Talk:Rosalind Picard

Point of View Material on the Petition

A respected news source, the New York Times, labeled the petition anti-evolution. This carries more weight than anonymous contributors (like myself and others who have contributed to this article). It also appears that most of the previous editors of this article seemed to have agends.

136.167.158.77 (talk · contribs) Edit: Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence -Clearly POV, no explanation needed

209.6.126.244 (talk · contribs) Edit: Added POV material: (Note that the biological science signers are the most highly represented group.) -Again, this is POV and actually false since upon further examination lumping people in the "engineering/computational sciences" signers together creates a larger group than the biological science signers. It is safest to leave this out.

I suggest that all contributors read Wikipedia's Point of View guidelines. Other comments would be appreciated.128.197.4.36 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Petition intelligently designed to be anti evolution

This is the teleological argument that the Discovery Institute's petition was Intelligently Designed to be Anti-Evolution:

This article from the Discovery Institute clearly demonstrates that the petition is being used by the Discovery Institute in its campaign against evolution (it's dated April 1, but although ridiculous, it's not a joke -- they take themselves quite seriously): http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114

The petition and Rosalind Picard's name are certainly being USED by the anti-evolution, pro-creationism movement. There is no question of that fact. So the New York Times is correct in labeling it the Anti-Evolution petition.

I frame this as a teleological argument just to be ironic (the fact that the NY Times calls it the Anti-Evolution Petition is enough justification already). Countering with the Formal objections and counterarguments against teleological arguments simply raises the question: why don't you apply those same objections to Intelligent Design, which is also a teleological argument?

On 13 March 2006 18:32, someone edited the heading of this page from "Intelligent Design Support" to "Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence", and removed the word "Intelligent Design" from the text. I ask for a more critical examination of the evidence of that statement! When has Picard ever shown any skepticism about Intelligent Design, or asked for more critical examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design? The petition she signed is one-sided and Anti-Evolution, because it doesn't ask for a careful examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design, only Darwinism. Science demands the critical examination of ALL theories, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Anti-Evolution petition is superfluous and patronising, because it admonishes scientists to do something they were already doing, without asking anyone to apply the same standards to Intelligent Design.

It's petty for Rosalind Picard or her toadys to engage in an edit war to white-wash the New York Time's term "Anti-Evolition" and all references to "Intelligent Design", instead of standing up for what they believe in and explaining WHY she signed her name and the good name of the MIT to that Anti-Evolution petition.

The question is not "Is the petition Anti-Evolution?" It certainly is, because that's how it's being used by its designers. The real question I'd like answered is: "Does Rosalind Picard believe in Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Evolution, and is she willing to stand up for what she believes in and signs her name to, or not?" She needs to answer that question herself, and this wiki page should link to that.

It would be interesting to hear Picard address this glaring double standard:

The Anti-Evolution petition urges that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Why just Darwinism? The scientific method has always encouraged careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER THEORIES, including pseudoscientific theories like Intelligent Design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Discovery Institute and their supporters are intellectually dishonest, negligent and close-minded, because they refuse to carefully examine the pseudo-scientific claptrap they call Intelligent Design, which they promote for the reasons outlined in their Wedge Strategy. Where's the careful examination of the evidence of Intelligent Design, and why doesn't the Discovery Institute encourage that too, instead of ignoring the preponderance of the wide range of evidence for Evolution?

In the words of Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute: "It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession." If only Picard were bold enough to step up to the plate and explain her views on Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Evolution, and her dissent from Darwinism, and why she chose to sign her name and MIT's name to the Anti-Evolution petition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.47.110 (talk • contribs) 00:43-23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC) and 22:56-23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing

The Petition??? Which Petition???

The above discussion refers to a subsequently titled and reinterpreted revision of the original 2001 (untitled) two-sentence petition calling for "skeptical examination of evidence for scientific theories." Since there is no reliable source to legitimize DI's controversial linking of the 103 signers of the original untitled petition to its subsequently titled, reinterpreted, and repurposed version, I propose archiving or deleting the above section (and this one) as it has now been revealed that there is no reliably established legitimate connection between the subsequently retitled and reinterpreted document and the subject of this biography of a living person.

In view of the "Do No Harm" principle of the WP:BLP I believe the ethical thing to do is to separate the above discussion (which harms the subject and her affiliates) from the subject of the biography. I also think it would behoove the editors who were deceived by DI's fraudulent linkage to revisit their role in propagating DI's deception, and do what they can to ameliorate the harm already done. Moulton 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced intro

The entire intro for this article is unsourced, in violation of WP:BLP. I am therefore moving all but the first part of the first sentence here.

Rosalind W. Picard is founder and director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Laboratory and is co-director of the Things That Think Consortium, the largest industrial sponsorship organization at the lab. She holds a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering with highest honors from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Masters and Doctorate degrees, both in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, from MIT. She has been a member of the faculty at the MIT Media Laboratory since 1991, with tenure since 1998. Prior to completing her doctorate at MIT, she was a Member of the Technical Staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories where she designed VLSI chips for digital signal processing and developed new methods of image compression and analysis.

The author of over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in multidimensional signal modeling, computer vision, pattern recognition, machine learning, and human-computer interaction, Picard is known internationally for pioneering research in affective computing and, prior to that, for pioneering research in content-based image and video retrieval. She is recipient (with Tom Minka) of a best paper prize for work on machine learning with multiple models (1998) and is recipient (with Barry Kort and Rob Reilly) of a "best theory paper" prize for their work on affect in human learning (2001). Her award-winning book, Affective Computing, (MIT Press, 1997) lays the groundwork for giving machines the skills of emotional intelligence. She and her students have designed and developed a variety of new sensors, algorithms, and systems for sensing, recognizing, and responding respectfully to human affective information, with applications in human and machine learning, health, and human-computer interaction. She was named a Fellow of the IEEE in November 2004.

Dr. Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the Editorial Board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the National Science Foundation's division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the Georgia Tech College of Computing.

Picard works closely with industry, and has consulted with companies such as Apple Computer, AT&T, BT, HP, i.Robot, and Motorola. She has delivered keynote presentations or invited plenary talks at over fifty science or technology events, and distinguished lectures and colloquia at dozens of universities and research labs internationally. Her group's work has been featured in national and international forums for the general public, such as The New York Times, The London Independent, Scientific American Frontiers, NPR's Tech Nation and The Connection, ABC's Nightline and World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, Time, Vogue, Voice of America Radio, New Scientist, and BBC's The Works and The Big Byte. Picard lives in Newton, Massachusetts with her husband and three energetic sons.

Feel free to move this material back into the article if and when reliable sources can be found for it. Hrafn42 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard & A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism‎

Could people please stop removing Picard from Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and removing the brief mention of the fact (and the fact that her 'dissent' is an opinion volunteered well outside her field of expertise). The first is a matter of unambiguous fact. The second is clearly notable, given its mention in the NY Times. Hrafn42 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: Please arrange to talk to me by telephone. Your edits are a gross and egregious violation of WP:BLP:DNH policy. You are not a subject-matter expert on the subject of this article, and your edits are doing harm. Please cease and desist. Moulton 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: I am under no obligation to "talk to [you] by telephone." If you have something to say, say it here. As I presume you are not a professional biographer of scientists, you are not a "subject-matter expert on the subject of this article" either. Far more likely you are an associate of Picard's and thus subject to WP:COI (as well as WP:NOR). Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant clause of the WP:BLP:DNH...

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulton (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 August 2007

Moulton: The New York Times is not a tabloid! Picard's signing of this misleading, anti-scientific, creationist-inspired 'dissent' is a matter of public record within the mainstream media. It is neither "tabloid" nor "titillating". DNH is therefore completely irrelevant to these edits. Hrafn42 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Look: this is not rocket science. Did Picard sign or not? She clearly did. Her name is on the petition and it is mentioned in the New York Times. She went out of her way to ANNOUNCE this to the world. Ok fine. So she is in this category, correct? Well here, we have a category for people who have done that. To some people this is a positive thing, to others it is a negative thing. You seem to think it is negative. I do not care. What matters to us is, is it true? And is it notable? And is it verifiable and particularly, is it verifiable using a reliable source? All these requirements are met here. So she is in the category. Fair enough? Stop using your own biases and POV to get in the way! She signed, and we can verify it in a WP:RS source. It is not up to you or me to judge if it is good or bad. I do not know. It just is. This has NOTHING to do with "doing no harm". Some might feel it is "doing harm" by not focusing on this aspect of her life- ever consider that?--Filll 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: You are publishing false information. The document which Picard signed was not entitled "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." That title was added later by the Discovery Institute. It is false to claim that the signatories of the originally circulated document (which bore no title at all) were "dissenters" of Darwin's theory or its modern sequels. Please cease and desist from publishing false and misleading material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moulton (talk • contribs) 04:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

This is what she signed titled or not:

“ 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. ”

What it was called at the time is of no consequence, if she wasn't a "dissenter" she shouldn't have signed it. ornis (t) 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: It has been called 'A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism' at least since 2001, shortly after it started. In any case the contents of this spurious dissent ("We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.") is just as deceptive as the title -- "random mutation and natural selection" is neither Darwin's original (which did not include mutation), nor the modern (which also includes recombination, genetic drift and gene flow) theories of Evolution. Hrafn42 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it false? It is verifiable. It is in a WP:RS source. If Picard was tricked into signing something else that was relabled A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, show us documentation of this and we will include it. How do you know this? You cannot just claim that she was mislead and fraudulently induced to sign this petition without evidence! It might offend her to hear such things. So you are claiming that she signed some document with no title, no statement? Seems a bit hard to believe someone with her background would be naive enough to sign a petition that didnt have a title or a statement attached! And if she signed a statement saying she was a "Dissenter" of Darwin's theory or its modern sequels, then that is enough, as far as I can tell. And sign your posts why dont you for a change? --Filll 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You are unaware of the facts, Hrafn42. The document which Picard signed did not bear the title "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." That title was added later, and dramatically changed the way the public viewed and interpreted the document. You should be more skeptical of what you read, especially when it comes to titles and headlines added after the fact. The original statement has been criticized as vague and ill-worded. Not everyone who signed it considered it a dissent from anything. To characterize the signatories as dissenters is therefore false and misleading.

The fact that the NY Times also got snookered is no reason to further propagate their error or pillory other people. Please stop victimizing people that way. It is an unbecoming practice. Moulton 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

She signed the document. It doesn't matter what it was called, she should probably have been a little more careful about signing strange petitions, particularly ones that mention "Darwinian theory". ornis (t) 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I know that the original document (as circulated for signatures prior to publication) had no title is because Roz told me that some time ago. I've known Roz both personally and professionally for 27 years, and I'm familiar with her views. Please stop propagating false and misleading information.

Please arrange to talk to me by phone. I'd like to discuss this with you voice-to-voice, if not face-to-face. Moulton 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How did the NY Times get snookered? How do we know that the title and/or the statement was not on the petition? You mean to tell me that an MIT professor would sign a blank petition, and the words could be added later, and would not threaten legal action to get her name removed if she disagreed? Others have had their names removed. She didnt? She disagrees? Where is your proof? How do you know this? How is this victimizing people? People are proud to be creationists. What is wrong with that? Let them stand up and be recognized for it. We are not to be skeptical about stuff in WP:RS and WP:V sources. We are far more skeptical of you. If you are in the USA, I will call you. And try to expain this to you. If not, well I wont offer.--Filll 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers often get the story wrong. Even the NY Times. If you are skeptical of me, come out of anonymity and call me on the phone, so we can discuss this like gentlemen. I have much more to tell you, but I am not a young man, and I don't care to type long tracts here. Moulton 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I made my offer. If you accept, email me.--Filll 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I made my offer. And now no comments? Did I call your bluff?--Filll 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. I keep colliding with your edits.

The fact that you don't know about the issue of the title of the document further illustrates why Wikipedia should not publish claims about someone signing a document bearing a purported title. Since you don't know that, and you should now be skeptical of any previous assumptions about that, I propose you revise your publications to remove the false claim about "Dissent". The word "dissent" does not appear in the document. Perhaps if you cared to do the research, you might find out the truth here. In the meantime, I am advising you that your publications on the matter are false and misleading, and are doing harm to the subject of this article, with whom you are entirely unfamiliar. Moulton 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moultan: you have provided no evidence that an "issue of the title of the document" actually exists, let alone evidence from a reliable source -- which is the standard for inclusion in wikipedia. Hrafn42 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll: Where do I find your E-Mail? I'll send you my phone number as soon as I cand find the page with your e-mail on it. I'm in the USA. Moulton 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It has had this title since 2001. The Discovery Institute is well known to be a creationist hotbed for at least as long. If someone signed it by mistake and disagreed with it, they could get off the list by threatening legal action, as several have already done. Also, who (especially an MIT professor) signs a blank petition? And almost 800 people have signed the list. If what you are claiming is the case, why has not one of the other 800 people said something? Why is this not in the press or at least on the blogs? Believe me, there are zillions of people who would love to get their hands on this sort of information, particularly if it could be substantiated. For example, the National Center for Science Education. Plenty of lawyers as well, in the legal matters associated with this; people would pay for this kind of testimony, believe me. And in spite of this, you want me to believe that she signed a blank petition, and did nothing about it for several years? And others did too, and the story has not come out? With millions of dollars spent in legal fees? And investigative journalism? And by lobbying groups like NCSE? This is a bit hard to swallow, frankly.--Filll 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To find my email, go to my user page, and look on the left hand side for "email this user"--Filll 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it and sent you my phone number. Moulton 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I just visited the NSCE page and it seems to support the claim that DI played fast and loose in more ways than one. The ad, as published, contained a lot more gratuitous interpretation than just the misleading title of the page. Two additional paragraphs appeared in the ad, supplying further interpretation that spins the meaning of the two key sentences which the signatories were asked to sign. The same NSCE article reveals how DI conflated Darwinian theory with the totality of evolution models.

The NSCE page concludes:

It is regrettable that the public is likely to be confused by these advertisements and be misled into thinking that all of these scientists reject evolution, or that there is a groundswell of scientists rejecting evolution. Neither is true.

To call it "regrettable" is an understatement. What troubles me, gentlemen, is that your team at Wikipedia seem to have bought into the DI's stronger interpretation of the statement, rather than the weaker one suggested by NSCE.

That's why publishing a claim that all signatories are "Dissenters" is unsupportable at best and harmful at worst. It not only harms the scientists who interpret the meaning differently from DI, it harms your own project by alienating the very scientists who could most help clarify the subtleties outlined in the NSCE page.

But take a good look at the ad, as reprised on the NSCE site. Clearly the signatories were not asked to sign the extra paragraphs that precede the two sentences in the gray box. And the title of the ad precedes those two gratuitous paragraphs. It occurs to me that there is ample evidence that the title of the ad was crafted along with the other two paragraphs that precede the two sentences.

Is this not strong (and reliable) evidence that the label "Scientific Dissenters from Darwinism" was coined specifically as spin for the ad, and was not part of the petition that circulated beforehand?

Finally, note that Roz is one of 105 signatories on this maiden appearance of the ad, which supports the claim that she is being unfairly labeled (first by DI, and now by your group) as a "Dissenter" from Darwinism. This claim cannot be sustained for the first 105 signatories unless they expressly affirm it.

Therefore I beseech you to remove the label "Scientific Dissenter from Darwinism" as there is insufficient evidence to establish that for the first 105 signatories on that maiden ad. Moulton 08:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton (aka Rosalind Picard's press officer):

• If Picard wishes to make a press release or other public statement disavowing the 'Dissent' we will mention it in the article. Unless and until she does that, she continues to implicitly endorse the use that her name is being put to by the DI. We have WP:RSs for this, so will continue to include this in the article.
• The "harm" was done by Picard herself -- inadvisedly venturing an opinion, outside her field of expertise, that contradicted the consensus of the genuine experts in the field. How would Picard feel if a bunch of biologists came along and started spouting that "machine recognition and modeling of human emotional expression" impossible?
• By calling her "Roz", I take it that you are closely associated with her? I would therefore suggest that you observe WP:COI.
• You can "beseech" all you want. It will not change the facts.

Hrafn42 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid to say you are not aware of the facts in this case.

And I worry that you may similarly be clinging to an ungrounded theory in as many as 102 other cases.

But Filll is now aware. I suggest you take a deep breath and wait until you hear from him. Moulton 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I await the outcome of Filll's divine revelation at your hands with bated breath.</sarcasm> Hrafn42 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've heard back from Filll. He shares my skepticism as to some of your unverifiable claims, but is willing to indulge in some unusable original research in an attempt to check them out (though I suspect with little chance of finding out anything that would change anything even if it wasn't OR). For myself, I take a harder nosed attitude: if it can't be used, it may as well not exist. Status quo ante. Hrafn42 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Garbled sentence

In their rabid attempts to whitewash Picard's reputation, and hide the fact that she was foolish enough to push her own ill-advised and inexpert "skepticism" over the consensus of hundreds of evolutionary biologists, Moulton is repeatedly restoring this garbled sentence, which clearly involves two completely different sentences being welded together (between "respond" & "Picard"):

The Affective Computing Research Group develops tools, techniques, and devices for sensing, interpreting, and processing emotion signals that drive state-of-the-art systems which respond Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the editorial board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the National Science Foundation's division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the Georgia Tech College of Computing.

This is the level of cack-handed partisanship that Moultan has descended to. Hrafn42 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that Moulton has finally realised that the stuff they were restoring was nonsense, so has removed the offending interpolation, while describing this action as "Add back missing material."[4] Such honesty! LOL Hrafn42 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42: I have written you a long essay or two on the main discussion page for the Darwin Dissent soap opera.

Your petulance is unbecoming. I suggest you join with Filll to assemble the evidence he now seeks, to shore up the theory I presented to him and to you.

Moulton 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. You repeatedly butchered that sentence then, when this fact was pointed out to you, lied about what you were doing when you corrected it (removing "Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the editorial board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the National Science Foundation's division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the Georgia Tech College of Computing." from the middle of a sentence is not adding anything), and when that was pointed out to you, you accuse me of unbecoming "petulance". You really are a piece of work Moulton. Oh, and could you please stop changing the section titles[5][6] [7]-- it is very childish. Hrafn42 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're projecting, Hrafn42. I appreciate that you have an issue with immaturity. If you'll settle down, I'll help you develop some usable skills at evaluating material for accuracy and scientific soundness in a more mature and professional manner. Then we can proceed to cooperate to expose DI for the unreliable source that we both know it to be. That's Filll's goal too. I think you have at hand more than enough evidence already to make a damn good case. The 2006 NYT article (which DI objected to) reported the fact that DI published an arresting claim, and then, instead of substantiating DI's claim, the NYT article went on to cast doubt on it. Good for them. A skeptical reader of the NYT would come away with good evidence that DI had just published a pile of horse dookie. Now what we need to do here is to reinforce that view with some defensible evidence. NSCE has already provided an excellent critique of DI's original ad, revealing DI's shameful duplicity in the case of their mischaracterization of PBS. At least two of the original 103 signatories cited in the NYT article registered parallel complaints about how DI distorted, mischaracterized, and relabeled their two-sentence quote. NYT and NSCE hiked the ball to you guys. I don't understand why didn't you run it into the end zone way back then.

But it's not too late to repair the damage and do this right, using proper tools of science. Are you game to play chess against the real enemy now? Moulton 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: I think I'll let your immaturity in changing section titles speak for itself. Hrafn42 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy and Alternative Points of View

The Times did report the claims of the DI in that story, along with some remarks by some of the signatories. The Times neither substantiated nor refuted the reported claims of the DI, but left it to the reader to judge what to make of it. That is, the Times adopted a neutral point of view.

The main article elsewhere in Wikipedia examines those claims and provides further material that allows a skeptical reader to adjudge whether or not to take the claims of the DI at face value.

I am curious as to whether the editors of this section wish to propagate the reported claims of the DI with a view to persuading the readers that the claims of the DI are either believable or doubtful. Or do the editors prefer to take a neutral point of view, emphasizing that the claims of the DI are simply being reported here with neither affirmation nor refutation. Moulton 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that no WP:RS has disputed that Picard signed this statement, whether "The Times neither substantiated nor refuted the reported claims of the DI" is not relevant. The standard is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). Wikipedia is full of 'facts', stated as true on the basis of a WP:RS, and the lack of any WP:RS dispute. Hrafn42 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no WP:RS to affirm the veracity of DI's doubtful claim either. That is, you have no WP:RS either way. Therefore it is not a verifiable fact that Picard (or any of the other 103 original signers) consented to or agreed with the DI's published interpretation or political position vis-a-vis PBS or any other subsequent political purpose regarding what should or shouldn't be taught in school.

All you have on verifiable record is that the 103 original signers called for skeptical examination of the evidence for scientific theories. DI's unverifiable claim which fraudulently spins that into consensual agreement or support for their interpretation or political agenda is not a fact under the rules of Wikipedia.

All the rest of DI's propaganda is utter hogwash fraudulently perpetrated by the DI without the verifiably demonstrated consent of the original 103 individuals.

In view of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause, the unverified claim of the DI must not be promoted to fact and any content to that effect must be immediately expunged, per the WP:BLP:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

Moulton 16:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Award-winning" book?

As part of the unsourced puff-piece glorifying Picard that Moulton insists on restoring repeatedly is the claim that Picard's book is "award-wining". What award did it win? I have seen no evidence of an award mentioned, and the use of this term on Picard's webpage would appear to be mere self-serving puffery. Hrafn42 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I also draw Moulton's attention to WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, which specifically restricts information from self-published sources (like Picard's webpage) to information that is "not unduly self-serving" & "does not involve claims about third parties" and that the article cannot be "based primarily on such sources". I believe that this excludes most of the puffery from Picard's webpage. Hrafn42 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (Incidentally, the Edit Summary of my latest reversion of this material is inaccurate - it should have said "self-published puff-piece" instead of "unsourced puff-piece") Hrafn42 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cui Bono

This article is a biography of Rosalind Picard. There is an official MIT Faculty Biography Page (separate from the subject's personal home page) that is the source of the biographical information. That MIT Faculty Biography website has uniform biographies for all faculty members of the MIT Media Lab.

