses made by an optometrist living with monks in Tibet. ;)
Ya gotta keep an eye on me with word-usage, not that I use the wrong words, just that I sometimes use obscure ones because, well, a) I know them, might as well use them, b) I like to see if anyone is paying attention, and c) for people like yourself learning a new word is always seen as a plus, and that makes me feel more positive about huimanity's future. So, one dictionary actually defined it as elitist? Utterly bizarre.
Your worldview is a bit "warmer" than mine -- I seem like a cold-hearted Vulcan! •Jim62sch• 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I got ya, my bad. Yes, I was using vulgus as the equivalent of "hoi polloi" as you correctly determined. The OED has a pretty good "everyday" dictionary, "The Shorter OED", which runs about $120. The full OED is available on-line through http://www.oed.com/ for $30 a month, although that's only worthwhile if you'll be using it a lot. The CD version of the full OED is $295 (which, while a lot, is worth it as you can use it for years, and better than the $1100 you'd have to spend on the equivalent version on paper). Otherwise, there are a few "OK" dictionaries out there, Webster's New World College Dictionary*, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, The Oxford American College Dictionary, and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary -- the latter being pretty good. *I have this one, but vulgus isn't in there as a separate entry, it appears only in the etymology of vulgar. (I guess in my case learning Latin has had a few benefits.) •Jim62sch• 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Heads Up

See my further discussion on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy:

• No consensus existed.
• The ICR was not simply "pointing to research," it was shoddy research that they themselves commissioned (through their RATE project). Pretending that it is legitimate research is definitely undue weight. Additionally, this 'research' was not directed at whether decay rates were constant, this was merely an inference they took off it (a more scientific inference would be that there was a probable defect in their methodology).

In reference to the quoted document:

• ICR was the primary source.
• ICR's research has not been verified by any scientific source, nor has it been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
• ICR made a MASSIVE (and unwarranted) "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claim.

ICR's 'research' therefore has zero value other than as an indication of the Nuclear Physics claims that Creationists make -- which was the use I was attempting to make of it. Hrafn42 04:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"In this case, I think rather than undue weight, the sentence was just inaccurate or at least misleading." I think we might both be right. It is actually bad on a number of levels:

• It does not identify it as ICR's own research (inaccurate).
• It does not mention that this research is unpublished & has been debunked (undue weight).
• It states ICR's unwarranted inference as though it was part of the research's conclusion (inaccurate & undue weight).

"I don't mean this as an insult; I can see you have strong feelings about at least ICR."

Actually, the ICR mostly slips under my radar. It tends mostly to "preach to the choir" & doesn't have that big a profile with the (current) wider controversy. The Creationist group that really gets up my nose is the Discovery Institute. I dislike pseudoscience on general principles, and take a fairly hard line on anything that (accidentally or otherwise) presents it in a legitimate light.

Anyway, imagine some other controversy, say the abstinence-birth control controversy, this would be a sociopolitical article. It is different than an article on birth control, and it is different than an article on abstinence. It is an article about the controversy.

In such an article, we might try to find neutral commentators and observers of the controversy as sources. These would be the ideal secondary sources. But perhaps that is not possible on many important aspects of the controversy, where important is evidenced by both sides of the controversy repeatedly contesting some aspect or other. In such cases, we might have to rely on the points and counter points of the forbearance fundementalists, and points and counter points of sex education professionals. I believe that the wikipedia policy states that while we can use these primary sources, we cannot take sides (in the article on the controversy). We also have to be careful to identify the sources, not conduct original research, and so on and so forth.

Actually the abstinence-birth control controversy is very similar. The scientific evidence is that abstinence education has no discernible effect. To present the controversy in any light other than one that highlights this fact is to present it dishonestly.

"But in the controversy article, the intent of the article is to describe the controversy, not resolve it."

If a controversy is a heavily asymmetric (particularly in terms of the weight of evidence and/or expert opinion), the only way to honestly describe it is to highlight this asymmetry.

These sorts of issues are likely to dominate any objective controversy. However they would be far less applicable to purely subjective ones (i.e. where only such issues as morality, aesthetics, etc apply).

Such controversies as evolution-creation & abstinence-birth control have effectively already been "resolved," but one side is unable to admit it, irrespective of the weight of evidence.

Let me take a counter-example. Suppose a major world religion held that the world was flat. How would one present the 'flat-round Earth controversy.' Would you give equal weight to their 'scientific' claims and rationalisations in favour of a flat Earth? Or would you write the article in such a way that highlighted what they claimed, and why these claims were widely dismissed? Hrafn42 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"I contend that by taking the side of the scientists in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists, it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV."

And I would contend that to fail to take the scientists' side, when they are in overwhelming agreement, is to violate WP:Undue Weight. It falsely presents a heavily unbalanced controversy as a balanced one. The asymmetries are very important pieces of information about the controversy. Hrafn42 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Just in case you missed it, I undid your changes earlier, but after you justified them, I basically communicated to you to feel free to revert them. I don't want to do it because while I assume you know what your talking about regarding the ICR research, I do not."