I am aware of your idiosyncratic beliefs, Hrafn42. You are welcome to harbor your personal beliefs. However your personal beliefs are neither facts nor demonstrated theories grounded in scientific evidence. You have offered (and published as fact) many of your beliefs, including ones that are demonstrably false. If you care to write a personal blog giving your opinions, theories, and beliefs, no one is stopping you. However a Wikipedia biography page of a notable living person is not the appropriate place for you to publish your beliefs or theories about the subject of the article, unless those beliefs or theories are known to be accurate and well-sourced.

You have at your disposal evidence to which you intentionally have turned a blind eye and disregarded -- evidence that demonstrates to any impartial observer that some of your theories, beliefs, or claims are dubious at best and demonstrably false at worst.

Professor Picard signed a petition calling for those who are working with theories to examine the evidence for those theories with a skeptical eye. Yet you persist in failing to apply that sound advice to your own dubious theories, beliefs, and claims.

Now this is Wikipedia, and you are an anonymous editor from New Zealand. For all intents and purposes you are immune from the consequences of violating the tenets of ethics in journalism.

However, you are not immune from being the subject of an article on ethics in journalism, as practiced on Wikipedia.

In the interests of full disclosure, I will tell you that even as I sit here typing in this window, I am conversing in another window with yet another faculty member who teaches a course on ethics in journalism. Her class resumes shortly after labor day. Her students will be doing the usual kind of stories, and publishing them on the university's web site. I've talked to this professor about Wikipedia on many occasions (not just this one), but this one strikes me as an excellent example of just the kind of story a student studying ethics in journalism might find intriguing.

My interest, however, is more along the lines of applications of the theory of emotions and learning. You might wonder why I spend so much time with you, Hrafn42. It's not really about the bio page of Roz Picard, or the Darwin Dissent Controversy. Those are only cover stories. It's your hook, not mine. My hook is watching how people learn their craft (or fail to learn it). I frankly don't understand how you go about the process of learning the craft you practice here.

One thing I do note is that you are an expert on the detailed rules of Wikipedia. You can cite a rule faster than I can click the mouse.

Now that also interests me, because I am also a student of the dynamics of rule-based systems. I discussed this interest of mine at some length with Filll last night. I wonder if you appreciate what theory or assumption you are operating under when you engage in your practice of rule-driven bureaucratic machinations. I suspect you are not aware of the theory that predicts the behavior of rule-driven systems. It occurs to me that if you were aware, you might migrate to a more functional method of practice.

But I digress.

I'm interested in the question, Cui Bono? Who is served by your obsession here with the biography page of some obscure MIT professor whom you've never met, and whose specialties hold no interest for you?

Tell me, for I am curious. Cui Bono? Who is served?

Moulton 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an official MIT Faculty Biography Page (separate from the subject's personal home page) that is the source of the biographical information. That MIT Faculty Biography website has uniform biographies for all faculty members of the MIT Media Lab.

Except that the "official MIT Faculty Biography Page" is identical to "the subject's personal home page". So it seems that if the "MIT Faculty Biography website" has any "uniformity" at all, it would be in uniformly repeating verbatim the subject's personal page. I would be also curious to know how your mythical MIT biographer would know (or be interested in) how "energetic" Picard's sons are. The piece is clearly autobiographical. Hrafn42 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather well acquainted with her energetic children. I can assure you that, to the best of my knowledge, the elements of her biography are quite accurate.

I wish I could say the same for your remarkable theories about the subject of this article.

Moulton 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: I do not give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys for "the best of [your] knowledge" (which is clearly WP:OR). I care about WP:RS. Any piece that includes such fluff is clearly a puff-piece rather than a serious biography and so not WP:RS. Given that you are so familiar with your dear friend Roz, maybe you can enlighten us on who actually wrote this sycophantic piece. Hrafn42 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Interests of Troubled and Conflicted Souls

I see that you're idly theorizing again, with another of your legendary flights of fancy. Rather than speculate without the benefit of evidence and reasoning, why don't you interview me to discover the nature and extent of my interest in uncaring (and uncared-for) individuals such as yourself.

Are you a curious and courageous enough adventure writer to discover the truth, or do you prefer to remain safely ensconced in your cocoon of self-delusion, anonymity and utter indifference to the tragic harm caused by blindly acting out one's innermost fantasies?

Rest assured, I am becoming increasing familiar with your legendary and oft-disclosed lack of caring, which seems to be a recurring issue in your life and recently published remarks.

And I appreciate that your dreadfully provocative remarks elsewhere are a transparent attempt to solicit the kind of caring that you apparently crave in your real life outside Wikipedia and the Internet.

You have a keen sense of awareness of those who respond with a small measure of empathy and compassion to your desperate cries for attention.

So you've chosen me as your antagonist, respondent, and mentor. So be it. I'm flattered.

Not that I'm necessarily up to the task, but I'll give it a decent college try.

Let's begin by crafting a mutually-agreeable social contract setting forth the protocols of our budding and potentially troubled relationship.

What are your desires and objectives for this unfolding relationship?

Do you prefer comedy, tragedy, or bildungsroman?

Do you prefer functional or dysfunctional relationship?

Do you prefer highly emotional or emotionally subdued scenes in our continuing soap opera?

Moulton 11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A serious young man found the conflicts of mid 20th Century America confusing. He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled.

One night in a coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go to the dilapidated mansion you will find at this address which I have written down for you. Do not speak to those who live there; you must remain silent until the moon rises tomorrow night. Go to the large room on the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast corner, face the corner, and meditate."

He did just as the Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would fall from the second floor bathroom to join the pipes and other trash he was sitting on.He worried how would he know when the moon rose on the next night. He worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him.

His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him. At that time two people walked into the room. The first asked the second who the man was sitting there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is a shithead."

Hearing this, the man was enlightened.

Hrafn42 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As poor Moulton seems incapable of getting the joke, to the point of repeatedly 'correcting' my attempt at reproducing the formatting of the original,[8] and "adapting" what he thought was my work,[9] I will strike it and merely include this link to page 5 of the work I was quoting. Hrafn42 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Adaptability is a highly functional character trait.

See, there you go again, publishing yet another theory without a shred of evidence and without bothering to examine your theory with a skeptical eye. I know full well that you did not write that Zen story yourself, but imported it from somewhere else. But you republished it here, so you are immediate source of the version I adapted. Neener.

But I confess I don't get the point of your perplexing formatting.

Moulton 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"If you abandon the adversary's territory, resign." Hrafn42 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that the name "Satan" comes from the Greek satana which means adversary? In ancient stories, the adversary (or antagonist) was sometimes called Satan. In one of Shakespeare's plays, the heroine (who is mistakenly presumed to be dead during much of the play) is named Hero.

Who is the hero and who is the villain is sometimes just a matter of one's point of view. See, for example Wicked by Gregory Maguire.

A more interesting kind of tale is the Greek Tragedy, or Hero-Goat Story. The would-be hero suffers from a character flaw (hubris or arrogance). He stumbles and fails at his quest and then becomes the scapegoat, blamed for everything that went haywire. At the point where the fallen protagonist realizes he is his own worst enemy, he becomes remorseful and sings the Dithyramb, a lament that basically goes, "What kind of fool am I?"

Moulton 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From Go to Woe in one quick jump. LOL! Hrafn42 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, I'm afraid I need to correct you on your etymological musings. Satan is from Hebrew (see the triliteral stn), not Greek.

As for the rest of your rather odd musings, I'd suggest that you seek help. I'm very concerned: whenever I see someone in obvious mental torment and disarray I can but hope they seek proper treatment. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I am seeking help from a referee, mediator, or ombudsman to help resolve a vexing conflict with a combative and confused adversary.

Moulton 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The name of the petition

That Picard has signed a petition that states:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

...has never been in dispute.

• However, given the extremely vocal sensitivity of a single editor over whether it was called this at the time she signed this, I have changed the section title to "Anti-Evolution Petition Controversy" to reflect this sensitivity.
• But we need to call this petition something, and the title that the DI gave to it is the name by which it is now generally known, so we use this. There is widespread precedence for such nomenclature decisions, e.g.: none of the kings of the House of Plantagenet used the surname Plantagenet. The first descendent of Geoffrey of Anjou (from whom the name originates) to use the surname was Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, father of the House of York kings Edward IV and Richard III.
  • Especially, we do not have the power to change the name of the category for the signatories of this petition. Picard is legitimately in this category, and if somebody don't like the category's name they must take that to a higher forum.
• Finally, any attempt to argue that, simply by putting a name to, and originally (but no longer) a couple of paragraphs in front of, this petition, the DI turned it into a new and unrelated document, is entirely spurious.

Hrafn42 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just call the section "Controversial Petition" without adopting any of the DI's preferred labels or characterizations? The section title need not favor DI's POV regarding the interpretation of the otherwise unnamed petition that Picard signed in 2001. Calling it "Controversial Petition" is factually accurate and NPOV. Can you agree to that?

Regarding the Category issue, what Picard signed was a predecessor to the petition that was eventually offered for signature under the name that DI later gave to it. To put any of the original 103 signers of the untitled petition into the existing category unfairly links them to the successor versions where the sponsorship and title were fully disclosed to potential signers. Even though the body of the petition bears the same text, the addition of a politically loaded title strongly biases the meaning and interpretation of the text. More importantly, disclosure of the identity and political agenda of the sponsor significantly changes the essential character of the successor versions relative to the original.

You might want to create a separate category for the first 103 signers of the untitled petition that circulated through academia without disclosure of sponsorship and without disclosure of the sponsor's political agenda or intended use. It is unfair to the 103 scientists to link them to the later signers who clearly knew what the DI stood for. As the NY Times article sought to point out, most of the subsequent signers were pro-DI evangelicals with a sympathetic religious/political agenda. Many (if not most) of the original 103 scientists had a science/educational agenda. Just because DI managed to conflate the two demographic groups into one merged list, Wikipedia should not aid and abet their deception. Additionally, a WP:BLP "Do No Harm" ethic would suggest not tarring the first 103 signers with the same brush as for those who signed the subsequent versions that carried the politically loaded title, full disclosure of sponsorship, and full disclosure of agenda.

I propose we invite the WP:MedCab to help us on these disputatious issues, if we cannot come to a meeting of the minds here.

Also, is there a protocol for tagging an article section as disputed? Presumably we don't have to jointly agree to insert such a tag, but that is what I propose to do.

Moulton 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Characterisation of the petition

Given the degree of controversy over how this subject is portrayed in the article, I think a brief recap is in order.

This is how the subject was portrayed before I started editing:[10]

Darwin dissenter

Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". This petition has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and mandate the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, and it has it has been the subject of criticism and parody.

Although some of the signatories of the Dissent from Darwinism petition hold doctorates in science and engineering disciplines, only about one quarter of the signers have biological science backgrounds, and at least one signatory has abandoned the list, saying he felt mislead. By comparison, during the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of people who were verified to be scientists. During the four days of the petition, it received 20 times as many signatures at a rate 690,000% higher than the Discovery Institute can claim.

This is how Moulton originally proposed it be portrayed:[11]

This is Moulton's most recent proposal for its portrayal:[12]

Darwin dissenter

In February 2006, the New York Times ran a story reporting an ongoing claim by the Discovery Institute that Dr. Picard was one of 300 professonals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". This two-sentence petition has been widely exploited by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. While the Times did not independently substantiate the reported claims of the Discovery Institute, the story included comments from some of the signers, letting the readers judge for themselves what to make of it.

And this is my current proposal:[13]

Anti-Evolution Petition Controversy

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Dr. Picard was one of 300 professonals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". This two-sentence petition has been widely exploited by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. It has it the subject of criticism and parody.

Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology. Writer Ed Brayton, co-founder of "Michigan Citizens for Science" and the The Panda's Thumb website, writes that, "the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field."

Hrafn42 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton & WP:COI

I put it to Moulton (when he is unblocked again), that he has co-written a number of articles with Rosalind Picard (the subject of this article), is a friend of hers, and thus has a "close relationship" with her (per WP:COI#Examples), and thus a conflict of interest. "Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace." I would also suggest that he reads WP:SCOIC.

As it has been "most strenuously pointed out that potentially conflicted editors do not lose their rights to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously, and that outing editors in terms of their real names is in all cases against basic policy", I have no intention of revealing Moulton's identity, and have in fact watered down my first sentence to avoid doing so, even indirectly. Hrafn42 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly a relief that it is a mere COI as the other option was far more disconcerting. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My conflict is with the unjustified elevation to "facthood" of unverified theories and speculations extracted from the elements of the controversy. Nor am I concerned about my anonymity. It is trivially easy to look me up, and I presume that most interested parties here by now know my real name, credentials, and affiliations. I have used the screen name "Moulton" since 1990, when I began developing science education resources on the Internet as a member of an educational technology research group funded by the National Science Foundation. The articles I co-authored with Professor Picard were also funded by a grant from the NSF. My allegiance is to the cause of science and science education, and that is the role I propose to play here.

To keep the peace, I will propose below the insertion of an intervening section between the biographical material and the disputatious "Darwin Dissent Controversy" that some editors here wish to retain on this page with appalling disregard for the ground truth.

My concern is that some of the existing material is based on unwarranted assumptions regarding people whose names appeared on the original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition. My concern is that the unwarranted assumptions constitute a potentially libelous violation of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause by propagating dubious claims of the DI as if they were established facts. Elsewhere I have managed to highlight the passages where Wikipedia articles have blithely adopted the DI's view of the controversial petition without first examining the evidence for their dubious view with a sufficiently keen and skeptical eye.

Please bear with me and extend to me the courtesy of patience and good faith, as I am not conversant with all the Wikipedia conventions regarding resolution of disputatious content appearing on the biographies of living persons. Please understand that I am here to work for the betterment of Wikipedia, in the name of science, science education, and science journalism.

Moulton 13:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: WP:AGF is not an unlimited blank cheque, but a starting position in the absence of evidence to the contrary. By repeatedly edit-warring on an article where you have a clear conflict of interest, and by your often intemperate language, and unsubstantiated accusations that are themselves in violation of WP:AGF, you have used up a substantial portion of the assumption of good faith initially apportioned to you. The benefit of the doubt that is accorded henceforth is therefore likely to be considerably narrower. If you want to be allowed time to substantiate your claims then I would suggest that you:

1. cease directly editing this article (as per WP:COI guidelines); and
2. refrain from making accusations, unless and until you can substantiate them with hard, WP:V & WP:RS, facts. Particularly, the repeated, unsubstantiated accusations of "libel" (which you have made in both your text and in your edit summary) need to stop right now!

Hrafn42 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I reaffirm my position that the irresponsible publication of the unverified claims of the DI as if they were established facts is potentially libelous and a prima facie violation of the WP:BLP "Do No Harm" clause. There are 102 other people who are in a similar situation.

The analysis of the 2001 ad by Skip Evans establishes reasonable doubt that the claims of the DI are factually correct.

Moulton 15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton:

• Accusations of "irresponsible publication" are violations of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA
• The claims are not "unverified", they have been verified as coming from a WP:RS, namely the New York Times
• They are not "potentially libelous" as the combination of a WP:RS for the claim, combined with a lack of repudiation from Picard, is easily enough to disprove libel
• As all of this has long been in the public domain, it is in no way a violation of WP:HARM. I would suggest that you read it, instead of merely assuming what it says
• Evans' analysis applies to paragraphs since deleted from the 'Dissent', so are inapplicable to its current version.

I regret to see that you are unable to refrain from using intemperate language and making unsubstantiated accusations. Hrafn42 15:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I reaffirm my concern that it is irresponsible to publish false and defamatory content, and a violation of the WP:BLP to do so.

I propose we invite WP:MedCab to help us resolve this issue.

I do not dispute that the claims of the DI are unsourced. The NY Times did report that the DI had indeed fronted those claims. But reporting that DI had fronted a set of claims does not makes the claims themselves true facts, nor did the NY Times affirm that the claims of the DI were factually true. Rather the NY Times counterbalanced their report of the DI's newly launched website with quotes and other information that cast doubt on the veracity of the claims of the DI. A fair reading of the story by a skeptical reader would confirm that.

I propose we invite a neutral referee to review the NY Times story and opine as to whether or not the NY Times story independently affirms the claims of the DI as factually true.

Falsehoods of many sorts have been in the public domain since the dawn of civilization. Myths abound. That doesn't make them true. For example, most people still believe that rule-driven systems are inherently orderly and stable. But mathematicians have known for over a century that rule-driven systems are generally chaotic. Any attempt to prove as a theorem that rule-driven systems are orderly and stable would fail. Modern Chaos Theory reveals that it's quite easy to give a set of rules that produce all manner of chaos, ranging from gorgeous fractals to occasionally interesting dramas, present case included.

If you would like to be apprised of the harm caused by the content which I have objected to here, I will be glad to communicate it to you in private and in confidence. I am not at liberty to publicly disclose the harm.

Moulton 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Intervening Section on "Controversial New York Times Story"

Rather than argue over the title or contents of the disputed second section regarding the pertinence of the controversial petition itself, I propose to insert an intervening section about the controversy stirred up by the appearance of Kenneth Chang's 2006 story in the NY Times, wherein Picard's name is mentioned. The reason I find it necessary to do this is because some elements of Chang's story, which report claims of the DI have been blithely elevated to facthood, without benefit of a critical examination of the reported claims.

Here is my initial draft for the new section, to appear below the biography and above the discussion of the controversial DI petition.

Controversial New York Times Story

In February 2006, the New York Times ran an investigative story by Kenneth Chang of the New York Times Science Desk, reporting that the Discovery Institute had launched a new website to promote their expanded public relations campaign regarding how theories of evolution should be taught in public school. The new website included a list of signatories to an earlier petition which the Discovery Institute had termed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." The petition dated back to 2001 when it was first published by the Discovery Institute beneath an ad criticizing a forthcoming PBS series on evolution. The headline on the Discovery Institute's 2001 ad was also "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," although the petition itself, embedded at the bottom of the ad, did not carry that label (it bore no label at all). The untitled 2001 version of the petition simply read, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Chang's story disclosed that Professor Picard's name appeared on the petition cited by the newly launched Dissent From Darwin website, but the Times article did not distinguish which version she signed. Indeed, Professor Picard's name first appeared on the original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition and her name remained on the subsequent controversially yclept versions, including the most recent one appearing on the new website. Chang's story neither substantiated nor refuted the claims of the Discovery Institute that the two-sentence petition supported or endorsed DI's slant on its meaning, but the story did include a mixture of quotes from some of the people whose names appeared on the list at different times, including some quotes that cast doubt on the Discovery Institute's characterization of all the petition signers as variously "dissenters from Darwinism" or "anti-evolution." Chang's story, in conjunction with the Discovery Institute's website and its attached list of petition signers left a wake of confusion over who among the list of signers of the earlier versions of the petition agreed with or consented to the Discovery Institute's characterization of the petition signers as "anti-evolution" "dissenters" who presumably supported the emerging and evolving agenda of the Discovery Institute. It is at present unknown to what degree, if any, Picard agrees with or supports the Discovery Institute's controversial interpretation of the petition as "dissent." It is also unknown whether Picard has ever supported any or all of the ongoing political agenda of the Discovery Institute.

The last two sentences of the proposed new section reflect the absence of verifiable published information regarding the attitude of most of the original 103 signers. So far, Wikipedia has only managed to obtain a reliably sourced comment from Stanley N. Salthe, who disputed DI's characterization and supplied his own salty attitude, "A plague on both their houses."

Skip Evans of the NCSE similarly casts doubt on the DI's interpretation, saying

The Statement

The signatories appear to attest to a statement about the ability of natural selection to "account for the complexity of life" - in other words, a statement about how evolution takes place. Given the anti-evolutionary tone of the introductory paragraphs, a layperson reading the advertisement might well assume that the signatories objected to evolution itself, rather than to the universality of natural selection as its mechanism. But did the scientists themselves object to evolution? Any of them? All of them? Or were some of them only questioning the importance of natural selection? Many scientists - including many associated with NCSE - could in good conscience sign a statement attesting to natural selection's not fully explaining the complexity of life!

It's unclear to me which of the editors here are persuaded by DI's interpretation, which ones are persuaded by the NCSE's point of view. But it occurs to me that a neutral point of view requires Wikipedia to avoid elevating DI's POV to facthood. All that can be stated reliably is that Picard put her name to the two sentences back in 2001, before the DI decloaked and published the original anti-PBS ad. It cannot be reliably established that she attested to anything more, notwithstanding DI's claim to the contrary, and notwithstanding Changs' story reporting that dubious claim.

A neutral point of view and a cautious application of WP:BLP "Do No Harm" therefore requires an abundance of caution when it comes to presenting DI's views, controversial labels, and interpretations as if they were established facts per Wikipedia standards (not to mention the standards of ethical journalism).

More importantly, it's essential to heed the exhortation found in one of those two sentences to examine the evidence for one's beliefs with a keenly skeptical eye. My skeptical eye happens to agree with Skip Evans and not with others who favor the characterization of the 2001 petition as "anti-evolution" or "dissent from Darwin" or as implicit support for DI's political agenda regarding PBS or DI's more recent agenda regarding the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

Moulton 14:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see a number of problems with this "proposed intervening section":

• There is no WP:RS for the claim that the NYT piece was "controversial"
• The "proposed intervening section" is longer than the section on Picard's signing of the petition -- this seems grossly disproportionate
• The description of the petition gives the impression that it was in abeyance between 2001 & 2006, when we know for a fact that it was gradually being expanded in the intervening years
• The statement contained in all versions of the petition are the same, so it is immaterial "which version she signed"
• The originally published petition was not untitled, so referring to "original 2001 untitled two-sentence petition" is misleading
• To state "Chang's story neither substantiated nor refuted the claims of the Discovery Institute that the two-sentence petition supported or endorsed DI's slant on its meaning" is WP:OR that casts WP:POV doubts on Chang's story, where none exists from a WP:RS
• The claim that "Chang's story, in conjunction with the Discovery Institute's website and its attached list of petition signers left a wake of confusion over who among the list of signers of the earlier versions of the petition agreed with or consented to the Discovery Institute's characterization of the petition signers as "anti-evolution" "dissenters" who presumably supported the emerging and evolving agenda of the Discovery Institute. It is at present unknown to what degree, if any, Picard agrees with or supports the Discovery Institute's controversial interpretation of the petition as "dissent." It is also unknown whether Picard has ever supported any or all of the ongoing political agenda of the Discovery Institute." is unsourced and POV.

I therefore cannot support this section's inclusion. Hrafn42 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion on the proposed intervening section is to illuminate the controversial conclusions and impression that readers took away from the story, because they conflated the reported claims of the DI as described in the story with independently verifiable facts. The analysis by Skip Evans illustrates this confusion and provides a reliable source that the claims of the DI are not necessarily valid. That's one way to establish the controversial nature of stories about the DI which contrast the published claims of the DI to published remarks by signatories like Salthe and Davidson ridiculing the DI's interpretation.

If you want a reliable source that the article by Chang is controversial in its own right, on multiple points, you can take a look at the article's Ask Science Q&A page on the NYT wherein Chang responds to commentary and criticisms of his piece, and admits that parts of it are slanted toward highlighting the anti-evolution signers and not the pro-evolution ones. Chang says, "This article focused on Discovery's petition and thus I did not interview evolution supporters."

Moulton: you are grossly misrepresenting Chang's statement. He was not talking about "highlighting the anti-evolution signers and not the pro-evolution ones" (within the 'Dissent'), but why he didn't interview signers of a completely separate pro-evolution petition. This renders moot most of your claims below. Hrafn42 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The error is mine.

Elsewhere, you have good evidence that there are evolution supporters among the 103 initial and subsequent signers, notably including Bob Davidson, whose story came to light and is featured in the main Wikipedia entry on the Darwin Dissent Controversy.

But no evidence whatsoever that Picard is one of them. We know that Bob Davidson is an evolution supporter, because he has declared his support and made efforts to get off the list. Picard has not done this (or anything else to distance herself from the 'Dissent') to date. Hrafn42 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. You have no direct evidence upon which to adjudge Picard's reasons for signing the original untitled petition. Chang's article only reports that he found her name on the list, along with two other eminent scientists, one of whom is a member of the National Academy of Scientists, and one of whom had previously published on the subject, in which publication he winds up his technical criticism about the wretchedly excessive genuflecting toward Darwinism by saying, "None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false." Reading between the lines, one gathers that Chang considers Skell, Picard, and Tour to be of common stripe in terms of scientific credentials, and of those three, one has published the nature of his complaint, which isn't about the theory itself, but about the tendency to invoke it ritually as a sign of respect, even when the research subject at hand doesn't rest on any of Darwin's work. Now I will grant you that Skell's beef isn't a headline grabber. But neither is it fair grist for DI's mill. By implication, one can suppose that other scientists may well have similar obscure technical reasons that don't make very good newspaper copy. Does Picard sign because she wants students to learn how to examine the evidence with a skeptical eye? You might discover the answer to that by reading some of her papers or some of her students' papers, or by reflecting on what I keep needling you about. Does Picard sign because she wants students to discover Complexity Theory? You might find the answer to that by looking up Picard's earlier research interests before she started up on Affective Computing. Chang's story doesn't say. You might have a personal interest in knowing (as I did). Do you think I'd be here trying to warn you off propagating a mistaken implication if you had made the correct guess about her reasons?

Moulton 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This intentional snubbing of evolution-supporters among those interviewed by Chang for comments misleads readers about the statistical mix of those who signed the petition, giving some people the impression (per the desires of the DI) that all signers are variously "anti-evolution" or "Darwin dissenters." The contemporaneous analysis by Skip Evans reinforces that element of the controversy.

When one realizes that Chang focused the story on the anti-evolution signers (many of whom joined after DI went public, and when one observes that Chang fails to solicit a quote from Picard (even though he mentions her name), one is left wondering which side of the fence she (and others of the 103) reside on. The purpose of all this is to cast doubt on the unverified presumption (suggested by the existing section which I am forbidden from touching) that Picard belongs to the anti-evolution dissenters. In other words, I am saying that some of the Wikipedia editors evidently fell into the trap which the DI set, luring readers into believing that all 103 scientists adhered to DI's dubious characterization of them.

The length of the intervening piece needs to be longer than the section it precedes, because the current section adopts without proof the thesis that Picard is among those belonging to the anti-evolution dissenters. The proposed intervening section is designed to examine the evidence for the unproven thesis adopted in the existing section and determine whether the evidence for it is credible or conclusive. As you well know, a proof is typically longer than the theorem. What's in the proposed intervening section is an examination of the omitted proof, in which the outcome appears to be that the missing proof does not seem to exist, and in fact there is good evidence at hand that the dubious thesis adopted by the existing section is simply false (and therefore unprovable). If it is false, then it is also potentially libelous. Therefore, establishing the truth or falsehood of the thesis is crucial in order to protect Wikipedia from inadvertently publishing false and defamatory material that slipped through the filters intended to examine the evidence with a keenly skeptical eye.

What any Wikipedia editor happens to know for a fact about the status of the petition in the intervening years is not evidence that anyone whose name appeared in nationally printed ads back in 2001 had the slightest inkling of what the DI was up to in the meantime. Perhaps Wikipedia editors found this out by doing painstaking research on the DI. Stanley N. Salthe said in 2006 in the Times article we are examining that he had never heard of the DI. That's well-sourced evidence that some of those who signed had no clue that the DI even existed, let alone was maintaining a growing list of names. Therefore one cannot draw any verifiable conclusions about what most of the 103 original signers knew of the DI prior to the 2006 Times story.

One of the reasons the story is controversial is because it fails to point out that the DI had reprised and evolved a 2001 petition that predated any of the disputed assertions regarding its inherent meaning or its re-interpretion as a testimonial in favor of DI's political agenda.

The two sources which establish the controversial nature of the story are the above mentioned Ask Science Q&A page, supported by the parallel NCSE analyses and rebuttals (as mentioned in the story itself) which dissect the claims of the DI which the NYT story reports on.

Now that you are aware that at least one Wikipedia editor challenges the neutrality of your POV, I ask that a neutral party come in to mediate the disputed issues outlined here.

Moulton 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that Skip Evans' comments refer to an earlier version of the 'Dissent', that interpolated commentary about the PBS documentary above the statement and its signatories, which interpolated commentary is the subject of Evans' criticism. The current version of the 'Dissent' does not contain this interpolation, so Evans' criticism does not apply to it. Hrafn42 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point to be examined, regarding the controversial interpretations of the NY Times story is the interpretation of this key paragraph, where Picard's name is mentioned, along with two other scientists:

A Web site with the full list of those who signed the petition was made available yesterday by the institute at dissentfromdarwin.org. The signers all claim doctorates in science or engineering. The list includes a few nationally prominent scientists like James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University; Rosalind W. Picard, director of the affective computing research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Philip S. Skell, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Penn State who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

The unspoken and unexamined implication or assumption in the disputed section of this biography is that scientists such as Tour, Picard, and Skell are accurately described by the DI's claim that they are anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin and also supporters of the DI's political agenda, deserving negative publicity for taking such a laughable position. Did Chang intentionally put that paragraph into his story to affirm the DI's characterization of those three scientists? Or did Chang put that paragraph into the story to cast doubt in the reader's mind on the DI's incredulous claim that all signers adhered to the DI's characterization of the signers?

Skell has a long history of promotion of ID, most recently writing a highly favourable review of Behe's Edge of Evolution that can be found on the book's Amazon listing. He can most certainly be described as an "anti-evolution dissenter[] from Darwin". Tour is less activist (and does not consider himself an ID proponent), but given comments like "Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them." & "When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?", his characterisation of the evidence accepts the DI's "evidence for and against evolution" meme and his skepticism of it is at a level that the scientific consensus would consider unreasonable and unsupported by the facts.[14] This is the company in which you have chosen to place Picard. She has signed an anti-evolution statement, she has not disavowed it. Therefore, as with any other signed statement, we (and Chang before us) are justified in characterising this statement as reflecting her views, unless and until she repudiates it. Hrafn42 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tour's comments appear in the NY Times article. He says he respects the work of the evolution theorists, but wonders about cell mechanics. I wonder about that too. How did something as complex as DNA and the DNA code arise? Once you have a cell, it can replicate, per the known mechanics associated with DNA. But Darwin's theory is silent on how DNA and the DNA code arose in the first place. That's hardly anti-evolution or anti-Darwin. It just recognizes that Darwin's work does address the origin of life, including the origin of DNA. It's not entirely impossible that some intelligent non-DNA based life elsewhere in the cosmos constructed the first DNA using techniques reminiscent of Tour's amazing work. There's no evidence that DNA-based life sailed to Earth aboard cosmic dust. But I wouldn't rule it out, whether DNA arose by some as-yet-unknown natural process in organic chemistry, or as the laboratory product of some alien life form that lived six billion years ago on a neighboring solar system. It's fun to imagine the possibilities and to wonder what kind of evidence we'd need to sort out the plausible possibilities from those can be ruled out. What any of that has to do with the political agenda of the DI eludes me. If I were more involved with molecular biology, I might well be tempted to encourage students to explore beyond the frontiers of Darwinian models to address some of these open mysteries. And if a respected scientist said that to someone, I wouldn't jump to the ridiculous conclusion that they believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or voting to end the war in Iraq. It's just not possible to draw any conclusions like that. Publishing a biography which claims to so characterize anyone would be laughable at best and irresponsible at worst. You can entertain any kind of speculative personal belief you like. But publishing such speculative personal beliefs as if they were facts is a big no-no, even if you have it on good authority from the DI. I dunno about you, but I take what they say with a large tablespoon of salt.

Do you honestly believe that urging students to look beyond Darwin to find the answers to the origins of life is anti-evolution? If I see you eating Australian Kangaroo Steaks day after day, and I say to you, "Try some New Zealand Leg of Lamb for a change," would you brand me as Anti-Kangaroo? When they ship out some NZ Leg of Lamb to the US, do they promote it as "The Anti-Kangaroo Brand of New Zealand Leg of Lamb?"

Moulton 02:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Given that Tour is a Chemist not a Cell Biologist, his "wonder[ing] about cell mechanics" is simply an argument from ignorance. "When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?" is "anti-evolution or anti-Darwin."
• Evolutionary biologists have been "look[ing] beyond Darwin" for a century or so (which is why we have a heavily expanded Theory of Evolution today). The statement that Picard signed does not encourage this, it encourages turning back the clock before Darwin (by pretending that natural selection is not the main driver behind "the complexity of life", and that "careful examination of the evidence" will turn up evidence against "Darwinian theory"). Your analogy is also way off point.

Hrafn42 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that Chang reported both the DI's claims and the string of quotes revealing a mix of support and disdain among the petition signers, a neutral point of view requires that anyone reading Chang's article with a critical eye would ask the obvious question: Is the reader supposed to take at face value the DI's naked claim that scientists such as those three are anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin who support the DI's political agenda? Or is the reader supposed to take that paragragh as startling evidence that the claims of the DI stretch credulity.

The fact that others have repudiated the statement, and thus indicated that it no longer reflects their views, does not provide any probative evidence of the views of Picard (who has not repudiated it). Hrafn42 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The way the article is written, a casual reader could draw either conclusion. A skeptical or fair-minded reader could also draw the conclusion that no firm conclusion can be drawn as to whether any of the signers fit the DI's characterization of them as anti-evolution dissenters from Darwin who support the DI's political agenda.

What conclusion did the various Wikipedia editors draw, and how do they justify treating any such conclusion as an established fact for the purpose of crafting authentic biographies of figures such as Tour, Picard, or Skell?

Moulton 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in

Having looked over the talk page, I'd like to weigh in.

On the issue of the petition, its existence is well established - the Skip Evans article states that DI placed ads in "at least three periodicals, including The New York Review of Books, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard." So this wasn't a stealthy issue. Anyone who was misled into signing the petition has had adequate opportunity to distance themselves from it. As of today, Picard's signature remains on the petition. Yet Picard does not appear to have issued any statements distancing herself from it. Unless Moulton can come up with a source to support his position, there is no way that we can act upon his suggestions.

In addition, since there are no sources that call the NYTimes story controversial, there is no way that we can call it controversial. As for the "do no harm" issue - all indicators are that Picard does not consider this harmful - regardless of what she signed, she appears to have no objections to having her name on the petition in its current form. It isn't our job to protect people from themselves. Guettarda 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The ads appeared after 103 academics signed an untitled petition that neither disclosed the identity of the sponsor nor the sponsor's intention to relabel, reinterpret, and repurpose the petition and to apply it without consent to attack PBS and to promote other odious political agendas.

I would drop the word 'Controversial' and just call the section New York Times Story. The story itself presents the controversy, since the whole point of the story is to illuminate the disparity between the claims of the DI and the views of the people whom the DI claims as their supporters.

Moulton 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, you need a source to support the assertion that it was an untitled petition, and that they had no ideas whose petition they were signing. It strikes me as highly implausible - I would never sign an unknown petition. While what you say may be true, you can't seriously expect anyone to take your assertion seriously without some sort of evidence. Have all these people who were duped been silent all these years? You say know know Picard - she could easily make a statement to this effect somewhere semi-official. That would be extremely helpful.

The source to establish the observation that the 2001 statement was untitled is the facsimile of the 2001 anti-PBS ad in which you can look at the gray box bearing the 32-sentence statement, surrounded by the names of those who signed it and count the words. There are 32 words there. The 5-word title, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is absent from the grey box wherein the signed statement is exhibited.

The source that the 103 scientists had never heard of the DI is the NY Times article, in which Kenneth Chang quotes Nathan Salthe as saying that he had never heard of the DI.

Moulton 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, as I said before, remains on the petition. Has she attempted to get it off? If so, have the refused to remove her name? The evidence as it stands at present strongly suggests that Picard is happy to be associated with the petition. Someone who wasn't would have done something to distance themselves from it. Your assertions contradict all available evidence. Obviously that doesn't mean that they are false, but you can't expect anyone to take what you say at face value. Guettarda 13:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The names of the 103 scientists appeared on a 32-word petition signed on a piece of paper in 2001. The 103 scientists did not put their names on any of DI's websites. You have no evidence, one way or another, of anyone's affective emotional state regarding what the DI did with their name, with the exception of a few whose stories have been published. Salthe expressed disdain. Davidson expressed a negative-valence affective sentiment as well. If you want to take someone's affective state at face-value, you have to observe the expression on their face. Perhaps I'm the only one here who has actually observed the facial expression of one of the 103 scientists. I may not be an expert at reading facial expressions, but I did not observe happiness or delight or any other recognizable positive-valence affective state. Moulton 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In re 3rd opinion request

A request was posted for a third opinion on three disputes here:

• The name of the petition
• Moulton & WP:COI
• Proposed Intervening Section on "Controversial New York Times Story"

Because more than two editors are involved and AGF is rather scarce, the request is not within the guidelines for third opinion Wikipedians. I hope other (including participants lightening up, backing off and cooling down) means of resolving disputes avail. — Athaenara ✉ 08:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To others looking in

There is a large amount that is going on behind the scenes. If you want more details, please feel free to email me.--Filll 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that part of what is going on behind the scenes is an urgent effort to discover how to demonstrate or explain, within the crippling rules of Wikipedia, that the disputed content is false, defamatory, and seriously harmful -- not merely to Picard, but to many other people including many who did not sign any petition at all. I have no idea how to work this issue but it's urgent and needs to be worked somehow. I am profoundly frustrated by my inability to discover a way to work this issue in these pages. Anyone who is involved in publishing material on this issue should talk (preferably by phone, but E-Mail is a poor second choice) to both User:Filll and to me to learn why publishing as fact any material sourced from DI is problematic. I have filled in User:Filll on parts of the story, but there is much more to understand. Moulton 12:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

While private conversation may be useful in getting people to communicate more freely, nothing said privately can be used in the article. Guettarda 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to excise from the pages of Wikipedia false and defamatory material which is erroneously believed by some editors to be factual. Moulton 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the helpful nature of private conversations is to quietly raise to the attention of would-be editors that notorious published claims of unreliable sources may not be independently verifiable facts. The only verifiable fact is the report that an otherwise unreliable source has indeed published a (notorious or dubious) claim. Private conversations make it possible to alert potential editors so that they can retreat with dignity from inadvertently elevating notable and notorious published claims to the status of facthood without losing face within the Wikipedia community.

Moulton 14:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So...are you saying that you have nothing new to add, but people should still contact you via email? I see. Nah, I'll pass. I rather doubt your arguments are any more convincing via email. Guettarda 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was that I had something old to substract -- something erroneously believed to have been a verified fact, but which had since been demonstrated to be a calumnious falsehood. Almost all of it has been subtracted by now. Moulton 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excessive tagging

By my count, Moulton has just introduced nine tags into this article. Whilst I would normally not dispute an editor's (even one in which I am in disagreement with) right to tag an article whose wording they disagree with, this does seem excessive. In particularly, his tags seem to indicate that he is claiming that the following is unverified:

• That "New York Times reported that Dr. Picard was one of several hundred professonals[sic] who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition". As far as I know, it is indisputable that the NYT made such a report.
• That it was this "two-sentence petition [that] has been widely exploited by its sponsor". As far as I know, there has only ever been one "two-sentence petition" throughout the DI's campaign.
• Further that its sponsor exploited it. I don't see how publishing it in major newspapers, etc, doesn't count as exploitation.

I would inquire what, if anything, should be done about this. If nothing else, it certainly seems to be a violation of WP:POINT. Hrafn42 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Kenneth Chang's article with a keenly skeptical eye. Chang reported that the names of several prominent scientists appeared on a list published on the DI's new website. Chang did not report (nor could he even know) that everyone on that list actually signed what the DI had published over their name. The only source of information that anyone actually signed the document as presented on the website is DI itself. And that claim is not a verifiable fact; it's only a claim of DI. Moreover, you have good reason to doubt that what DI claims is anywhere close to the ground truth. In the wake of that doubt, you have an ethical obligation (which is not prescribed in any set of rules) to examine the evidence with a skeptical eye. Notice that the rules of which you are so fond do not provide a reliable paradigm for arriving at the ground truth.

Please go back and look at DI's Website. The original 32-word untitled petition looked like this:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

But DI's website presents this 37-word document:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Adding those extra five words changes the POV, scope, and meaning of the remaining 32 words, by establishing a selective contextual framework by which DI wishes the public to interpret the remaining 32-words. The DI is exploiting a notorious feature of word-based languages that the meaning of words and sentences depends on their context. If you change the context, you can change the meaning.

Can you see the difference? 103 scientists signed a 32-word document. DI published a 37-word recontextualized document and represented that the 103 scientists had signed that.

Consider this similar unauthorized alteration:

Scientists Quibble Over Relevance of Darwin to Research on Molecular Biology and the Origins of DNA-Based Cellular Life
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Now you have the same two poorly worded sentences, but framed within the context of whether or not Darwin's notions are helpful when working out how DNA-based self-replicating structures emerged from basic organic chemistry. Tour, for example, says Darwin's model doesn't help solve the question of how complex molecular structures arise. Skell complains that people invoke Darwin's model even when it's not particularly helpful to employ it. Perhaps Picard agrees. How would you know?

What should be done about it, in my opinion, is to take the disputed material off the page in an abundance of caution and sort it out in the discussion pages. In the end, I believe you will agree that it does 103 scientists a grievous disservice to elevate to facthood a notorious and deceptive assertion whose only independent source is the DI.

Moulton 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

--WP:V Hrafn42 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times is not the publisher of the DI website. The NY Times published a story about the appearance of the DI website but did not affirm that anything appearing on the DI website was factual. The DI website (which is not a RS of anything beyond its own existence) claimed that 103 scientists supported their dubious framing and interpretation. The unanswered question of whether any or all of the 103 scientists in fact agreed with or supported the DI's reframing was partially answered by the story. The NY Times story offered quotes from a small number of people whose names were found on the list. The quotes, taken as a whole, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the DI's sweeping claims. In addition you have other sources besides the NY Times story reinforcing the skepticism regarding the factual accuracy of DI's representations. Therefore you do not have a verifiable source that what appears on the DI website is itself factual. You only have that there 'is' a DI website with some dubious and contentious claims on it. That's all that can be gleaned from the NY Times story. You do not have that the dubious and contentious claims themselves are elevated to the status independently verifiable facts.

Moulton 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags alerting to disputed content.

I have added some tags (please help me ensure the ones I have chosen are the most appropriately selected tags) to highlight the nature of the dispute, down to the detail upon which the dispute pivots.