I have put up a couple of alternatives for comment + SheffieldSteel still appears to be arguing the toss. So I will hold off for now & see if a consensus emerges.

Richard Sternberg

"Work in progress, please read the sources before deleting other contributor's material)"

I have read them.

Neither Meyer, Sternberg, nor Souder's (not the USHRCGR's) report are credible. I'm familiar with all three. Sternberg has been caught in numerous misrepresentations relating to this issue. Meyer works for the Discovery Institute, an organisation with a long history of dishonesty and of attempting to spin people as victimised pro-ID martyrs. Souder has documented ties to the Discovery Institute.

I have put up a Talk-section on this article-section, so suggest we discuss this there. However, I do not consider your current "work in progress" to be the basis for a useful section. Hrafn42 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"please be patient"

Why should I? What you have written to date completely swallows the ID POV hook, line and sinker -- including numerous misrepresentations and disputed facts. It is a dishonest section.

"By the way, it is not POV to quote Sternberg."

"...and had ensured that the paper was peer reviewed by three other relevent scientists in evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." This is Sternberg's POV stated as fact. IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF WP:NPOV!

"Retaliations ensued." Again, Sternberg's POV stated as fact.

"The office of special council determined that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment and demotion at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)."

No such determination was made, as the OSC (which is highly politicised, and headed by a known culture warrior, who is himself under investigation) never had even the semblance of jurisdiction. All that was produced was a very one-sided "pre-closure letter." Hrafn42 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should check out The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Also, please try to calm down. If you can improve the contribution, please do. I can work with you. But please don't replace everything I took the time to cite and contribute. ImprobabilityDrive 04:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Well, how close are we from removing the POV tag? Do you think we're close yet?"

Not even close. You are presenting only the pro-Sternberg opinions, and stretching things to present these opinions in the most favourable possible light, while doing your best to minimise issues that would (quite legitimately) reduce the pro-Sternberg sources' credibility (by moving all reference to such to the bottom of the section). It is a blatantly pro-Creationist section. Hrafn42 08:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am presenting information that is verifiable."

You are presenting information that grossly violates WP:Undue Weight.

"I understand that you have specialist knowledge that I do not have..."

If you lack such knowledge then I would suggest you at least attempt to read up on the subject before you attempt to write about it. It doesn't take too much time. You should at the very minimum read what Sternberg's sponsor at the Smithsonian had to say about Sternberg's accusations. It turned out that many of his accusations were based on misrepresentations:[1]

Although I do not wish to debate the merits of intelligent design, this forum seems an apt place to correct several factual inaccuracies in the Wall Street Journal’s Op Ed article by David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic” (Jan. 28, 2005). Because Dr. von Sternberg has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, I cannot comment as fully as I would wish.

1. Dr. von Sternberg is still a Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, and continues to have the usual rights and privileges, including space, keys, and 24/7 access. At no time did anyone deny him space, keys or access.
2. He is not an employee of the Smithsonian Institution. His title, “Research Associate,” means that for a three year, potentially renewable period he has permission to visit the Museum for the purpose of studying and working with our collections without the staff oversight visitors usually receive. 3. I am, and continue to be, his only “supervisor,” although we use the term “sponsor” for Research Associates to avoid personnel/employee connotations. He has had no other since Feb. 1, 2004, nor was he ever “assigned to” or under the “oversight of” anyone else.
4. Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed.
5. I offered both individuals new, identical, standard Research Associate work spaces. The other accepted, but Dr. von Sternberg declined and instead requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies.
6. As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.
On behalf of all National Museum of Natural History staff, I would like to assert that we hold the freedoms of religion and belief as dearly as any one. The right to heterodox opinion is particularly important to scientists. Why Dr. von Sternberg chose to represent his interactions with me as he did is mystifying. I can’t speak to his interactions with anyone else.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan Coddington

(Incidentally, it took me two minutes on Google to find that quote from scratch.)

"Also, that you think this is pro-Sternberg is interesting..."

And I find it interesting that you have not cited a single opinion from the pro-Smithsonian side. Not one! How can this help but present a relentlessly pro-Sternberg section? Hrafn42 09:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think I added this: "However, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had no jurisidction because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian, and the investigation was concluded without a fuller response from the Smithsonian." Is that not pro-smithsonian? Let's just keep finding sources and present the information as we find it. " ImprobabilityDrive 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you wrote was the more pro-Sternberg: "However, the office of special council could take no action because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian." The rest is mine. In any case, this is not including an opinion or assertion of the pro-Smithsonian side (the Smithsonian itself, Coddington, NCSE, etc), it is merely a minor (and minimised, the way you wrote it) caveat on the strength of pro-Sternberg side. This section is completely one-sided, in that it does not present the pro-Smithsonian interpretation of what happened, only the pro-Sternberg. Hrafn42 10:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary style