I do not dispute that the NY Times published an article about the DI's (dubious) claim that hundreds of scientists had (allegedy) signed a petition as they characterized and interpreted it. What is unverified is the DI's reported claim that the signers (specifically the first 103 scientists who signed something prior to first publication) signed the precise document that the DI subsequently represented to the public. For example, the document the DI presented to the public bears a deceptive title and is further enrobed in interpretive commentary. The petition which circulated in academia in 2001 was untitled and was not enrobed in any interpretive commentary. Nor did it carry any disclosure of sponsorship, or any disclosure of the political purposes to which it would later be used. Adding a deceptive title that was not on the original petition and claiming anyone signed that is a potentially fraudulent act of deception. Further enrobing the altered document in gratuitous interpretive commentary compounds the deception by making it appear that the original signers subscribed to the retitled, repurposed, and reinterpreted version that DI presented to a gullible public. A careful reading of the NY Times article reveals that the NY Times did not report that everyone on DI's list signed the altered version that appeared on DI's web site; the NY Times only reported that the names of some prominent scientists appeared on the list published by the DI. Before you can publish as verified fact that the names on DI's list actually signed what DI says they signed, you have to get a reliable source to verify that. The only source you have is the DI itself, which is a notoriously unreliable source.

It may be a subtle point, but it's a crucial point, and the difference between accurately characterizing a living person with verifiable facts and mischaracterizing a living person by publishing as fact material whose validity relies on a single dubious source.

Moulton 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What you forget is that you are the only source of this information, and you are not a WP:RS and WP:V source. So as far as WP is concerned, this information does not exist.--Filll 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

DI is also the only source of information about what those 103 scientists put their name to. Are they a reliable source? Moulton 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No they are not, but the NY Times is, and they are our source for this information, not the DI. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Hrafn42 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can verify that someone reported a suspected falsehood, does that entitle you to include that dubious falsehood in the biography of a living person, in reckless disregard for the truth? Does the stricture on WP:BLP carry any weight to filter out suspect material that liable to be factually untrue, even though it weaseled through the WP:V filter? What is your ethical obligation, above and beyond the joy of WP:Point#Gaming_the_system? Moulton 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times is your original source for the independently verifiable fact that the names of Skell, Picard, and Tour appear on a list published by DI. The verifiable fact that their names appear on a list published by DI means nothing, unless you can verify that what the DI publishes is itself an independently verifiable fact. I challenge you to produce a verifiable source to establsh that what DI publishes is itself factual. Moulton 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I am not mistaken, it was previously determined on WP that the DI is a reliable source of who signed the DI petition. Did this not come up in the case of d'Abrera?--Filll 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There was more than one version of the petition. Which one did he allegedly sign? Was it the 32-word (untitled) petition that circulated in academia in 2001, without disclosure of sponsor, etc? Or was it the later 37-word version carrying both a title that framed the meaning and the imprimature of DI disclosing the purpose to which it would be put? Moulton 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have many other sources who share or overlap my POV. You have Davidson, Tour and Salthe, who are on record as differing from the controversial framing and interpretation suggested by the DI. You have the article by Skell, whose beef reframes the meaning yet another way. What I'm saying is that the selective contextual reframing offered by the DI is one of many that span a broad spectrum. On one end of the spectrum you have the fundamentalist creationism framework. A pox on their house. On the other end you have the arcane technical quibbles among scientists working in recombinant DNA, genetic drift, biochemistry, nano-technology and general science education who have their own selective contextual frameworks. The complexity of the molecules of life and the question of how they arise and change is a serious (if uncelebrated) field of scientific investigation. Two of the original 103 signers are known to be working in those arcane technical fields. One says Darwin's model is fine, but it doesn't help explain how complex molecules arise. One says that Darwin's model is overhyped, and has little or no bearing on how complex molecules morph from one variation to the next. And many general science educators are on record as wanting students to learn how to scrutinize the evidence for any theory, and to learn how diligent scientists sift through alternative theories looking for the best model to fit the evidence (I happen to be in that camp). Those points of view make a lot more sense for scientists like Tour, Skell, and Picard than the dubious reframing suggested by DI.

Be ye not deceived. Ask yourself what evidence and reasoning you are using to justify your beliefs. And then ask yourself a complementary question: What kind of beliefs emerge from a rule-bound system such as the one employed by Wikipedia? How reliable is it at arriving at the ground truth. The tags I inserted alert you to the observation that the procedure you are adopting is not the scientific method and is therefore not the best practice when it comes to arriving at the ground truth. And there is good evidence that the rule-based method you have adopted is notoriously unreliable if the objective is to publish nothing but the ground truth when it comes to crafting harmless biographies of living people.

Moulton 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

She signed. We have plenty of RS and V evidence for it. And you have said she signed, although that is OR and we cannot use that. So we report; she signed. Period. Done.--Filll 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have as a verifiable fact that she signed anything, let alone what the DI says she signed. I will give you (although it means nothing) that 103 scientists (Picard included) signed something that had no identifiable connection to any sponsoring organization. You have no verifiable source that any of them signed what DI claims. You have no verifiable source that any of them agree with or support the DI's notorious assertions appearing on their ads or web sites. The only source for any of that is DI itself, and that's not a reliable source of anything approaching a verifiable fact.

To present any of that as an independently verifiable fact risks publishing a falsehood about 103 living persons. All you can safely publish is what Ken Chang found: The names of 103 scientists appeared on a list published by the DI.

Moulton 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are incorrect, in addition to contradicting yourself--Filll 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a "request for whitewash" does not constitute a neutrality dispute. Guettarda 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

You don't have as a verifiable fact that she signed anything

DI says she signed it. No one has contested that fact, not even you.

DI refers to it as if it were one unchanging thing. But it is a reference to a series of documents, versions, and websites that evolved over a five-year period. As soon as DI changes even one word, that makes it a new and different document. In the versions that appeared on their website, they added 5 words not on the original 2001 prepublication petition. Those extra 5 words reframes, recontextualizes, and therefore changes the import and meaning of the remaining 32 words. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

[L]et alone what the DI says she signed"

I hate to go the "silence is consent" route, but if someone had a petition posted online with my name on it that I hadn't signed, I'd make it clear that I hadn't signed it.

Moulton said:

I will give you (although it means nothing) that 103 scientists (Picard included) signed something that had no identifiable connection to any sponsoring organization.

Really? So, in other words you are asserting that these 103 people are either very stupid or incredibly gullible? More to the point - evidence?

Please don't put words in my mouth that I have not uttered. That's what DI did to 103 scientists. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

You have no verifiable source that any of them signed what DI claims.

We have a verifiable source - the DI says so.

Since when is the DI a reliable source of any factual information, other than their own existence? Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

You have no verifiable source that any of them agree with or support the DI's notorious assertions appearing on their ads or web sites

...except the fact that most of them have done nothing to distance themselves from the claim. What we lack is any verifiable source which suggests that Picard is not a creationist.

You don't know that. In the case of Davidson, the news only came out after he succeeded. It's often easier to negotiate things if you don't raise the stakes by publicizing the dispute. For all you know, many of those 103 scientists could still be engaged in quiet negotiation. I'm not a lawyer, but most lawyers advise their clients not to say anything in public, because it could compromise their chances of achieving their goal. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

The only source for any of that is DI itself, and that's not a reliable source of anything approaching a verifiable fact.

The DI is a verifiable source. It is a source whose reliability is questionable on a number of issues. But there is no reason to doubt everything they say. It has been over half a decade - if the DI has libelled Picard, she has had more than enough time to challenge their libel.

They may be a verifiable source as to what they are saying, but not to its factual accuracy. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

To present any of that as an independently verifiable fact risks publishing a falsehood about 103 living persons

If anyone had challenged it, we would have to report both sides (the DI says X, but Picard denies it).

All you have now is DI says X about person Y. That doesn't elevate X to an independently verified fact about person Y. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton said:

All you can safely publish is what Ken Chang found: The names of 103 scientists appeared on a list published by the DI.

No, not really. We cannot be absolutely certain that Chang found this. By your standard, what we can report is that NYT claims that Chang wrote this (or rather, since I'm sure all this comes off nytimes.com, that the publisher or nytimes.com, which claims to be the New York Times, claims that Ken Chang claimed... Guettarda 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You can independently find the same thing -- that some names appear on a list published on DI's website. What any of that means is not entirely clear, as DI's representations as to what it means is a matter of considerable doubt. Moulton 00:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow

The article says:

“ In February 2006, the New York Times reported[10] that Dr. Picard was one of several hundred professonals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".[11] ”

It doesn't say that she signed the petition, just that she is reported as a signer. I wasn't paying enough attention - I was too busy reading Moulton's deeply horrified language to realise that the actual wording was that weak. That is what he is wasting everyone's time one? Ok - I think that language is far too tentative. Maybe we should just change the article to claim she eats babies. Then maybe we will have something that justifies Moulton's complaints. This is just pathetic. Guettarda 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the person's lawyer should write a demand letter to wikipedia to cease and desist from using the NY Times as a reliable source. ... Kenosis 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't even joke about it! ornis (t) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a joke. Rather, it is simply unfortunate. It would appear that the issue should be stated as the NY Times has reported it. If there is a counterargument, the place to go is whoever is alleged to have misrepresented Picard's participation or lack thereof. That, in fact, is who the demand letter should be sent to. And, if any additional relevant information is, in the future, published in a notable, reliable source, it would be quite permissible to include such additional information in this article. In other words. the issue is not very complicated. As to the threat of public criticism of Wikipedia's handling of issues like these, well, what would people think if we deferred to threats like that in the section above, insisting that wikipedia participants discard such publications as the NY Times as reliable sources and substitute in its place the demands of someone under threat of public criticism for WP methodology? Submitting that kind of threat, IMO, would be silly and unfortunate. Besides, it wasn't just the New York Times. ... Kenosis 16:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-evolution petition controversy redrafted

Here's my suggestion for explaining the petition aspect in a neutral way:

Picard is one of several hundred professonals who have signed the Discovery Institute's petition, attesting to the statement that "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." This petition and a list of its signatories was published late in 2001 as advertisements in periodicals under the heading "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" with a heading claiming that the signatories disputed an alleged claim that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution". The National Center for Science Education noted that the statement and headings were artfully phrased so that normal scientific questioning of the extent to which natural selection is involved in particular aspects of evolution could be confused with the Discovery Institute's anti-evolution position.

The petition has been repeatedly used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns to promote intelligent design creationism.

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard had signed the list. Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology. It has been noted that many others on the list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology.

By stating the facts in sequence and noting the artful phrasing, there should be no further confusion. If there is any published statement by Picard dissociating herself from the list as presented by the DI, that should be noted with proper citation. .. dave souza, talk 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dave. That redrafting comes very close to my goals for accuracy.

A few details...

Where it says "was published in late 2001 as advertisements in periodicals," I would prefer if it read "was published in late 2001 as part of advertisements in periodicals," so as not to give the impression the 103 scientists had signed onto the anti-PBS ad itself.

What do you propose as the section heading, Dave? My proposal was "New York Times Story on Controversial Petition" which I believe is both accurate and NPOV.

Finally, I've heard it stated that the DI admitted that it drafted and circulated the 32-word petition that circulated in academia in 2001. Can somebody direct me to where DI admits that? All I've been able to find out is that the DI first put their name and agenda to it in that anti-PBS ad. My information is that the copy that circulated in academia prior to first publication bore no disclosure of sponsorship. Separate from any of the controversy here on how to write the story, it seems to me that if DI did in fact construct and circulate the pre-publication copy with the intention of subsequently (mis)representing it as they did, there might well be grounds for alleging a case of fraud. If that proves to be the case, the NCSE might well be interested in a class action on behalf of those 103 scientists.

Again, let me thank you, Dave, for your courtesy and your professionalism in helping to address my concerns.

Moulton 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

References

For anyone who wants to check them:

Outside offer to mediate

Hi, there. I'm a Wikipedia editor with 7000 edits, and strong familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. There was a request on the WP:BLP/N board for assistance in this matter. I would like to help, if the parties agree to letting me mediate. I work at a right-wing think-tank (in legal studies), and I am also a lifetime member of NCSE, so I am familiar with both the evolution/creation controversy and with the perception that the press sometimes treats religious arguments unfairly. I think this would permit me to have credibility with both sides, but perhaps someone would instead feel that this means I have a conflict of interest because I recognize the theory of evolution or because of my employer. Would mediation help matters? If so, we can set up a Talk:Rosalind Picard/mediation page. If one person disagrees, I'll walk away without hard feelings. THF 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Pending Dave Souza's intervention, the need for mediation may have abated. If other editors can agree with what Dave and I agree on, then I think we are done.

Separately from this specific issue, I'd still like some help on the general issue, of which this case is an instance. The general issue has to do with distinguishing a report of a claim with the veracity of the claim itself. In the specific case at hand, there is some confusion over whether the NY Times affirmed a claim by the DI, thereby elevating it to a verifiable fact, or whether the NY Times only reported a claim, together with additional story content that cast doubt on the claim. The issue is clouded by two confusing elements. The first confusing element is DI's partisan characterization of the 32-word petition as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." The second confusing element is that the NY Times headline refers to the content of the 2006 website, which presents something considerably different from the 2001 version. There is no question that the NY Times story reports what DI claims. But there is considerable question how much, if any, of their claim is substantiated or affirmed by the NY Times. What I'd like some help on is how (in general, not just in this case) one can make that distinction, and how Wikipedians can avoid adopting a partisan's unwarranted reframing, spin, or evolving recontextualization when doing so substantially changes the meaning, import, or interpretation of a controversial statement. That is, what I'm seeking here is not so much mediation as education from an expert on that general issue.

I thank you for any assistance you can provide on any or all of the issues on the table.

Moulton 23:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the series of arguments made above on this page for the moment, may I ask: 1) what exactly is being alleged to be misrepresented in the NY Times article, or other published reliable source, as to Picard's being a signatory to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition? and 2) what reliable published sources, if any, support any such allegation of misrepresentation of Picard's relationship to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism petition? ... Kenosis 01:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The name of the pre-publication petition that circulated in academia in 2001 was not "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." That was the name that the DI later adopted to characterize an unnamed 32-word statement that 103 scientists had previously concurred with. Prepending that misleading name to the 32-word statement reframes and recontextualizes the meaning and interpretation from a technical issue among specialists to a substantially different (and considerably more notorious and controversial) advocacy slant. Labeling the 32-word statement as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin" is the misrepresentation.

2) The earliest known published version of the 32-word statement is found within a 2001 anti-PBS advertisement published and signed by the DI. In that ad, the DI invoked the 32-word statement and asserted that it supported their criticism of the PBS series on Evolution. The name "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" was the headline of the ad attacking PBS. It was not part of the cited 32-word statement that the DI invoked as supporting their view.

Moulton 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think can readily understand how the untitled statement could be misconstrued to refer to the need for more in-depth research into the process of speciation, cladistics, empirically observable precursors to speciation, etc., particularly if, say, a researcher had just been dealing with the issue of the fossil record not being a continuous random spread over time, or was talking about Gould, or any of a number of other possibilities. What published sources exist that have presented, e.g., a photocopy of the statement as it was originally circulated without title, a statement that it was circulated untitled, testimony as to any assertions of misleading statements made orally by persons circulating the petition, or other indicia that might be relevant? The sources in which such assertions are documented would be very important to the WP discussion. ... Kenosis 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight on petition

About half the article is taken up by this issue. There is already a (long) article about the petition itself. What is the reason for giving some much attention to it here? It almost seems like the intent is to punish Ms Picard for signing it. Steve Dufour 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed off some of the info on the petition itself, but still noting that it is controversial. People can check out the petition's article if they want to learn more. I hope this will be considered fair. Steve Dufour 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the version I proposed, which was reverted with a rather rude comment:

Anti-evolution petition

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of several hundred professionals who signed the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".

I don't see what the problem with it is? Steve Dufour 04:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the controversial elements is whether the 32-word statement is accurately characterized as variously "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." The easiest way to fix this is to simply say, "Controversial Petition" to avoid adopting the DI's controversial POV that the 32-word statement should be interpreted the way DI suggests, rather than the way the scientists who actually signed it suggest. Moulton 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, so I've implemented it and have also added the reason that the Times named her, as one of the few nationally prominent scientists out of the 514 scientists and engineers who had signed. That leaves open the implication that she agreed to "dissent from Darwinism" – my suggestion above shows what she apparently signed, and cites the NCSE to clarify that point. .. dave souza, talk 12:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I would suggest the the issue is not so much WP:UNDUE as notability (WP:N).

• The subject of this article's notability is almost solely due to her being mentioned in the NYT article as having signed the petition. This being so, it is unsurprising that the article is heavily weighted towards this.
• Prior to the addition of this into the article, it would almost certainly have failed this criteria (as the only content was based almost solely on her peacock-word riven, hagiographical bio from MIT -- "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."), and therefore been deleted if challenged. Even now it is, at best, marginal on this criteria.
• This raises a potential solution: if we can agree on deletion, we can most probably remove this bone of contention completely. This will however mean both sides agreeing to relinquish the bits of the article we do like.

Hrafn42 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Slash and burn, it's really not worth the grief. ornis (t) 05:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What Picard is notable for is her pioneering contributions to her field. The Biography section doesn't need to be lengthy or vainglorious, but it does need to fairly represent her notable contributions. It should state that she founded the field of Affective Computing and made seminal contributions to it, with a modest selection of them mentioned according to their importance to the field.

On the other hand, if the only point of having this article at all is to highlight the controversy in the NY Times story, then there is no need to even feature a biography at all. Just delete the whole article. To my mind, it's better for Wikipedia to say nothing at all than to say contentious things that cast Wikipedia in an unfavorable light.

Moulton 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, can you provide any evidence that she has any notability according to WP:N, other than for her signing the 'Dissent'? As far as I can see, Picard may be notable within her particular field, but she is virtually unknown to those outside it. Hrafn42 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think Chang picked out the names of Skell, Tour, and Picard as prominent scientists? Do you think he picked out of the list three obscure unknowns who hadn't done anything notable in their field? Or do you think he picked out those three names because they were well-known and highly respected scientists with notable contributions? Do you think a scientist becomes a Fellow of the IEEE or an advisor to the National Science Foundation because they haven't done anything notable? Do you think Chang picked them out to illustrate and affirm DI's claim, or to cast doubt on DI's claim? Moulton 07:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Skell doesn't have an article either, and probably has more notability these days as an anti-evolution crank than as a retired scientist. The Tour article would likewise be a prime candidate for deletion under WP:N. I suspect there may be many scientists who have the qualifications you mention who do not meet WP:N. What proportion of IEEE fellows have their own wikipedia articles? There are only 136 Fellows in Category:Fellows of the IEEE, but there have been 268 new Fellows in 2007 alone.[15] Hrafn42 08:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Skell the one who wrote the article, "Why We Invoke Darwin," noting that some writers are genuflecting toward Darwin's model (i.e. Natural Selection) even when nothing in their research depends on Natural Selection? As I read that, he's not anti-evolution. He's just annoyed by writers who invoke the wrong framework. It would be like someone doing research on quarks and begin by paying homage to Einstein. Nothing wrong with Einstein, mind you. It's just that Quantum Mechanics doesn't reside within the framework of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Moulton 08:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"the main purpose" of anyone teaching evolutionary biology in our schools is the "indoctrination of students to a worldview of materialism and atheism" is emphatically anti-evolution. Quotes & links relating to Skell's anti-evolutionism can be found here. Hrafn42 12:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I will vote for deletion. Looking over it I notice that her bio is only sourced from primary sources. Anyway the story of the petition is well covered in its own article, which is where people will look if they are interested. (Please let me repeat my comment that WP's evolution supporters would do better if they focused more on ideas, rather than too much criticism of individuals. IMO of course.) Steve Dufour 06:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve: the reason that we criticise individuals is that these individuals do little more than recycle tired old debunked ideas, rather than come up with anything new. See the Atomic Theory of Antievolution. There really are no new ideas to criticise. Hrafn42 06:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody in a position of authority explain to me why it is the function of Wikipedia to venture criticism of individuals -- especially distinguished individuals who are notable for making seminal contributions in their field? Moulton 07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's in a position of authority, everyone can check the policies and guidelines and admins are trusted with a couple of extra tools to try to tidy up. My understanding is that particular care has to be taken to ensure that any criticism of living individuals is properly attributed, and is not original research - there's a link to WP:BIO at the top of the page. Within limits, as set out there, editors can express their opinions on talk pages. WP:NPOV requires that pseudoscience is set in the context of majority scientific opinion on the subject, and some may see that as excessive criticism of individuals. .. dave souza, talk 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When editors express their personal opinions on talk pages, it frames their personal POV regarding how they have read and understood stories like the celebrated one in the NY Times. Given that reliable sources establish that the subject of this article is recognized as a promient distinguished scientist who is also an advisor of the National Science Foundation, comparable to other similar prominent and distinguished scientists who are on clearly record as expressing interpretations substantially at odds with the reported claims of the DI, it occurs to me that elevating the reported claims of the DI as verified facts regarding any of the 103 scientists is both unwarranted from the evidence and potentially libelous and defamatory of any or all of those 103 scientists. See the WP guidelines on using words like "report" and "claim". Moulton 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> I invite you to try that sort of reasoning in a deposition. You might find yourself in hot water pretty quickly, I would venture. And it does not particularly carry any weight with me. I have heard these tedious and tendentious arguments 100 times or more now. And they are no more convincing now. It is all nonsense and OR. We are not here to engage in wild speculation and conjecture. And you cannot shove this nonsense on us. Thanks awfully though.--Filll 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also leaning towards deletion. Has she really done anything that important? I could argue that she has not.

It is not a function of Wikipedia to do more than report what is in the RS and V sources. If there is "criticism" of an individual in RS and V sources, then it goes into Wikipedia. If we removed all "criticism" then Wikipedia would be of far less use.

Also, "criticism" is in the eye of the beholder. How do we know that Picard objects? We ONLY have Moulton's claims. These claims might be pure fantasy. We have not one word, not one breath, not one hint, from Picard herself over a 6 year period that there is any disagreement by Picard with this petition. Many people, in fact, I would venture that MOST people on the list, are proud to have signed and champion this cause. What evidence do we have that Picard is not one of them? Not one shred. Sorry Moulton. Your COI claims really count for very little. And every passing day when I do not hear back from my inquiries confirms this.

I do NOT believe for one second that over a 6 year period that biological or paleontological colleagues of Picard did not make her aware of the significance of signing and remaining on this petition and remaining on it. Her name has been on the web in this context for 6 years. It was in dozens of advertisements in major National publications when it was first announced in 2001. It was attached to press releases that came out once or twice a year for 6 years. It was in the New York Times article and possibly others. So Picard almost certainly knows what this means to biologists and geologists and other scientists. In fact, the Discovery Institute with their war on "materialism" wants to smash other disciplines like physics and chemistry, eventually, according to their oft-repeated statements and plans. And yet Picard stays on the list and never even whispers that she disagrees even though her name is used to champion this agenda over and over and over and over.

So if I was going to speculate, like Moulton likes to do, I would say it is quite plausible that: (1) Picard wants to stay on the list and meant to sign it, and only complained to Moulton to tell him what he wanted to hear (2) Mentioning this is not harmful at all to Picard, but beneficial. A pro-intelligent design position might easily help with fund-raising for example, or with personal relations. (3) Picard does not really care one way or the other, or even enjoys issuing a big "F-U" to the science community. Picard is an engineer, not a scientist, remember. --Filll 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the MIT Press, which publishes her book, Picard "holds Sc.D. and S.M. degrees in both electrical engineering and computer science from MIT and a bachelors degree in electrical engineering from Georgia Tech. Moulton 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It also could be that she really does believe in the supernatural, as have many intelligent people -- rightly or wrongly. Steve Dufour 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

One of her grad students has just completed his thesis on the topic In Search of Wonder. Moulton 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"we are measuring and quantifying people's experience of wonder while watching magic tricks" – should help when dealing with ID, anyway. Perhaps they could examine the experience of wonder when contemplating a tangled bank? .... dave souza, talk 16:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Since the question was raised of notability established by secondary sources, I'd a quick look and found a few. These could form the basis of some expansion of the biography, and doubtless there are other secondary sources which can be cited. BBC News, The future of affection, PBS Org., Rosalind Picard bio, FM interviews Rosalind Picard, ZDNet MIT's PC breakthrough ... dave souza, talk 12:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of sources that reliably present interesting biographical material on the subject, including some that even disclose her religious convictions. It perplexes me why, when I stumbled onto this page a week or so ago, the singular focus (for the past year and a half) was on the controversial NY Times story featuring the dubious claims of the DI. It astounded me that this biographical article, which is obliged to conform to [[WP:BLP] blithely adopted the dubious POV of a controversial advocacy group that claims (without credible evidence) that 103 scientists subscribe to and support the DI's patently ridiculous (and oft-ridiculed) political agenda, as represented in their 2006 website.

As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedians can gleefully discredit DI all they want. But it troubles me that so many Wikipedians leaped to the opportunity to discredit and defame 103 scientists whom DI merely claims to support their interpretation and agenda.

Moulton 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet you, as Picard's booster, and as the supposed expert on her work, never bothered to look beyond her hagiographical bio on the MIT site, to these more reliable sources. I never made any bones about the fact that my primary interest in this article was removal of inappropriate material and accurate characterisation of her signing of the 'Dissent.' I would suggest that you stop trying to reinsert the former and minimise the latter, and attempt to present a broader biographical picture of Picard based on these new sources. Hrafn42 15:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Hrafn42 here. I have begged and pleaded with Moulton for one week to assist in a constructive way. I presented several options he could help with. More web information and documentation of the petition and campaign would help. Less plagiaristic pasting of POV biographical material. More prodding of the machinery to produce more RS and V sources that could be incorporated. Instead, he has chosen to fight instead here in a pointless exercise, wasting time and energy, and even being the subject of a temporary block and coming close a few more times. Moulton, work with us, not against us. It will go much easier that way.--Filll 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to WP evolution supporters

I really do think that in defending science it would be better to make it more about, well, science and less about individuals. For instance in an article about Joe Creationist you could say he wrote a book saying that the universe was made in 6 days and that mainstream science says it took about 15 billion years. That is really all the readers need to know about him. You don't have to tell them that he has warts on his nose and hired an illegal alien to mow his lawn. Steve Dufour 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been extensively involved with individuals that support creationism, but as far as I am aware, we do not talk about the warts. We only mention things relevant to the issue at hand. If incorrect listing of affiliations is mentioned as an important issue by RS and V sources with a petition, then we might include examples, which some would claim reflect badly on the individuals (of course it might not be the individuals, but those who wrote the list). If irrelevant expertise is mentioned in RS and V sources, then we might include examples, which some would claim reflect badly on the individuals (but again this is not the fault of the individuals, but those who compiled the list and allowed the individuals to be on the list). Before we had examples listed, our articles came under constant attack by creationist POV editors here for not having examples.

And the categories and lists for signatories of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism were created by creationist editors here, not pro-evolution editors. And they fought hard to keep them when these were challenged. Check the records. It is not some dishonor to be a creationist to these people, as you seem to think.

If you look at biographies of creationists Henry M. Morris or George McCready Price or Harry Rimmer, would you claim that they show the "warts"? Even Jonathan Wells is presented pretty blandly. Even current prison inmate Kent Hovind has a pretty bland biography here, with huge amounts of negative material excised. Are these the biographies that these individuals would write for themselves? Clearly not. They would want to whitewash things and spin them in a completely different way.

Would Senator Larry Craig prefer that his biography here not mention the current controversy? Of course he would prefer that it did not. But what is of use to the readers? We do the readers a disservice by not mentioning these controversies.

Bernard d'Abrera would not even merit an article without his creationist activities. Someone who takes pictures of butterflies with no degree and prints and sells them? That is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. So if we describe the source of these people's notability, is that bad?

As I said before, the Picard article should either be expanded or deleted. And frankly it is so much trouble that I wonder if it should not just be nuked. Someone who decided that people like machines better that smile? Give me a break...--Filll 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve: the science articles are about science, not individuals -- e.g.: Evolution. This is because it is a requirement of science that the whole thing dovetails together into a reasonably seamless whole, so the individual researchers don't matter so much. If they don't dovetail together, then research gets done to produce evidence to resolve the conflict. Creationism on the other hand is generally about the idiosyncratic, and often conflicting, views promulgated by the movement's leadership. It would be very difficult to write about YEC without writing about Henry Morris and Ken Ham. It would be likewise difficult to write about ID without writing about Philip Johnson, Michael Behe and William Dembski. It is not some evil Evolutionist conspiracy, it is merely the nature of the subject being covered. Hrafn42 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, maybe it would be nice to drop all the chatter about Einstein and just stick with special and general relativity; drop Heisenberg, Planck and Shrodinnger, and just stick with quanta, etc. ... Kenosis 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What would be more useful would be to point out that GR and QM are mathematically incompatible theories. That's why Einstein and Bohr had such interesting disagreements. This perplexing problem -- that GR does not dovetail with QM -- plagued a lot of physicists for most of the 20th Century. It wasn't until the advent of Superstring Theory that anyone discovered a mathematically plausible way to resolve the discrepancy and unify GR with QM. But Superstring Theory calls upon extremely complex mathematics that is difficult to present in layman's terms. One of the more interesting approaches is to present these stories in the form of a stage play. Moulton 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a mention of this basic issue in General_relativity#Relationship_with_quantum_mechanics and it's also mentioned in Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics. A story of this kind would likely be what's termed original research, although if drawn from reliable published sources about the story, it could well be an article at some point in the future. ... Kenosis 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well only partially true, and obviously due to incomplete knowledge. But ok...--Filll 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am frankly perplexed by the whole notion of support or dissent for a theory. To my mind, scientifically evaluated evidence is what affirms or refutes a theory. To my mind, the concept of support or dissent applies to political choices laid before a body politic. Conflating the protocols of the scientific method (e.g. skeptical examination of the evidence for a theory), with support or dissent for a political cause is a fundamental category error. I suppose if one is on the sidelines, watching competing factions of researchers battle it out, one can root for Linus Pauling's alpha-helix model vs. Watson and Crick's double-helix model. (In case you missed the box score, Watson and Crick's model was the one affirmed by examining the evidence of X-ray crystallography images. And it was another Rosalind -- Rosalind Franklin -- who carefully examined those X-ray crystallography images to resolve the question.) So feel free to root for or against your favorite researcher. But please don't conflate the protocols of the scientific method for the cheers and jeers of the spectators in the stands. Moulton 18:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientists here do not, and the WP articles they have written on this subject do not, as can easily be verified. However, WP must report on what is in the public sphere, not what we would wish it to be. We can write lots of articles and include lots of paragraphs explaining this, over and over and over (and we have), but this does not change the discourse in the public sphere or the public mind or in the media. And so we report what is out there. Not what we wish was out there. But reality, instead. --Filll 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The public political debate over what should or shouldn't be taught in Dover PA belongs in an article about the political debate over how science should be taught. The subject of this article is not a party to that debate. She's been interviewed on lots of subjects (including some touching on religious ideas); her research has been featured in lots of prestigious media, including PBS Scientific American Frontiers, and she has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on subjects ranging from digital signal processing to visual modeling to pattern recognition to affective computing to autism research. Whether anyone who reads Wikipedia has the slightest interest in any of that is not for me to judge. But it occurs to me that anyone who does visit a Wikipedia page purporting to be the biography of a living person is entitled to find a responsibly written, accurate, and informative article about that person. Is that too much to ask of Wikipedia?

Having said that, let me express my thanks to Dave Souza and the others who have worked conscientiously to transform this biography into a reasonably respectable example of a BLP. Moulton 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. My problem with WP's coverage of creationism, etc. is really more the tone of hostility towards individuals which is sometimes seen on the talk pages and even sometimes leaks out into the articles. I think that distracts from the debate about the facts, which of course (IMO) the evolutionists would win. Steve Dufour 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you have a problem, from what I've seen the hostility goes both ways in what can be described as a culture war. It's not about facts, it's essentially a theological argument as to whether science can continue to be secular, or whether credence is to be given to theistic realism assuming the "fact" of creation to have empirical, observable consequences[16] producing "facts" that are explained as evidence of the supernatural. .. dave souza, talk 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to evolution?

Has there been some consensus that I failed to notice that we should not even mention "evolution" in connection with the 'Dissent'? I find it more than a little odd that it is mentioned solely as a "controversial petition". It would seem to me that it is:

• Primarily an anti-evolution petition
  • Secondarily an anti-evolution that misrepresents evolution.
    • And only tertiarily a controversial anti-evolution petition, because of this misrepresentation.

I would thus consider it to be reasonable to characterise it as an "anti-evolution petition" or a "controversial anti-evolution petition" but not merely a "controversial petition". However, if the consensus is against me, I must needs bow to it.

Additionally, I am concerned to note that the appeal to authority aspect of the petition (which would seem to be directly relevant, given Picard's lack of any competence in evolutionary biology) has been completely pared out. Likewise I would inquire if there is consensus for this. Hrafn42 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. It all seems a bit strane to me. I have avoided editing the article directly until we get more information to sort this out, and trying to educate Moulton as to how and why we do things the way we do here (which I did not understand at first either, to be fair). I also have tried to recruit other editors and administrators to help straighten this out and assist. But I start to wonder if it is all worth it, frankly. --Filll 17:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The 32-word statement is not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to common sense, to carefully examine the evidence for one's beliefs in a skeptical light. It's an appeal to function within the paradigm of the scientific method, so as to avoid arriving at erroneous conclusions. Socrates said something similar a while back. Moulton 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of my thinking was that if a reader was interested in finding out more about the petition he could click on over to its article and read all he wanted. I don't think it's fair to mention the appeal to authority issue in Ms Picard's article. She just signed the petition. It is not her fault that she is not a biologist, well it is but we can't blame her for that. :-) I will change the title of the section to "Anti-evolution petition" which was my choice in the first place. (p.s. It might not have been controversial when she signed it if she was one of the first ones to do so. Steve Dufour 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

She signed a petition, on a matter outside her field of expertise, that attempted to discredit the expert scientific consensus in that field. We can most certainly "blame her for that." Hrafn42 04:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason she got in New York Times was because her field had nothing to do with evolution. Otherwise, it would not have been much of an issue probably. It supported Chang's thesis.--Filll 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But that is not really about her. It's about the Times using her as an example. To me that would be better to mention in the article about the petition. Steve Dufour 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of those coming to this page will be looking up someone listed as signing the petition, so it needs at least a brief mention. The options are giving a brief mention with minimal explanation, as at present, or giving a bit more context as I suggested earlier, showing what the petition said and noting the NCSE comment on how ambiguous the statement was, and how the heading and intro added by the DI changed the interpretation. If that's done, it would be good to state that she was one of 103 original signatories (or whatever the number is, a source should be checked and cited). That list is easily obtained from the somewhat dodgy DI, but it was published as advertisements in more reliable sources. Each option has advantages and disadvantages. .. dave souza, talk 22:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless it can be made abundantly clear that none of those 103 (including Skell, Tour and Picard) signed a piece of paper bearing the label "A Dissent From Darwinism" or anything remotely construed as "anti-evolution" then it's best to say nothing at all, because no verifiable source establishes that what they signed was anything of the sort.

What can you legitimately derive from the NY Times article?

All you can derive is that the names of those three appeared along with a few hundred others on a list on a new website launched by the DI. The DI claimed they were all scientists. The first thing Chang did was exhibit quotes (which support the headline) that most those who went to the DI's site to add their names were evangelical Christians. The next thing Chang did was to note that of the scientists, most were not biologists. The next thing Chang did was to single out three prominent scientists who, on the face of it would be unlikely to be supporters of the DI's agenda. Chang manages to get a quote from one of them (Tour, a nano-technologist) who explains his position (which is technical and does not concord with the way the DI slants it). This all serves to cast doubt on the credibility of the DI's claim about who is on their list.

Separately, you have the article from Skell in The Scientist, Why Do We Invoke Darwin?, with his concluding quote, "None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false," after airing his central complaint that Darwin's model doesn't frame work (like his) in biochemistry, even though a lot of authors begin their papers by invoking Darwin's name. The skeptical reader is left wondering what other technical reasons besides those two were in the minds of the 103 scientists. Then you have the quote from Nathan Salthe who said he never heard of the DI and expresses disdain for the whole lot of them.

Separately from all that, you have the 2001 anti-PBS ad which reveals two things. First it reveals that most of the heavy-hitting scientists on the DI's list are found in that original 2001 contingent who signed a piece of paper before the first publication. Secondly, the ad reveals that those first 103 only put their name to a 32-word statement that does not carry any title selectively reframing the context of the 32-word statement as either "anti-evolution" or a "dissent from Darwin." Moreover, you have the case of Davidson, which further reinforces Chang's skeptical examination of the claims of the DI as represented on their new website.

Now, as responsible Wikipedia editors, we cannot conclude, either from the NY Times story or from the other evidence at hand that the first 103 ever heard of the DI, ever assented to or supported the political agenda of the DI, ever signed anything entitled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwin" or ever characterized themselves as "anti-evolution."

Any elevation to the status of facthood of idle speculation about those 103, or the DI's claims about those 103 would exceed the what the evidence demonstrates and would potentially violate WP:BLP "Do No Harm."

Therefore, the standards of ethical journalism requires due diligence in refraining from the publication of any speculative or dubious material that cannot be established to be factually accurate.

Moulton 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." is an anti-evolution statement. Picard signed it. QED. All the hand-waving in the world isn't going to change this fact. Hrafn42 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is false and defamatory to negatively reframe an invocation of the protocols of the scientific method as anti-evolution. The purpose of the protocols of the scientific method is to avoid making errors of scientific judgment. Darwin's model, like any scientific model, has a legitimate scope. It is a potential error to apply a model outside of its legitimate scope. For example, the scope of GR does not extend down to the subatomic scale, which is why GR is mathematically incompatible with QM. It is a scientifically valid observation (which Tour and Skell have both made) that the scope of Darwin's model for Natural Selection does not extend down to the molecular scale. Changes at the molecular scale are explained by theories appropriate to molecular biology and biochemistry. Darwin's model applies to species. Tour isn't even working with the molecules of living organisms. He's working with engineered molecules such as his nano-car. The legitimate scientific observation that molecular dynamics is explained by theories outside the scope of Darwin's model of Natural Selection of living species is not an anti-evolutionary perspective. That's the negative spin or reframing of partisans who wish to milsead the public by falsely reinterpreting the meaning of an expression of the protocols of the scientific method. Furthermore, Darwin's model of Natural Selection, which legitimately applies to species of living organisms, does not even attempt to address the origins of life, including the origins of complex molecules like ribosomes and nucleic acids. Darwin's model of Natural Selection predates and does not overlap most if not all of modern molecular biology and cell mechanics. Moulton 09:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton: the statement that Picard signed had nothing whatsoever to do with "the protocols of the scientific method" and everything to do with 'framing' dishonest anti-evolution bigotry to make it look more respectable. Hrafn42 10:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the scope of the statement in question derives from information supplied by five of the scientists who affirmed that statement. Moulton 10:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The section whose title Moulton can't resist changing, in spite of being warned not to

A section heading that Moulton inserted in flagrant disregard of WP:POINT

I note that Moulton has restarted making controversial edits to the article in violation of WP:COI guidelines ("Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace."). Hrafn42 09:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not writing about a person here. I am writing about two competing practices. One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method. The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of negative reframing which is both dishonest and unethical. I am utterly appalled that anyone would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of negative reframing, in gross and egregious violation of WP:NPOV. I have a conflict of interest with the practice of intentional negative reframing for the express purpose of casting a living person in a negative light, in gross violation of WP:BLP. The protocol on WP:BLP, posted at the top of this page, requires that false and defamatory content must be immediately removed. There is more than enough time to examine the contentious content in a contemplative and sober manner. There is no urgency in rushing to publish potentially false and defamatory content that unfairly casts a living person in a negative light. Moulton 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement which she put her name to was anti-evolution when she put her name to it, and it remains anti-evolution today. No reframing need be involved to reach that assessment. But regardless of that, you violated the WP:COI guidelines by making a controversial edit to the article on her, and none of your hair-splitting can change that fact. Hrafn42 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your personal subjective interpretation, your antagonistic spin, which concords with DI's intentional and nefarious negative reframing of an otherwise innocuous statement regarding the appropriate application of the protocols of the scientific method. You are free to engage in the insidious, pernicious, and unethical practice of intentional negative reframing if it pleases you, but it would be unworthy of an ethical editor of Wikipedia to adopt that abhorrent propagandist practice. Since I would much prefer to see you in a positive light than a negative one (and the same for Wikipedians in general), I urge you to abandon the contentious practice of negative reframing in all its guises. Moulton 10:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Another section heading that Moulton inserted in flagrant disregard of WP:POINT

(I had put a section title in here because Moulton appeared to want a section "continu[ing the] dialogue on negative reframing" - but as he keeps changing the section title, and moving stuff out of this section, I presume he doesn't, so I'll remove it.) Hrafn42 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there are now two distinct sections merged into one, I've inserted second-level headings to keep everything straight. Moulton 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What Moulton is in fact doing is inserting a large number of unnecessary headings, which is disruptive editing in flagrant violation of WP:POINT. Hrafn42 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Further WP:DE from Moulton

Moulton: you are a disruptive editor, who apparently cannot contain yourself from repeatedly violating WP:COI. I have nothing whatsoever further to say to you. Hrafn42 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am delighted to accept your wise and gracious offer to decline to engage me further in contentious debates. Moulton 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Social Contract

I would like to see the participants here craft a more functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide us. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, is proving to be needlessly aggravating and contentious. I believe we need a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution. Moulton 10:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but Moulton what I see from you is a desire to impose your own changes and views by fiat. By fatwah. That is not how Wikipedia works. We work by consensus. Please try to work with the other editors, not against them. So far, everything I have told you has been correct, and all your own personal claims and ideas have been wrong. Trust me on this. I know what I am talking about. You do not.--Filll 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A social contract is a document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one party over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus -- a consensus on the terms of engagement.

As to notions of right or wrong, I draw to your attention a famous quote from the Tao: "Think about Right and Wrong, and one immediately falls into Error." Moral suasion may be about Right and Wrong, but science is about constructing accurate and insightful models that make reliable predictions. I doubt either of us have sufficiently accurate and insightful models to predict the future with any confidence, beyond expecting some kind of liminal social drama.

Moulton 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition to the article, courtesy of Moulton

Unlike Moulton, I have no desire to violate WP:3RR (compounding his violations of WP:COI), so rather than reverting his latest piece of unsourced partisanship on behalf of Picard, I will submit it for the consensus consideration:

Picard's field of affective computing is a field of scientific research which establishes her credentials as a practitioner and advocate of the protocols of the scientific method as they apply to all branches of science. The controversy arises from confusion over whether the statement is an expression of the technical protocols of the scientific method or an expression favoring a political agenda regarding the teaching of scientific subjects related to evolution.

Does anybody think that such a statement has any place in wikipedia? Hrafn42 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't. I think it is original research and just someone's opinion besides. As I said before, the article should be about Picard, not about how some people are trying to use her for one side or the other in the creation/evolution controversy. That could be mentioned of course, but should not dominate the article. Steve Dufour 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It does not strike me as particularly enlightening for a biography like this. One could put such boilerplate in ALL engineering and scientific biographies. If this sort of standard was employed, biographies would quickly be filled with meaningless phrases of a similar nature.

Most of the edits I have seen here over the last week have been pointless. There were edits, which were instantly reverted. There was heated debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think the best for all concerned would be if we just slow down and let things settle out here a bit.