Regarding SheffieldSteel's suggestion and the two sources you've been citing, It's a fair point that the two articles should be coordinated, and there are a number of other references in the main article that should be taken into account. Try having a look at Wikipedia:Summary style which discusses the problem of POV forks and gives guidance about how the articles should relate. The references you're working from should already be covered in the main article, and if there's a difference in the coverage, the main article should have the more detailed version and the section in the creation-evolution controversy article should concisely summarise it rather than adding points yet to be covered in the main article. I don't know where they came from, but descriptions like "lashed out at Sternberg", "a think tank that promotes the teaching of evolution" and "pariah" seem dubious to me, and if they're attributable to a secondary source care should be taken about the neutrality of the source. Ah yes, some at least seem to come from The Washington Post, which also has the dubious assertion that President George Bush supports the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution – that's quite a stretch from his words, as I recall. It does seem that more sources should be taken into account to get balance, so working on the main article does look like the best way forward. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, did I mention that ID's a minefield? Dunno where you're from, but there are obviously US cultural nuances and sensitivities which I can barely grasp, and there's an enormous mass of information which FM has grasped admirably. Anyway, if you can turn your attention to Sternberg peer review controversy (or whatever we call it) it can surely be improved. However, be cautious about dismissing science blogs as they may appear jokey, but often set high standards of scholarship. No doubt as the history books of this weird episode get written we'll have better sources available – though that may depend on who's writing them! Orrabest, .. dave souza, talk 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR

Welcome to wikipedia you have made a lot of good contributions in the last four days. However, please carefully read WP:OR. Your reading of it doesn't apply to some of the claims you made at Louisiana Baptist University. Arbustoo 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I responded with what I hope is clarification. Take it easy. Taking a break for awhile (going to walk the dog). ImprobabilityDrive 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your quote didn't explain anything. Walk me through how you think it applies to each of your tags. We don't like to let tags stay up unless there is talk going on.

I did reword one part of it, but that was mainly because the claim was not cited.

My suggestion is everything you added a tag, explain why you think it appears as a synthesis of unpublished ideas. Arbustoo 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just responded on the talk page. BTW, I think you might have typed unpublished when you meant to type "published". ImprobabilityDrive

No, I meant "unpublished," a USDE website is published for the purposes of our discussion. I just removed your tags as your claims are baseless. You added in a disputed tag for the reference section when you offered an uncited/ WP:OR conspiracy theory about the Morey article. If you want to dispute all the sources give reason on the talk.

Have you had a previous account on wikipedia? Arbustoo 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As it is clear you were protesting claims without looking at the full article: Are you going to remove the tag or should I? Arbustoo 04:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it, I thought you had already indicated that you were going to do it. ImprobabilityDrive 04:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous account

As you commented that some have accused of being a sock puppet, have you had a previous account? If so, what is it?

Your edits are truly impressive looking at your history. I know it took me longer than 10 days to learn policy, know how to add tags, seek an RfC, view other user's contributions, and dispute material.

Yet, with your second edit and within 15 minutes of registering you already knew how to sign your username. Truly impressive. Arbustoo 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to follow the discussions and learn from other's mistakes. The other insinuation was that I was Gnixon, by the way. Also, are we friends, or are you trying to intimate yet again that I am a sockpuppet? No matter what, I truly hope you learn to like me. I am pretty objective when I force myself to be, and more than willing to admit when I have misunderstood something. ImprobabilityDrive 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...I didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet. I asked if you previously had an account. Aren't the two different? One means you are deceiving, the other means you might have posted under another account. The latter means perhaps you had forgotten your password and had to start a new account.

So have you had another account/edited as another user? I am just trying to get a straight answer. Arbustoo 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think I have, you wouldn't believe my answer anyway. Please don't retaliate for the content dispute by filing an official sockpuppet allegation. I think you may be taking things personally, and may have article ownership issues. But accusations of sockpuppetry are cheap. I already left the LBU article to give you time to cool down. What more do you want? ImprobabilityDrive 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Aren't the two different?" Been reading up, have you? :) ImprobabilityDrive 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes: You see someone who is trying to remove cited criticism. They are using all kinds of intricate policies that are not used often (synthesis of WP:OR). That person just happens to be a new editor.

Then you look at his contribution history. You notice that their second ever edit they already learned to sign their username. Now, you don't think I should ask if that person had a previous account?

How did you learn to sign your user name for your second ever edit? Arbustoo 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles that are subjected to scrutiny turn out better. I AGF, and did not delete anything, and sought feedback. Sir, your accusatory questions are simply becoming annoying. But if you have ever studied edits like this, as I have, you would see the problem and learn the solution. Please desist from pursuing this line of questioning on my talk page. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So my question is baseless then? Arbustoo 06:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting essay. ImprobabilityDrive 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)