And it appears to me, looking in, that Moulton is a big change agent here. So Moulton, please try not to engage in such pitched battles here. These are not helpful.--Filll 12:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny being a change agent. I'm a science educator, affiliated with the Boston Museum of Science and five universities in three states. I care about critical thinking skills, ethics in both science and journalism, and reclamation of our system of education, which has fallen behind that of other developed countries.

I've been a researcher and systems scientist my entire life, and those are the skills I bring to the table, whether anyone finds them edible or not. My point is that if I cannot find any credible evidence for a presumptive fact, then it's not yet demonstrated to be a fact. I'm not blind and I'm not deliberately shutting my eyes when someone places before me an exhibit which they claim to prove a given thesis. In mathematics, if a student presents a purported proof of a theorem, I am obliged to examine the offered proof with a critical eye to see if it actually proves the theorem to which it is attached. That's part of the discipline of critical thinking and is the opposite of an appeal to authority.

Wikipedia may not have as an express goal the exercise of the scientific method, but Wikipedians can still benefit from the disciplines we promote in science education and in journalistic excellence. I'm not here so much to change Wikipedia as to unabashedly promote the conscientious and diligent utilization of critical thinking skills and ethical standards of journalistic excellence as cultural values essential to the advance of human civilization.

Moulton 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My last edit

I took off Moulton's opinion. As I said before, this article is about Picard. It would be just as wrong to use it as a coatrack to attack evolution as to defend it. I also added the word "later" because I understand that the title of the petition was added after she signed it. If I got this wrong please take it out. I also took the word "Controversial" out of the section title. Too often that word is used to mean "bad" or at least "politically incorrect". That might be true, but it's bad style to give away too much in the title. Steve Dufour 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that you excised my opinion. I put it there to demonstrate that there is more than one way to interpret the statement. The statement can, on the one hand, be viewed in a favorable light (as suggested by half a dozen scientists) or it can be viewed in a negative light (as has been the case in these pages for a good year and a half) or it can be viewed in a neutral and nonjudgmental light. The question I ask is pretty transparent: What light do the Wikipedians cast on the statement, and what is their evidence and reasoning to promote that view as worthy of an encyclopedia? Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if controversial is a good qualifier or not. That is up to consensus to decide.

An alternative, which I posted on Steve's talk page, was "Confusing Petition." That may or may not be a suitable title, but it's certainly an accurate description. Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

However, the claim that the title was added "later" is a fact I wish we knew and had documented in WP:RS and WP:V sources. If this was true, believe me, I would proclaim it loud and often. It would have a very prominent place in our main Dissent from Darwinism article. You would find it on blogs. You would find it in all the media articles on the Dissent petition. You would find it used over and over by the National Center for Science Education. This is a piece of information I would desperately love to have. However, this is just pure WP:OR and speculation at this point. If we can get any evidence of it, then believe me, we will put it in Wikipedia. It would be a very interesting and valuable fact. I think it is quite plausible, but it is not something we can use in Wikipedia. Unfortunately. Or at least yet. But it is something that perhaps some digging can find out more about. Who knows?--Filll 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The best WP:RS that the 5-word title came later is the 2001 anti-PBS ad. If you consider the act of examining the exhibited ad (to see what's in it) to be WP:OR then I despair of the goal of promoting critical thinking. Do you consider the observation that the 5-word title does not appear within the gray box to be WP:OR? The second best WP:RS that the statement carried no such title is the quote from Salthe who says he never heard of the DI. The 5-word characterization is the headline of the DI's anti-PBS ad, so it's clear they own that label (it's not in quotes, and not represented as having been seen or signed by anyone other than the DI). For my part, I will again ask one of the 103 signers what was on the piece of paper that circulated in academia, and whether there is any way to demonstrate that above and beyond mere oral testimony of a personal recollection. Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the confusion about the word "promoting". Perhaps the phrase should be reworded to remove ambiguity. However, one of Moulton's main points is that we have no source that these people actually signed the petition aside from the Discovery Institute. I personally think that is a fairly reasonable source in this instance, particularly if the "signatories" did not object for 5 or 6 years after the petition came out and they were able to see what uses it was put to. However, clearly the people who purportedly signed were not promoting the ideas, but the website was promoting the ideas. --Filll 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything to remove ambiguity and confusion would be a move in the right direction. I have no objection to an individual person adopting a personal belief, but I do object to acting on a mere belief as if it were the ground truth, for the purpose of either casting a living person in a negative light, or for giving would-be sociopaths any reason to sustain a campaign of harassment and abuse of 103 scientists and their professional colleagues. Moulton 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-evolution"

I have no strong objection to calling the petition an anti-evolution petition in the title, although some others seem to. I would like to point out that it might be a little confusing to some people. Maybe they will think the purpose of the petition is to do away with evolution and turn us back into chimpanzees. :-) Steve Dufour 07:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve, it's more than a little "confusing." It's a notorious misrepresentation to label the statement "anti-evolution." Let me explain...

One of the harshest critics of the Darwinian model is David Berlinski, who is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute. One of his criticisms is that the stochastic models still don't fit the data very well. His dissatisfaction with simple random models makes a technical point that is lost on the layperson. The stochastic models that fit the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium) are not simple random models. To get the stochastic models to fit the fossil record, one has to tinker them in ways that raise more (technical) questions than they answer. Is it responsible journalism to spin a technical scientific point into a sensationalized "anti-evolution dissent from Darwin'? Let us not fall into the trap of naively interpreting and misrepresenting a scientific criticism having to do with the precision of mathematical models. Berlinski is hardly anti-evolutionary. But he presents a fair criticism that the stochastic models don't predict what is found in the fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" highlights the troublesome nonstationarity of the fossil record, but that leaves a gap in the mathematics that remains to be filled. Reframing that technical issue over deficiencies in the stochastic model as "anti-evolution" is simply incorrect, and doing so does a disservice both to the public and to the scientists who are framing this debate. One could fairly characterize Berlinski as dissenting from Darwin's mechanism, on the grounds that Darwin's stochastic models are inadequate to predict or explain the nonstationary features of the fossil record. But then one would be obliged to explain that the dissent isn't over the theory per se, but over the inadequacy of the stochastic models to fit the non-stationary features of the fossil record.

Moulton 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

David Berlinski is an anti-evolution crank with zero scientific credibility. He "has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science." Were Moulton to bother providing a source for Berlinski's claims, I am sure we would not find them to have been published in a credible peer-reviewed journal, and most likely we would find that they've already been debunked by other, more credible, mathematicians. Wikipedia policy: no WP:RS, no entry. Hrafn42 13:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal belief about any of the scientists is not a suitable basis for injecting one's preferred characterization of them into an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to know where I obtained my information about Berlinski, I'll tell you. I have twice watched an hour-long video interview of him explaining his objections to Darwin's mechanism. I consider Berlinski's own words, delivered directly from his own mouth to be a reliable source of what Berlinski says. The video (from 2002) was produced by ColdWater Media. Moulton 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ColdWater Media who also produced the dvd version of the notorious (and notoriously dishonest) anti-evolution polemic, Icons of Evolution (the producer of which is also Berlinski's interviewer). A great endorsement for a claim that Berlinski is neither anti-evolution nor a crank. Hrafn42 16:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is dissent, and there is dissent.--Filll 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this article is about Ms Picard, an engineer -- not about Mr. Berlinski, or evolution. Steve Dufour 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually she is a scientist, not an engineer. She had on hand a copy of the above-mentioned video interview, which she loaned me. My source for Berlinski's views (which are patently not anti-evolutionary) is his hour-long recitation of his views as recorded in a video interview released in 2002. The 'anti-evolution' label appears on the NY Times headline, but never on the DI website. The criticism about Darwin was not a dissent from evolution (which Berlinski and the other scientists clearly accept without question), but a critique of the shortcomings of Darwin's mechanism to accurately model or explain important the parts of the data in the fossil record -- most significantly the parts which Stephen Jay Gould has termed the punctuation points. Moulton 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Ah yes, a video -- the ideal media to characterise complex mathematical ideas, present formulae and proofs, etc. I wonder why we bother to have mathematical and scientific journals, when we could just make videos of it all.</sarcasm> Hrafn42 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Nature gonna bring out a YouTube clone next (they have a myspace one[17]) ...? Anyway, Engineers is a branch of applied science, so all engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are engineers. "Engineering is the applied science of acquiring and applying knowledge to design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Many engineers pretentiously call themselves scientists. And this comment is quite telling. Thanks.--Filll 14:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Her MIT degrees are S.M. and Sc.D. She is on the advisory board of the National Science Foundation. Moulton 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand. Clearly from the evidence presented here, and the fact that Rosalind Picard signed the petition and has remained on the petition for 6+ years, in spite of assorted encouragement of Picard to get off it over the years and Picard's uncomfortableness with the media coverage, I have been mislead severely by Moulton. Picard's endorsement of the petition is obviously noteworthy and merited and not at ALL misrepresented by this article. In fact, it probably does not go far enough. I no longer believe any fraud was involved in Picard's signing of the petition. I no longer believe that Picard did not know who the Discovery Institute was before she signed. I no longer believe almost anything that Moulton has claimed. Moulton has revealed his true nature. Thank you Moulton for your honesty, however belated. --Filll 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe the petition is in fact "anti-evolution"? What is your evidence and reasoning, as a responsible editor of a published biography of a living person, to believe (and therefore publish as fact) that the controversial petition in question is accurately characterized as anti-evolution (and thereby imply that 103 scientists are opposed to theories of evolution in the face of copious evidence to the contrary)? Moulton 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough.--Filll 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. A single ill-chosen word appearing nowhere but in the headline of only one story (the content of which does not support the sweeping headline) suffices in your mind to firmly and irretrievably commit Wikipedia to publishing a demonstrably false (and potentially harmful and defamatory) characterization of 103 scientist, notwithstanding copious evidence to the contrary? Moulton 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is over, and time for the RfC I believe.--Filll 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe anti-evolution is a poor unreferenced POV (though, concedingly accurate) description for th petition. The easiest way I can see, is by simply referring to the title by name. User:Moulton has left a rather cryptic message on my talk page which suggests he objects to the use of the word "dissent". As this is the actual title of the petition, I see no way this argument can hold up for exclusion of the term. I think Discovery Institute petition would be fine (DI is synonymous with anti-evolution anyway), as long as that is an accurate portrayal of the petition.--ZayZayEM 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The description "anti-evolution" is referenced to a WP:RS: the title of the NYT piece. Moulton's position appears to be that this petition should not be mentioned at all in this article, and that if it must be mentioned, it should not be described in any informative manner. I do not care if the title says "Anti-evolution petition" or "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", but I would object to the title being pared down to the uninformative "Petition" (or "Controversial petition") or similar. Hrafn42 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's problematic. NYT is not a reliable scientific source, and as elsewhere countered, it is only used in the title, which are prone to hyperbole. If the section can be better titled - i.e. simply by mentioning the title of the petition, it makes no sense to use a perceivably problematic title.--ZayZayEM 06:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2001 32-word statement, as signed by 103 scientists, had no title. Since the adjective "anti-evolution" appears only in the headline, and since six scientists are on record as not being anti-evolution (some are working on micro-evolution), it's best to leave the adjective where it belongs -- in the citation of the NY Times article, which appears in the numbered list of references. That way, the onus is on the NY Times to defend their headline, and Wikipedia avoids elevating an ill-chosen adjective in the headline of one referenced story to the status of "verified fact" which potentially libels and defames as many as 103 scientists. Compare to the similar biography of James Tour. Moulton 06:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That the "NYT is not a reliable scientific source" is an irrelevance, as the claim that the petition's statement is anti-evolution is not a scientific claim. From a scientific viewpoint, the petition's statement is actually meaningless (as evolutionary biology does not claim that natural selection and random mutation are solely responsible for evolution). The anti-evolutionism of the statement is thus in its intended impact on a general public unaware of this scientific fact. What purpose does the wording of this statement serve, if not to throw doubt on evolution? Hrafn42 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR WP:RS. I don't see the point of using a semi-contentious title when one not as contentious, and no less accurate will suffice. I think the petition is being used as an anti-evolution device, but I still have to abide by NPOV. I'm also going to agree with Moulton that wikipedia should avoid promoting ill-chosen adjectives in headlines. The nature of the petition is well explained in the text of the section. Picard isn't notable for her personal anti-evolution stance; but for being a notable scientist on a notable petition that happens to be used for anti-evolutionary purposes. The NYT "anti-evolution" adjective doesn't directly link to Picard's role.--ZayZayEM 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The title is neither in violation of neither WP:NOR nor WP:RS (but in any case, I have already said that I will accept "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" as a title). The petition is not one that just "happens to be used for anti-evolutionary purposes", it is a petition that serves no purpose other than to promote anti-evolution. That "The NYT "anti-evolution" adjective doesn't directly link to Picard's role" is completely irrelevant, as it it the petition that is described as "anti-evolution" throughout not "Picard's role". Hrafn42 07:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The petition is two sentances and a list of names. It really could be used for a number of things. Explicitly as worded it isn't anti-evolution; and is actually pretty pro-science (are you suggesting that scientific evidence shouldn't be carefully examined? Modern Evolutionary Theory uses much more than just "random mutation and natural selection" to "explain the complexity of life"[18]. The DI is deliberately misrepresenting the statements, though that was the whole intent of the shebambles. This is an article on Picard. It should focus on Picard's role in the petition, not the petition itself. Especially as it has it's own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting to reach a bit here, aren't we? What else, pray tell, could the "statement", as some have called it, be used for? Obviously, you seem not to understand the purpose of the the DI's Teach the Controversy campaign or the Wedge Strategy. If the DI were to create a petition that clearly said, "We think evolution sucks and we'll prove why through a recycled ontological argument" they'd be seen as the crackpots they are. Given the history of the DI and its campaign, there is nothing else the petition could be used for. Syaing that it's pretty pro-science is both a stratch and very akin to saying that someone is "pretty pregnant".

As for the oft-repeated claim that the signatories were ignorant of the potential uses of the petition, I'd suggest that if that is your best defence of the signatories, you might as well just admit that they are idiots, bereft of the ability to think beyond the moment, to reason, to extrapolate, to analyze. Pretty crappy defence for folks who need all of those qualities to be worth a damn as scientists. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Purposes

It's an interesting question what purposes are served by the petition, whether they are planned and intentional purposes or surprising and unexpected purposes of an opportunistic nature.

One purpose (albeit one not particularly respected or celebrated) is to raise awareness of the need to employ the critical thinking skills that honor and reify the protocols of the scientific method when reckoning one's beliefs ranging from fanciful idle speculation to comforting cultural myths to useful scientific theories to demonstrably provable mathematical theorems.

Another purpose (almost surely unintentional) is to provide an interesting sociological case study in the phenomenon of reframing. That would be an example of an opportunistic purpose.

In both biological evolution and cultural evolution, we find that an emergent happenstantial feature which originally serves one purpose may end up serving multiple purposes. That is to say, let us not thumb our nose at the Panda's Thumb.

Moulton 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Did any critical thinking go into that statement? You seem to trying to reframe your arguments as time goes on. First, Picard was a witless victim, now the petition had another, higher purpose. Good grief. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look what critic Ed Brayton says:

[This appears just after quoting the two lines of A Scientific Dissent] [The statement] has nothing to do with dissent from Darwinism. or support for ID. I would go even further than this statement goes. I'm not only skeptical of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life we see around us, I flatly deny that those two things alone account for it. Random mutation is not the only source of genetic variation and natural selection is not the only means by which a trait can become fixed in a population. No evolutionary biologist would disagree with the statement above; even Richard Dawkins could honestly sign that statement. It is completely meaningless.[19]

Seriously guys, read your sources and you might understand the incredibly political nature of this debate and how important it is tread on eggshells so that we portray it accurately and properly without utilising the nasty brutish tactics of the creationist throng.--ZayZayEM 04:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's political? Like, no way dude. Of course it's political, it always has been, and is now so in spades.

Yes, perhaps Richard Dawkins could have signed that petition, but he didn't, and there's reason for that: he's smarter than the buffons who did sign it, and I have little doubt that he would have seen through the charade. The fact remains that Picard did sign it, and her bona fides are lacking. It really is that simple, stop making excuses. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated fields

According to the article on fields of science, computer sciences are a subset of Mathematics and Computer sciences and evolutionary biology is a subset of life sciences, which is in turn a subset of natural sciences. This would seem to me to be prima facie evidence that the two fields are completely unrelated. Hrafn42 08:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In case anybody is interested, Picard's field is affective computing within the field of artificial intelligence. The closest that computer science and evolutionary biology come to meet is in the field of evolutionary algorithms (an unrelated subfield of AI), which "uses some mechanisms inspired by biological evolution: reproduction, mutation, recombination, natural selection and survival of the fittest." You would be hard pressed to make the claim that because another sub-field of your field is "inspired by" an otherwise-unrelated field, that your sub-field is in any way related to this field. At best, this would be an argument for more narrowly characterising Picard's field as affective computing. Hrafn42 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bioinformatics.--ZayZayEM 10:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Her fields are Digital Signal Processing, Pattern Recognition, and Affective Computing. See, for example, the citation to her 1997 best paper prize. She began working on Affective Computing in 1995, barely two years before publishing her seminal book on that subject.

Her current work on Autism research (see ESP: Emotional Social Intelligence Prosthesis) has a genetic component, because there are both genetic components and social/cultural/educational components in Autism. Treatment of inherent deficits arising from genetic causes differs from treatment of developmental deficits arising from shortcomings in social-emotional education.

Stochastic modeling is widely used in many fields. So-called genetic algorithms are used both to simulate biological evolution and to adopt "Nature's Search Method" to find improved versions of engineered systems. Practitioners of mathematical techniques routinely compare notes with their fellow practitioners who are applying those same technical tools of mathematics across a broad spectrum of applications. Whether one is using a hammer to build a house or to beat the brains out of an adversary, one is still using a hammer.

Moulton 11:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All of which has what to do with being a biologist? Hell, one could argue that a chemist is qualified because the study of various components of biology are predicated on chemical reactions. A physicist could make the same claim as what happened at the moment of the big bang is crucial to the development of chemicals, and hence life. A geologist too could make this claim as the geology of earth, especially after the impact of the proto-moon may have altered the earth's structure in a way that made the formation of life possible. But, they're not, she's not, you're not, get over it and take your specious claims back to the blogosphere. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Noone's calling her a biologist? Can I also note I'm finding a lot of Moulton's logic shaky. But I stand by the idea that BLP's need to be looked after carefully. DO all you want on your blogs, but wikipedia is facts, and only relevant facts.--ZayZayEM 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton is noting that her fields are akin to biology -- erroneously of course -- but the implication is quite clear. BLP's merely need to be clear of any rational, logical and actionable assumption of libel or defamation of character that will not pass a preponderance of the evidence test. That does not however mean that "bad" things cannot be in the articles; the "bad" things simply have to meet WP:RS and WP:V in order to be included. At least, that's the way the law works. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevence of Bryant's coments

Computer science is related to evolutionary biology. Oh, HELLO Bioinformatics Particular in running simulations and AI development. Not to mention the usefulness in providing algorithms for things like BLAST.

• Couldn't find the exact example I was after; involving script modified robots hunting food through LED sensors, I saw it Pharyngula ages ago, and thought I'd reposted it on my blog, but Google is thwarting my attempts to locate it. I did try this search, which does return some interesting Natural Selection simulations.
• Ooh it was via the Loom [20][21]

I really am going to require a citation to allow such an inflammatory anti-cross-disciplinary statement to stand (almost all fields of science overlap somewhat these days). Linking to another wiki-article is not the same as requiring a RS.

Additional the comments by Bryant are not directed towards Picard (Nathan Bradfield and Egnor are mentioned). They are directed towards all the signatories without any "training or expertise" in evo-bio. Not only have you not shown (and refused to show) that this is true for Picard; but its inclusion here will require its inclusion on all the relevant signatories' pages. Better to put it at the A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism main page if it is such a noteworthy comment.

In order to use Bryant's commentary it will have to be shown that Picard is one of those untrained non-experts he was referring to. Otherwise it is contentious synthetic OR on a very special sort of bio

--ZayZayEM 10:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh HELLO -- tenuously thin argument:

1. Bioinformatics (like evolutionary algorithms, which I discussed above) would appear to have no overlap with Picard's field of affective computing;
2. Computer science/artificial intelligence is only one of a large number of fields that bioinformatics calls upon; and
3. Modelling on evolution is only one of eight applications listed for bioinformatics.

This argument is about as compelling as claiming that stress-testing nuts and bolts is related to medicine because both the workings of nuts and bolts and of artificial implants can both be considered to be part of materials science.

The statement is not "inflammatory", it is simple common sense. Individual sub-fields of scientific fields (or more commonly sub-fields of sub-fields of fields) quite frequently overlap with sub-fields of other fields, but that does not mean that the entire fields are "related". Affective computing is in no way related to evolutionary biology. This can be seen from (1) the prima facie evidence I cited above, and (2) the lack of any evidence of any specific sub-field overlap.

The comments were directed towards a class of people that clearly includes Picard, who, as an Engineering graduate (a subject that is highly unlikely to include electives in even general biology,let alone evolutionary biology), has a vanishingly small probability of having had any academic contact with evolutionary biology. I rather doubt if Brayton demanded Bradfield's or Egnor's full academic transcripts before making his comment either. His point was that neither work in fields that have any contact or overlap with evolutionary biology -- a point perfectly mirroring Picard's own speciality.

Hrafn42 11:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If anybody is interested here is GIT's 'prerequisite diagram and typical schedule' for a BS in electrical engineering Hrafn42 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the fact that, in my argument in the section above, I linked to a mere wiki-article is the problem, then NSF Fields of Science Codes and this explanatory information on them add up to much the same thing. Hrafn42 12:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking a Wiki article on a discussion page. ZayZay's quibble in this case is as specious as his other points. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with linking to a wiki-article at all. There is a problem with using a wiki article to bypass the need for an RS regarding a contentious statement. Nothing in the Fields of science article talks about relatedness or unrelatedness of fields.--ZayZayEM 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking the discussion page here, yes? If so, we don't make edit comments on the article that refer to the discussion page. You can quibble to your heart's content on said discussion page, but leave it out of your edit summaries on the article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival of the Fittest

One of the cornerstones of Darwin's model is the principle that is typically captioned "Survival of the Fittest." One of the faculties that figures into one's fitness to survive is intelligence. Among Howard Gardner's celebrated list of multiple intelligences, author Daniel Goleman singles out Emotional Intelligence as arguably the most important variety of intelligence for overall success in life. Goleman tends to focus on emotional intelligence in humans, but studies of bonobos and chimpanzees by primate researchers suggest that social and emotional intelligence appears to have achieved strikingly different levels of sophistication in otherwise closely related species. Emotional intelligence depends, in part, on the ability to recognize subtle cues in posture, gesture, and facial expression that signal emotional state, and to rapidly process such non-verbal and sub-verbal data streams to identify, assess, reckon, and adaptively respond to affective states. Are these faculties of social-emotional intelligence heritable characteristics? Are they learned skills? How do they arise, evolve, and become impaired in different lineages? Autism research, for example speaks to these questions. So does research in pattern recognition. Moulton 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Picard's research does not go near the genetic basis of intelligence, autism or pattern recognition, let alone their effect on population genetics. As such, it is completely unrelated to evolutionary biology. I am getting very tired of this faulty logic applying what might be considered a promiscuous transitivity to the "relatedness" of fields. Hrafn42 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How could a stranger living half a world away be expected to know anything about the research agenda or research results of the subject of this biography? Have you read a fair cross-section of the original research papers produced by her group? Have you read a fair cross-section of media reports on the research produced by her group? Have you attended any of her public presentations, or viewed any of the online videos of her presentations, as made available from MIT? Your demonstrated lack of familiarity with the subject does not qualify you to assert with any credibility the scope of her research. Moulton 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival of the Fittest? Not one of Darwin's terms and certainly belied when applied to intelligence factors in the hoi polloi. But I digress...

In any case, Moulton's examples are ancillary to evolutionary studies, just as the study of a specific language is ancillary to studies regarding the need for communication. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Stanislaw Ulam's contributions to Theoretical Biology (which are inexplicably absent from the pages of Wikipedia) are exemplary of the kind of useful quantitative modeling connecting micro-evolution to macro-evolution that critics of Darwin's mechanism are urgently calling for. These kinds of quantitative models provide the kind of scientific evidence that puts evolutionary biology on a firm scientific footing. Darwin could not have supplied the kind of mathematical grounding supplied by Ulam. Darwin didn't have access to the organic chemistry that allows microbiologists and biochemists to construct models of biological molecules, nor did he have the mathematical depth to craft theoretical models comparable to those provided by Ulam. I celebrate contributors like Ulam, especially because his brilliant application of mathematical modeling unifies the work of micro-biologists and evolutionary biologists. Moulton 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a point to your rant, but how it has any bearing on this article escapes me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated, tendentious nonsense

It is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that computer science, or computer engineering are the same as evolutionary biology, or have any substantial overlap with evolutionary biology, and that someone who is basically an engineer has any authority to make pronouncments about evolutionary biology. No journal in evolutionary biology would ever choose an engineer like Picard to review a paper on natural selection. No reputable university would hire Picard to do research and teach evolutionary biology. Why is Picard working in one of the engineering departments at MIT and not the Whitehead Institute or the MIT biology department? Why did Picard work in area 54 at Bell Labs? I did not notice any evolutionary biologists in that department. How many evolutionary biologists are members, let alone fellows of the IEEE? How many semester hours of coursework and laboratory work and field work in evolutionary biology and paleontology does Picard have at the undergraduate and graduate levels? Any scholarly peer-reviewed publications in this area? This is nuts. And the more people make these kinds of arguments, the more they discredit themselves and make it clear they are POV warriors.--Filll 14:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone, please let the article be about Ms Picard, not evolution. Steve Dufour 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you account for the fact that Stanislaw Ulam, an applied mathematician working at Los Alamos on the mathematical models of nuclear physics ended up making seminal contributions to the field of Theoretical Biology? Moulton 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If and when Picard makes seminal contributions in evolutionary biology, this will be noted. Otherwise, my opinion stands. --Filll 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor (spotted Filll's BLPN request). This circular discussion of more than 30,000 words is very telling. Moulton will not take no for an answer. I suggest that Moulton study our rules (especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS) instead of (hopefully unwittingly) trying to convince experienced editors to violate them, or selectively quoting the do no harm pillar of WP:BLP. Avb 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have studied Wikipedia's rule-based system, and examined how well and how efficiently it achieves the overarching goal of rising to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online journalism. You can read some of my findings here. Moulton 16:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And we can summarise our findings with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Hrafn42 16:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue here really is that one or more of the signatories and/or their close supporters are attempting to do some public-relations-type ideological damage control -- in a word, propaganda. That's an inherently WP:POV position, and it may involve WP:COI considerations too. There are two basic possiblities w.r.t. the deniability that Moulton appears to seek. 1) The statement was presented to the signatories without a title, with the title folded over, or otherwse not visible, at the time of signing, to one or more of the signatories. Or, (2) the title was clearly visible and someone's lying. There are other possibilities, but those are the two main ones in the present setting. Problem is, none of this has any reliable sourcing thus far.

W.r.t. other apparent possibilies: Why haven't some of the signatories called or written one another? and said, for instance: "Hey, this title is a misrepresentation of the language of the statement I signed, for the followng reasons [enter reasons in the space provided or on an attached page ________________, _________________, __________________]. Send it off to the newspapers and other appropriate periodicals and make clear the nature of any assertions of misrepresentative language, lack of title at the time of signing, and/or other claims by one or more of the signatories and make sure it's published in a reliable source. Then it can be considered for use in Wikipedia.

In the meantime, Moulton hints at, and also explicitly threatens in several instances, allegations of libel, slander, public mockery of Wikipedia procedure, practice and substance in various as yet unnamed public fora. Gimme a break already. The threats ring hollow, quite frankly, and this lengthy discussion pretty much speaks for itself. Moulton attempts to break the rules and guidelines of WP, and get others to break them, in order to achieve her (or his) POV objectives. Moulton, this effort of yours is way out of bounds for awhile now. Seriously. ... Kenosis 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At the root, the unethical and unbecoming practice of selective (partisan, negative) contextual reframing is the practice that I am taking exception to. Moulton 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please define unethical. Define how your assertion is a valid one. Oh, never mind, see the quote from Ben Franklin (wise old codger he was). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is your authoritative source for ethics in journalism:

Media Ethics Bibliography (from the Poynter Institute)

Moulton 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The already documented record of this discussion with you says differently. Hopefully we will not need to go over all of your assertions again point by point in order to make this additional set of points about your approach here. Fact is, it's demonstrably been repeatedly threatening and nasty to the participants in the article, with some pseudo-logic thrown in along the way. Time for it to stop, and go do something more productive, such as: If there's an allegation that the signatories were misled by those who circulated and used the petition, go pow-wow with other signatories, or have Picard take matters more publicly into her own hands, and make any allegation(s) or arguments of deceptive manner of presentation of the statement to the signatories in a public place where it can be scrutinized. You know as well as anyone here at this point, or should know, that there are many avenues of publication of such an assertion to pursue. If signatories feel they were bamboozled or misled or were misrepresented in some way, some reliable pusblisher will publish it. Then, if that end up being the case, it can be used and even quoted in Wikipedia. But quite frankly, all we have here thus far is a bunch of unsubstantiated, quasi-anonymous hooey. ... Kenosis 17:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, it is true that Wikipedia comes across as a rule-based system to new editors making controversial edits. The more experienced one gets, the more one realizes that the project is community based and largely consensus-driven. But regardless of one's initial experience, studying a project of this scale is never a trivial task. In my opinion, this doesn't even begin to convey what experienced editors know about what makes this project tick, what its shortcomings are, and what can be done to improve it. Avb 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, much as you like to pride yourself on your intellectual superiority and presume to lecture the editors here and talk down to them, you have sadly and embarassingly failed in your efforts to understand Wikipedia and its internal culture, rules and checks and balances. All you have amply revealed is your own set of personal biases and inability to engage in reasoned debate and argumentation and collaborate with others in a productive fashion. I for one believe you have done over the edge long ago, and I believe the situation is irretrievable. --Filll 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I must disagree, in part at least. My review of the statements of Moulton thus far indicates that this has not been, and is not now, about comparative assessments of innate competence. A significant number of the statements by Moulton are demonstrably manipulative, and/or threatening, and demonstrably seek to persuade the WP users to submit to Moulton's preferred, unsubstantiated version of events, under threat of legal action and/or informal sanctions such as publishing pieces in other publications about Wikipedia's alleged flaws in methodology and alleged flaws in its practice. I not only find the threats hollow, but indicative of very arguable hints of intellectual dishonesty by Moulton. All this is quite demonstrable based upon Moulton's submissions to date. If we need to spend the time going over it point by point, we will proceed to do so. Let's not mince words about this at this point in time. The evidence here is such that a random sample of reasonable, objective observers would likely conclude that what I've asserted here is a reasonable way of describing Moulton's approach. ... Kenosis 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to agree. What I see here is the pretence to intellectual superiority that, via his specious and neverending arguments, marks a decided deficit in intellectual capacity. The manipulative nature of Moulton's comments, along with an apparent cognitive dissonance point more to a pathology that I should prefer to not mention here than to any dominance in ratiocination. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cruel, cruel. It could be choice you know, or genuine exasperation, or an emotional disconnect, just for starters. Perhaps it's better not to dwell on possible causes, but work towards removing the symptoms instead? Avb 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed (not to the cruelty charge, but to the points). So, how shall we proceed? Obviously we need to begin with "so-and-so presents with..." and move toward a differential diagnosis, but perhaps we've passed that point already. So, what is the cure or should we focus on a palliative? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me is the recurring appearance in the pages of Wikipedia (and not just this article) of polemic partisan content that fails to rise to a reasonable standard of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in journalism. To my mind, that's the overarching story. It's not about any individual -- not about any subject of a BLP and not about any partisan editor with a passionate cause. It's about process and product, and the failure of the process to produce a product worthy of the label "public encyclopedia." Moulton 00:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What troubles me is your recurring appearance in the pages of Wikipedia (and not just this article) with polemic partisan comments about Wikipedia and its editors and calls for article content changes that fail to meet Wikipedia's policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It's become such a problem that you're close to meeting all the criteria for identifying disruptive editors at WP:DE. There's a limit to how many rants against them regular, good faith contributors have to endure, and you're very close to crossing it. Your comments like this are best suited to your blog and the anti-Wikipedia campaign found there, I suggest you limit yourself to making them there. FeloniousMonk 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, of course it is true that users who tend to be attracted to certain articles quite frequently have POV agendas for those articles. At this point in time, it appears you are not an exception to this all-too-frequent occurrence. The agenda you have asserted for this article is beyond POV, and has gone into (a) criticisms of Wikipedia rules and practice with threats of using other media to get your way here, (b) veiled and/or explicit legal threats, (c) other obvious attempts to manipulate users to accompany you in breaking Wikipedia policy and practice in order to include your unsubstantiated allegations, and (d) lengthy tendentious argumentation in an attempt to get this article to read the way you want it to read. The evidence of your comments thus far indicates that your prime objective is to insert your preferred POV, and that your assertions of a quest for improved quality of journalistic reporting are quite secondary to that objective. Time to cut it out. What's needed now is verification of your as yet unsubstantiated assertions. ... Kenosis 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My POV is hardly a secret. I have a passion for science education and science journalism, as well as a passion for accuracy, excellence, and ethics in journalism. Do you mean to tell me that a few Wikipedians are afraid of a critical examination of the efficacy of the process and the quality of the product generated in this novel enterprise? Every other healthy discipline routinely engages in critical examination of its own integrity. Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." By extension, one might also note that the unexamined speculation is not worth believing, and the unexamined process is not worth adopting. Moulton 06:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So you say. In the present context, that has become demonstrably bullshit. Obviously you're not adequately diapassionate about the present topic. See ya later. ... Kenosis 10:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think editors here have done all they could towards a cure, including folk remedies such as WP:MINNOW, more serious treatments such as the injection of massive doses of policy background, and finally folk treatments collectively known as WP:CLUE/WP:TROUT, yet the symptoms have not abated.

This well-known condition, generally known as Clue Deficiency Syndrome, is meme-borne and therefore contagious. Now that we have determined further discussion is not going to cure it, we should contemplate measures to prevent further contamination of talk pages and even the encyclopedia itself. Like regular medicine, WP has some options available to prevent symptoms from recurring once they have become a nuisance. Some editors advocate removal of an entire article in order to keep the condition off-Wikipedia, but I do not believe that is a reason to employ the AfD process in this case. I would rather move towards a temporary? ban of sorts, unless/until the editor proves willing to use our regular dispute resolution processes and abide by consensus. The consensus process is also the recommended instrument to campaign for a community-wide change of our modus operandi that ends up in a guideline or policy. The current disruption of the normal editing process, entertaining as these excursions into scientific (sounding) discourse may seem to some, including its flagrant dismissal of even a remote possibility that consensus will decide the outcome of disputes as long as editors are applying Wikipedia's current community standards, especially if the involved editors are not subject experts, cannot be allowed to continue on article talk pages. Avb 11:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have never suggested that computer science is the same as evolutionary biology. I am disputing that the fields are totally unrelated. Pedantic as it may seem its important because as it stands it was innacurate and misleading.--ZayZayEM 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? Nothing like injecting pure nonsense in here at random intervals is there? Is this a profitable hobby for you? Of course, everything is connected to everything. And I can do brain surgery because I visited a doctor's office once. --Filll 01:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please try and mind WP:CIVIL. I haven't said anything like that. If you had a degree in Biology, I'd think it would be silly to say it is totally unrelated to Neurophysiology. I am saying that you can't unequivocably state that two remotely related fields of science are totally unrelated, without a reference, and on top of that use the erroneous statement to introduce some potentially contentious commentary into a WP:BLP--ZayZayEM 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"you can't unequivocably state that two remotely related fields of science are totally unrelated" -- can you spell "tautological"?

Anyway, how are they related? Because they're both science? Because computers were developed out of the ideas of man? Because we created computers to do the "hard work" so we wouldn't have to? Hell, we've been doing that for thousands of years -- work smarter, not harder. What precisely is your point? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

When I woke up this morning

• The deleted commentary specified computer science as having nothing to do with evo-bio. I think I have established that this was innacurate, and was not well referenced. Whether Picard's actual research sub-fields were related was not what was stated so all your work presenting those details really don't apply. And you still need an accurate reference, as its still a contentious claim.

• As Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution it's very hard to say that much of applied theoretical science applied to living systems has absolutely nothing to do with evo-bio. Studying facial expression and communication systems in living organisms, would be grossly understudied without an evolutionary component, but Picard did sign this petition, so maybe she just ignores that, but it still wouldn't mean we could say her field of study is unrelated. If you want to say Picard has "no training or expertise" in evolution, you are going to have to find a reference, it's as simple as that.--ZayZayEM 01:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re; What you have established, or claim to have established. You have not established anything of the kind. Her specialty and her research and her positions and her writings on the subject are prima facie evidence to the contrary, as we have in several RS and V sources already. And your postings are replete with WP:OR and other assorted nonsense. Provide a source for your claims. Let's see a publication in a peer-reviewed evolutionary biology journal with Picard as the lead author.--01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

No, you have not "established that this was innacurate[sic]"! All you have "established" is that a few, isolated sub-fields of computer science, that have no overlap with Picard's own sub-field, have a very tenuous relationship with evolutionary biology. You have NOT established a relationship between computer science generally and evolutionary biology, nor have you established any relationship at all between Picard's sub-field and evolutionary biology. Your claim that "its still a contentious claim" is tendentious and has no factual basis. Hrafn42 03:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not establishing that. I'm establishing that you can't say "Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology." which to me says Computer science is unrelated to evo-bio, which isn't true. I'll say they aren't closely related. And that being specialist in Computer Science, really doesn't automatically qualify you as an evolutionary critic. But that's not what the claim said. It said unequivocably the two fields are unrelated. Plainly wrong. Again at worst I am being pedantic, but IMO it is an important distinction. *** If it was referring to Picard's subfield, then it really needs to be more specific, because that isn't very clear, and again by saying "unrelated" you are say not-related-at-all which doesn't seem to be the case - whether or not Picard actually utilises the relationship is moot. The relationship exists, however teneously and cannot be denied. Maybe "Picard's primary research is unrelated..." would be better, but that would need an accurate cite about her research not being related to evo-bio, or it's OR.--ZayZayEM 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not established "that you can't say 'Picard's field of computer science is unrelated to evolutionary biology.'" All you have done is put up a very weak and WP:SYNTH argument that certain specific sub-fields of CS (none of which are in any way related to Picard's work) are very tenuously related to evo bio. This neither establishes a relationship between CS generally, nor Picard's specialisation[s]. Hrafn42 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So we are talking about specifically Picard's sub-fields?--ZayZayEM 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• It still doesn't also change the WP:SYNTH issue. Noone (or at least no verifiable source) has made the direct link between Brayton's comments and Picard. Brayton's comments are directed at those signatories without "training or expertise" in evo-bio. Saying that Picard's main field, sub field or research isn't related to evo-bio is not the same thing. As such the comments can't be included, particularly in a BLP. It's just unnecessary overkill. The connection between Picard and DI's pseudoscience anti-education agenda is clear. I would reccommend putting Brayton's comments in the main A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism main page, but they just don't fit in here.--ZayZayEM 03:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument why CS & Evo Bio are related is equally WP:SYNTH, and ridiculously weak to boot. If we decide to disallow this level of Synth then both drop out, and the simply hierarchy of fields remain. If your argument is allowed in, then so is mine, and it is far stronger. Make your choice, but you lose either way. Hrafn42 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's not, CS and Evo bio are teneuosly related. I really can't see how anyone can dispute that. The main point is anyway that saying the two fields are unrelated is definitely not the same as Picard has "no training or expertise" is evo-bio. I'm not saying she does, I'm saying you need a reference to establish this. You can't really get upset at me using SYNTH to disallow SYNTH. EIther way it doesn't go into the article. Noone wins. Huzzah...??? ToT--ZayZayEM 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider the example of mathematician Stanislaw Ulam, who is cited in "Stanislaw Ulam’s Contributions to Theoretical Biology" (in Letters in Mathematical Physics 1985) as having made notable contributions to theoretical biology. The authors describe a 12-page record of his contributions which span work in cellular automata theory, population biology, Fermi-Pasta-Ulam results, pattern recognition, and biometric spaces. Here's a germane excerpt:

In a paper with T. F. Smith, Myron Stein, and William Beyer, Ulam carries out an investigation of the reconstruction of evolutionary trees based on 33 species of the protein complex known as Cytochrome-C from 33 extant plants or animals. A distance metric between these similar proteins is calculated by a mathematical theory (discussed elsewhere). Hypothetical evolutionary trees are then constructed by use of linear programming methods. Agreement of the trees with generally accepted evolutionary trees was reasonably good.

Ulam's results helped evolutionary biologists resolve uncertainties regarding the placement of problematic species on the evolutionary tree. By comparing which species had the most similar forms of Cytochrome-C, evolutionary biologists were able to establish which species were most closely related on the evolutionary tree. Mathematical models such as those crafted by Ulam and his collaborators exemplified the power, utility, and importance of mathematical modeling in unifying the fields of molecular biology and macro-evolution.

These well-sourced examples illustrate that various branches of applied mathematics, including Picard's field of Pattern Recognition are applicable to the mathematical modeling of aspects of evolutionary biology. Moulton 04:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Interconnections everywhere Pharyngula, March 17, 2007 7:45 PM. -- Science is not a bunch of boxes.--ZayZayEM 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Zayzay, learn how to use colons for indenting (these things ":").

In any case, this discussion gets more ridiculous as time goes by. BTW: mathematical modeling can be used in damned near evey field, you just make up the math and go for it. So what. 18:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"No training or expertise"

You need to establish Picard has "no training or expertise" in evo-bio to use Brayton's comments. Simply saying her field is unrelated (which I'm still not satisfied is exactly true) It's overkill. It's synthesis. And it cannot remain on a BLP.

Please wait till discussion is over, and dispute is resolved before restoring contentious material to a BLP.--ZayZayEM 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't! Brayton made his comments in the context of talking about two individuals about whom he had no more information about their precise "training or expertise" than we have here (rather less detail actually, from the context). The context that I am juxtaposing Brayton's comments with Picard's background is at least equivalent to the context in which he originally made them, so the juxtaposition is justified. If Brayton had first established (to the level of painstaking, unachievable detail that you are demanding) their exact "training or expertise", then you would be in a position to demand similar treatment for Picard. Brayton did not, and therefore you cannot reasonably do so. Hrafn42 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brayton wrote on his blog. Not on wikipedia. If he had, I'd be kickin' his ass the same way. Want to write like Brayton, start a blog, don't do it here. WP:NOT. BTW, Saying your source did sloppy research doesn't exactly strengthen the case for its inclusion. (I don't think it's an accurate characterisation, Egnor's lack of evo-bio knowledge has been clearly established)--ZayZayEM 04:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If I was writing an essay. I would probably juxtapose the two points. But this is an encyclopedia. It's just pushing it too far, and it is unnecessary. All the facts about Picard and her signing are present. Brayton's comments are not notable or relevent to this particular case.--ZayZayEM 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brayton is also expressing an opinion, which is being clearly portrayed as such, not offered as either fact or Wikipedia's own narrative. All I need to do is to justify that I am not taking that quoted opinion out of context, NOT that each and every assumption that Brayton makes in offering this opinion is justified. Hrafn42 04:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is not a relevant opinion. It is out of context. It has not been established that Picard is one of those scientists without "training or expertise" in evo-bio. It's not a giant assumption, but it is an assumption to big for a BLP on wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 05:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please read the bold text here--ZayZayEM 05:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No one can deny the subject's expertise in digital signal processing and pattern recognition, which are computational tools that have wide applications in many diverse fields. No one can deny that there are people like Stanislaw Ulam whose primary field is applied mathematics and who have notably applied their mathematical expertise to brilliantly solve important problems in evolutionary biology. Participants here also cannot deny (because they could not have known) that the reason Ulam was on my mind this morning was because I was recalling his memorable talk, many years ago, at the General Research Colloquium at Bell Laboratories, where Picard and I were both employed back in the 1980s. She was in the Digital Signal Processing Group there and I was in the Network Planning Division. It was in that talk where Ulam described his mathematical model linking his metric on the differences in Cytochrome-C to the distances between species on the evolutionary tree. It was an enlightening and inspiring talk, especially for those of us who were trained in the use of similar mathematical tools as those employed so brilliantly by Ulam. Moulton 04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• No sources say that any of Picard's personal research is related to evo-bio. Can you please focus on the major issue. Saying a field is not related to evo-bio is not the same as saying someone who researches it (unequivicably) has no "training or expertise" in evo-bio.--ZayZayEM 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The full context of Brayton's opinion

This is the full context of Brayton's opinion:

Last week I had a post fisking Nathan Bradfield's ignorance about evolution and his trumpeting of the DI's famous list of dissenting scientists. One of the names mentioned in his article was that of Michael Egnor, one of the folks who has signed the DI's list, but is not a scientist but a professor of surgery. I pointed out that, in fact, the majority of the people on that list have no training or expertise in evolutionary biology at all. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know what they're talking about, but it does mean that putting them on a list that is used solely as an appeal to authority is ridiculous, since they have no authority in the field.

The post he linked to states:

If you thought Nathan Bradfield's take on church and state was absurd and overly simplistic, wait till you see what he has to say about evolution. To begin with, he's getting his information from the Worldnutdaily, which is a bit like learning about physics by reading Highlights. He's parroting this article about the Discovery Institute's famous list of "dissenting scientists" that has the gall to refer to it as a list of "top scientists." The very first paragraph:

The list truly is a "Who's Who" of prominent scientists in the world today, and now another 100 ranking leaders have added their signatures to a challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Now that's just funny. A "Who's Who" of prominent scientists? In what alternate universe? How many of the names on that list do you suppose Nathan has ever heard of outside of lists like this? I suppose they think Richard Sternberg is a "prominent scientist", but if not for the Smithsonian controversy even those of us who keep up with this issue had no idea who he was. He was so obscure, in fact, that the head of the department at the NMNH where Sternberg was a Research Associate had never even heard of him and didn't know he existed and had an office in his own department until that controversy broke. Golly, that's sure "prominent."

The only names on the list with any prominence at all, even within their own narrow fields, are Phillip Skell, Henry Schaefer and Frank Tipler. And guess what? None of them are in fields that deal with evolutionary biology at all. Their opinion on evolutionary theory is no more authoritative than anyone else who has no knowledge of the issue. If you want a measure of just how obscure most of them are and how much effort the DI has to go through to make them appear more credible than they are, look no further than the list of credentials they give for each of them and the fact that they switch back and forth between citing where they got their degrees from and what organization they are affiliated with now, picking whichever one sounds more impressive.

And consider the fact that the majority of people on the list are in fields that have no relevance to evolutionary biology at all. A chemist or a physicist or a doctor has no more specialized knowledge of biology than a sociologist or a mechanic for that matter. This is not only an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to non-existent authority. Of course, the last thing the ID advocates should be engaging in is such appeals to authority, especially in light of the fact that well over 99% of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution. If you're going to appeal to the authority of a tiny percentage of scientists, most of them obscure names in fields with no connection to evolution, it seems rather silly to reject an appeal to the overwhelming opinion of those scientists who actually work in the field. ...

I challenge anybody to show how applying the quote to Picard is taking it out of its original context, that of "the majority of people on the list are in fields that have no relevance to evolutionary biology at all." Hrafn42 05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brayton's opinion is just that -- an opinion.

But more importantly, his assertion depends on what the word "relevance" means. All it takes to dismiss Brayton's remark is to show that at least one notable researcher in a given field has done at least some significant peer-reviewed work in evolutionary biology. By that standard, James Tour's field of organic chemistry is manifestly relevant and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.

Ulam did celebrated work in evolutionary biology based on his ingenious use of fundamental tools of mathematical modeling, including pattern recognition. An even more relevant mathematical tool is stochastic modeling which has broad applications in many fields. Anyone with expertise in stochastic modeling is well-positioned to review how well that tool is being used to solve interesting problems in diverse fields. Stochastic modeling includes Bayesian network models, Markov process models, and Wiener process models. Does Brayton have credentials to demonstrate that those commonly used mathematical tools have no relevance to constructing models in evolutionary biology?

Moulton 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Brayton is a blogger. his opinion is not noteworthy. Speculation about Picard's ability to comment on evo-bio cannot come from a blog per WP:BLP [22]

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Reading Brayton's commentary really doesn't enamour me to the idea of him as a Reliable Source. You've already conceded his research regarding his claims appears somewhat less than complete. It is irrelevent commentary that violates WP:NOT WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. The quote isn't even attributed to Brayton as a blogger, just to some weasely phrase of some people. Reinsert potentially contentious material into a BLP again, and this will be taken to WP:AN/I. Please continue the discussion. If you manage to bring some actual references establishing Picard's lack of "training or expertise" in evo-bio, the notability of Brayton as a commentator on evolutionary criticism, the accuracy of his claims of irrelevent fields etc. you may still have a chance. But until then, it can't be included.--ZayZayEM 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, ZayZayEM has it right. This is classic original research, putting together facts about Picard, opinions about what her expertise touches on, and an opinion about the petition in general, to synthesise an unattributed opinion about her. That the source of the opinion about the petition is a blog in itself makes it a very dubious source, unacceptable for a BLP. The point that her field of eminence does not appear to concern evolutionary biology, if attributable, might be relevant to the Dissent article, but here it at best serves to give her an unnecessary alibi for not knowing what she was signing, and is inappropriate. ... dave souza, talk 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dave here. Avb 12:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Final warnings" and moving the goal-posts

I accepted the elimination of the Brayton quote immediately that ZayZayEM raised the issue of inadmissibility of blogs under WP:BLP (edit summary of "Final WP:BLP warning" not withstanding), and have now replaced it. I wish that they had raised this matter several sections ago, as I could have avoided the trouble of debating, and providing evidence on, issues that this renders moot. While accepting wikipedia policy, I think I am not being unreasonable in feeling a considerable degree of frustration with perpetually moving target I have been presented on this issue.

On the subject of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, I would ask what the standard is for establishing a prima facie case (i.e. one that "denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact") for the unrelatedness of the two fields, that I would have to make without violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. At that point, I would be reasonable in demanding that any rebuttal would likewise need to meet the standards of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. As it is, it seems that I must counter a whole string of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH arguments, without violating either rule myself. This would seem to me to be unreasonable. Hrafn42 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BLP was my first and real only criterion for deletion. The relevance of the field has always been accessory. I kept pointing back to WP:BLP and my original SYNTH claim (irrelevent field is not the same as "no training or expertise"). A whole two sections of discussion went by while I was asleep. And I think that totally sidetracked the whole thing.--ZayZayEM 08:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm over it. this is getting listed at WP:AN/I and I am requesting protection. Citing various criteria to formulate and argumentative/convincing tone. (X says B is A, N did B, therefore A) is the exact formula used in the WP:SYNTH example.--ZayZayEM 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone for RFC in the interests of AGF. Without the Brayton link, the argument of unqualified expert is even more contentiously OR. It really is pretty much the example on the WP:SYNTH page. It is so essay-like. Notices will be placed on pages such as Talk:Intelligent design to ensure wider community consensus --ZayZayEM 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Neutral statement Concerns have been expressed over the inclusion of a disclaimer stating that Picard's field of expertise is unrelated to evo-bio; making A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism a failed appeal to authority.

Diff [23]

Concerns state that the section is in violation of WP:OR (bringing in previously unpublished arguments) and WP:BLP. A previous version of the material was referenced to a blog [24].--ZayZayEM 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This RFC aims to address:

• Does the "unrelated field" argument constitute as OR?
• Is it reasonable to mention the "unrelated field" argument on every signatory of the petition?

It does not concern:

• Is Computer Science related to evo-bio?
• Did Picard sign the petition under false pretences?

--ZayZayEM 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I have made a prima facie case that the fields are not related without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. However I cannot rebut the host of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH counter-claims that have been presented without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH myself. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that I should. Hrafn42 10:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect that anyone should, but we're not really dealing with reasonable editors here, are we? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The statement is a simple statement of fact, so it isn't OR; it's common knowledge
2. The point that the signatories lack relevant qualifications has been made, albeit not specifically about Picard.

Based on that, I think the statement is entirely reasonable. Guettarda 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia guidelines play absolutely no part in deciding whether arguments or points presented on Talk pages are sufficient. I can WP:OR and WP:SYNTH all I like to present an argument, so can you. You just can't do it in presenting the content on an article page. My ability to produce a counterpoint simply by using my own powers of SYNTHOR™ shows how unreasonable it is to allow any OR into an article.
• Including the "unrelated field" argument is OR as no RS exists that presents the argument in that fashion directly relating to Picard signing the petition.--ZayZayEM 00:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page for 48 hours, until the current disputes and issues with OR etc. are resolved. I hope that the problem will be all fixed by the time the protection expires. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I would like concerned editors to note the disclaimer in the protection notice of "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version".--ZayZayEM 09:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Please leave the attitude at the door.--Filll 11:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, ZayZayEM is noting that the protection is NOT an endorsement of removal of the disputed material – this may seem a violation of the principle that the wrong version always gets protected ;) but since it's a BLP it's the right thing to do. .. dave souza, talk 15:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuke it!

Well. I don't think it is productive to even attempt to try to add informative material any more. Given the harsh and unreasonable rigidity with which some editors are expecting WP:BLP to be applied, and the complete lack of any iron-clad, belt-'n'-braces WP:RSed articles that are squarely about the subject of the article (there are just a few WP:RS articles that mention her in passing, or have her venture a comment, but there has been some contention even here), the most logical course would appear to be:

1. to get this article deleted, as not being sufficiently notable to sustain sufficient WP:RSed information to flesh out an article; and
2. to see that this harsh interpretation of WP:BLP is applied even-handedly [in the mean time Hrafn42 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)].

Hrafn42 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to simple deletion would be to have the article merged/redirected to affective computing. Hrafn42 10:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, we have to have a reliable source with statements directly related to Picard. Putting information about her qualifications and position together with a comment on the petition which doesn't specifically mention her is original research. However, she's notable enough for her research and for the fact that she is specifically mentioned in the NYT article. .. dave souza, talk 10:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is more trouble than it is worth, for a very minor engineer who makes machines with smiling faces. As for her expertise in DSP, or computer science, or evo. bio. do not make me laugh.--Filll 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is only marginally notable. As a WP:BLP, there are only two things notable as far as I can tell. Picard's work in affective computing is first. Being a signatory to the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is secondary, and very significantly lower in notability. IMO, at the end of the day, the issue of being a signatory of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, among the 100-or-so "prominent scientists" mentioned in the New York Times article, deserves a very brief mention, one or maybe two sentences, As far as I can tell, that's the maximum amount of treatment the issue properly deserves. It appears that the debating about how to present the basic material on Picard's education and professional work was fairly reasonable on the whole.

The most contentious aspects of this episode, in my estimation, started with Moulton becoming a participant and asserting that there were "behind the scenes" elements related to the signing of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which has led to further arguments over how to present that short paragraph about the petition circulated by the Discovery Institute, which later bacame a central feature of the intelligent design controversy. Moulton's assertions were WP:original research, and IMO so are these other arguments about how precisely her area of expertise might relate or not relate to evolutionary biology. Same with other proposed additions -- in my observation it's unfortunately become a debate about a debate, with two opposing POVs drawing farther apart. Please stick to the readily verifiable facts here. The originally contested material in the article is quite adequate as it presently reads here. ... Kenosis 14:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please go back and read the section captioned To others looking in. Therein, you will see that the "behind the scenes" comment came not from me, but from User:Filll and referred not to what went on behind the scenes back in 2001, but what was currently going on behind the scenes here, in this dispute over what to include in this WP:BLP and how to frame it from a WP:NPOV. I have no knowledge of what (if anything) was going on behind the scenes back in 2001. All I have is evidence of what the scene looked like when the DI raised the curtain on its first act, by publishing the anti-PBS ad. What's notable, to my mind, is the failure of the editorial process to craft a biographical article worthy of distinction. Moulton 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Filll's characterization of Moulton's assertions about what actually happened with the petition as "behind the scenes" is an accurate characterization of what Moulton sought to use in forming the article-- that is how the issue of WP:OR and WP:VER came into play here. As to quality, Wikipedia articles run the gamut of quality. Moulton is entitled to the opinion about this one, although s/he has made it clear that nothing will be satisfactory other than her/his preferred rendering of the article. C'est la vie. ... Kenosis 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shy of the so-called "Wedge Strategy" (which I've heard of but never read), how can anyone claim to know what was going on "behind the scenes" back in 2001? All I can do is note what the public evidence reveals -- namely that the 32-word statement did not carry the 5-word title when DI published their first version of it in that anti-PBS ad. Moulton 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On the "behind the scenes" element of this, I would point out that "Please arrange to talk to me by telephone." is not a request I would ever consider a reasonable one on wikipedia. It absolutely reeks of a desire to try to influence the article via private transmission of OR. It is the very essence of what wikipedia is not about. Hrafn42 15:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would note that only half of the MIT Media Lab#Media Lab Research Groups directors have wikipedia articles. Hrafn42 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would further note that of the 103 scientists, only two of them have Wikipedia articles. Moreover, it appears to me that the only reason those two have articles on Wikipedia at all is to publicize a POV regarding the Creationism/ID/Darwinism controversy. Moulton 15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If that were true, many more would have articles -- indeed the threshold of notability required for BLP's is gradually being reduced, and who knows where it will end up. I believe I already made my point about "notability index" of the issues just above, which is that Picard's work in affective computing as far more notable than the issue of her credentials being drawn upon by the Discovery Institute. On the other hand I have no objection to pursuing an AfD of this one, which would leave only one article to delete. ... Kenosis 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton's accusation is provably false in Tour's case. The article was in existence for two years before the creation of the Category:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" sent people searching for signatories a couple of months ago. It was only thereafter that it was noticed that he was one of three signatories mentioned by name in the NYT article. Hrafn42 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, the claim that "only two of them have Wikipedia articles" is also false. Michael Behe, David Berlinski, Stephen C. Meyer, Charles Thaxton, Paul Nelson & Richard Sternberg all have articles (and there may be more that I've missed). Hrafn42 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense in multiple ways. For example, more than 2 of the original 103/105 have articles I believe. And signing of course adds to notability, particularly if it leads to publicity in the mainstream media. So what? And also, there is NO proof about what the petition that was circulated said, and if it did or did not have a title. All we know so far is what was published, and republished probably a good 10 times and reported in the mainstream media. And we know there has been no evidence of retraction presented in this case, after 6 years. And lots of RS and V evidence of agreement with the intent of the petition and the Discovery Institute agenda by the subject. That is what we know.--Filll 15:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree. Moulton's line of reasoning here is nonsense. Picard is quite clearly a signatory of Dissent, which is a petition widely utilised to promote their anti-education "teach-the-controversy" campaign. This is all well referenced and should remain in the article. There is no published material saying Picard's signature was gained under false pretenses, or how the petition was originally disseminated to garner signatures - conversely there is no published material against Moulton's points on this matter - so the entire matter is appropriately left entirely out of the article.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting an article bceause you can't get your commentary in is the biggest cop out ever. I strongly support option number 2. Which really is the only way about it. This is a BLP Wikipedia article - all comments should be adequately sourced and accurately reflect their content. Removal of peacock terms and puffery is not going to be a controversial improvement to the article.--ZayZayEM 01:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

Please do not feed the trolls.

Enough is enough with the disruptions; this discussion is going in repetitive circles with no additional substance to discuss at this point. The subject of this article is a minor player in the scheme of Things In The World. Perhaps the best claim to notability in WP is Picard's association with Ray Kurzweil. The book Affective Computing presently is ranked over 800,000 in sales rank on Amazon. If one copy sells today, it'll probably move up to the 700,000s -- in other words, it's way out at the thin edges of notability at most. Next thing you know, we'll have a Category:Published Tenured Professors at MIT, which would be ridiculous at this stage of Wikipedia's growth. The consensus is quite clear as to at least brief mention of the NY Times article and being a signatory of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Time to drop the issue, or alternately, if people don't feel the topic of this article is adequately notable, to put the article up for deletion. ... Kenosis 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion certainly seems reasonable. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. An insignificant individual whose total notability is a marginally interesting book and a signature on the DI petition. Someone googles her will actually think she's an important signatory based on these discussions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection is unnecessary

There is a clear consensus to have the information. It is well-sourced. That two editors continue to have issues with does not mean we should leave it out. JoshuaZ 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for response. I have been quite clear I was going to allow time for commentary to go on without my interference while I WP:COOL off. --ZayZayEM 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see consensus to Delete the article. I do not see consensus to keep potentially OR material. I will not DaveSouza has identified it as OR too. That makes one troll, me and dave. I'm still trying to locate the other troll... ^_^--ZayZayEM 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't give a shit whether the article stays or goes. If it stays, however, then everything stays, including the fact that she's an anti-evolution, DI-supporting Creationist. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orange please read what the RFC is about. It is not about including that commentary. Removal of the petition is Moulton's agenda, not mine. The RFC is about whether a potentially OR disclaimer saying that Picard's field is irrelevant to evo-bio, making Dissent a failed appeal to authority, is worth including. See this diff [25] (especially the footnotes). All material from the NYT article, noting Picard's signing of Dissent and the context of that petition, will remain in the article if I have any say about it. --ZayZayEM 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If we keep it, we should keep the well documented and sourced information. She clearly is a creationist and ID supporter and always has been and is in fact proud of it. There is no problem with Do No Harm here. It is true, we can demonstrate it is true with our evidence (and we have a lot more now). So this fight was basically pointless, except it gave us more ammunition to discuss Picard's creationist beliefs.--Filll 01:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• So we have clear consensus not to include the "irrelevant field" commentary under WP:NOR; but will keep all material referenced appropriately from the NYT and accessory sources regarding Picard's signing of a DI's anti-education petition. (Additionally the Biography section will be cleaned of any puffery and peacock terms.)--ZayZayEM 01:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No we do not have that consensus. I am sorry you seem to be mistaken.--Filll 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The material about her field being irrelevant appears to be OR at this point in time. I don't see it as such a serious issue as to justify page protection. In any event, the rest of the material is clearly well-sourced and has no issues. JoshuaZ 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the revert warring in the edit history. Protection is justified until a genuine discussion takes place to avoid reinsertion of material without any consensus either way.--ZayZayEM 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The only person that appears to need to cool down here is you. And FYI edit warring begins with the first edit that does not benefit from consensus, not the other way around. Noting her fields of expertise are not related to biology is not even OR, much less a BLP issue, so I don't see an issue with the content you object to remaining. Cool down please. FeloniousMonk 03:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Two issues on which I would seek a consensus

I would seek a consensus from all editors on this article (not simply my two most vocal critics) on the following issues:

Unrelatedness & appeal to authority

In asking this question, I would note:

• that I am only seeking to establish a prima facie basis for this statement, not one that would stand up to every conceivable rebuttal; and
• WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions, to the extent that this may be applicable.

What level of citation does the statement "Neither Picard's original field of electrical engineering nor her current field of affective computing is related to evolutionary biology." require?

• no citation is required, the facts are self-evident
• current citation to NSF schema and science-as-map
• further citation required

Assuming that this statement can be established, is it sufficiently self-evident that the 'Dissent' is an 'appeal to authority' & Picard's involvement an 'appeal to false authority' from the definitions of these, or is a statement to this effect WP:OR? Hrafn42 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• This is not the statement in question. Please forget I ever said anything pedantic about claiming levels of relevance. It is not the OR issue. See above.

Picard's notability

I know we've discussed this before, but I wish to crystallise my thoughts on this. I apologise if you are becoming sick of the question.

Picard's notability would appear to come from three sources:

• her position within MIT. This is at best of marginal notability as half of her fellow Group-directors don't have articles.
• her signing of the 'Dissent' & mention in the NYT article. Again, at best of marginal notability (as well as excessive dissension).
• her contribution to Affective Computing. But whether this adds to Picard's own notability depends on whether the majority of what can be said can better be characterised as:
  • "Picard is a major contributor to the field of Affective Computing. Affective Computing..."; or
  • "Picard is a major contributor to the field of Affective Computing. Picard..."

My suspicion is that the former description would be the most frequently applicable and that Picard's contribution (although significant) is insufficiently differentiable from the field as a whole for her to be notable due to this in her own right rather than to simply be mentioned in the Affective Computing article. Hrafn42 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)