Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 10 May 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 18.85.10.10 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 18.85.10.17 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Moulton (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 18.85.44.145 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Archived discussion

Ottava Rima

Ottava Rima works her magic

And yet the meaning is obscured

In a way that truly is so tragic

but by many is ignored

The truth she hides in a whitewash attic

Where other myths are stored

None of which’s held in high regard

When the alleg’d victim is Rose Picard. •Jim62sch• 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

To dance a dance without stepping 'pon feet

To hear the song in their ears with a hum

That gathers long the imperial beat

That peasants hear as funereal drums

And yet as I in th'Imperial seat

Care not a whit for the bleating of bums

For they whine in tune to the sounds of night

Mistaking joy for their incessive plight.  :) •Jim62sch• 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To wash some whites, to bleach the rest,

Quietly now, or they shall hear;

The topic long past, that awful pest

Why ever would one keep it near?

A quicker pace, a turn thats best

And words that shall confuse a seer:

The topic we can soon ignore,

Because wasn't it just a bore?

- :) Ottava Rima (talk)

That topic past, today it burns,

That topic passed, in olden days

As truth t'all to whom hea'n yearned

The Primal dream of the godly gaze

Still they flock, hist'ry unlearned

to learn is naught but to be amased

By fairy tales and other dreams

Virtue engender'd is all it seems.  :) •Jim62sch• 02:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that whisper heard I come near

Messenger of that coming night?

Sweet death's little brother none fear

And few of him would ever fright,

But he of course can make it clear

To silence words with his soft might.

And as the moon beckons me so

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

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

I must quit drinking the bong water. OrangeMarlin 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A new day rises from the bong

Of life and its secrets beheld

'Til sweet death's brother comes along;

Was not by fear many were felled

But 'pon hearing the dirgy song

They curl up and die, bloodless wells

Nay I must stop, ‘tis misery

To speak of death on wiki-P. •Jim62sch• 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Unbound

Of editors, partisans, and those

Of themselves only they care that I sing,

In times when issues not import, I suppose,

Take precedence over those who can bring

Great changes, just helpful; though we once chose

To make Verify and Civil our king,

But these great monarchs now apparent slain,

Leaving only Mischief and Discord reign.

And when editors continue their way,

Constant bicker and controversy stale,

I will tell things not attempted today:

The fight is pointless, the matter is pale,

(In compare with other pages I say)

So why join Frenzy, Whine, Complain and Rail?

By poor talents sufficient for the task

I will before all the matter unmask.

Most generous people (and those of less),

I beseech you to listen to my plea

And stop this redundant editing mess;

Thats all I want, all that ever can be,

Since circular fighting is all I see.

Does she matter, really? To you or me?

I think not. But she is a person, now,

And then why all of this struggle allow?

Simply I put, and simply it is now

To see that she is just a scientist,

But not, it seems, of research's sacred cow

A worshiper, of "fact" in its purest.

Instead she of faith and cynic allow

Doubt to exist; Really? Is this the gist?

A simple signature proves anything not

But causes problems, and thats what we got.

Stop your fighting, please go along your way!

One line, two lines, does it even matter?

What do you hope to prove now if you stay?

But of course, the attacks are to flatter

Opinions, this is clear as night and day.

Why not think of others, stop the clatter,

And go edit pages that dire need work

Instead of staying here to fight and lurk.

I tell you this (and I beseech you all!)

She doesn't matter, her import too low,

She can't harm to you bring, her power small,

Nor does she care of which way that you go

But only of her self and of how you call

Negative 'tention upon her page so;

Tis said, tis hurts, to be part of dispute

That seeks only to ruin one's repute.

Many are details left and details right

Fly around the page like mock angels warre,

Heavenly knights that are of Milton's sight,

And want to take this epic challenge more.

But does this prove your editing might

When in this page trapp'd by Drama's lure?

There is no reason found during this age

To claim such things ever increase a page.

But fight on ye will, oh how you care not!

So far, now, you continue on and on,

And, by you, shall this be poor Wiki's lot

To be cast aside for your egos fawn.

Are there none out there dismayed and distraught?

Oh Fate! Oh Fortune! Whichever you don,

Please free the abused from your horrid clutch.

How can my words really implore too much?

False warriors fight and rage upon the field,

Editing whatever they want and care

Without ever wanting to stop or yield

An inch of this ground that we all should share.

But Truth, though battered, away not yet sealed

Still guides us; sweet Beauty tries to prepare

A time and place when the fighting will stop,

When we will all be willing to co-op.

The time is soon here; the time has not past.

Now, lay down your arms and look at it clear

And witness the destruction that comes fast

From petty fighting. Don't you see? I fear

That few will realize, or come to at last,

There lacks a point. Wiki to us is dear,

So why don't we treat her well and show care

By stopping this fighting over split hair?

- Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that was good - very good in fact. I don't necessarily mean that as an endorsement of the gist, but I'm quite impressed -- and I'm not easily impressed. In fact, it reminds me a bit of Byron's Don Juan. Very cool. •Jim62sch• 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposing some language

I think the comment Merzbow made pretty much describes what I was trying to get at - we will have a hard time trying to describe the petition. Taking the article by Skip Evans into account (and the Chang article), I think we can't really describe the petition - all we can do is describe how is it used.

Yesterday, before Kim disrupted the proceedings, I had written (but hadn't posted) this:

OK, now for the difficult bit: how do we phrase the statement about the petition (variable areas are in italic and bold italic

Current wording:

Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition circulated by the Discovery Institute that questions evolution and is used by the institute to promote intelligent design

KC's proposal:

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," a controversial petition which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

My wording

Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition which was circulated by the Discovery Institute and used in their campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools

Dave's wording

She is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's controversial petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism which has been used in campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools

RR's wording

Picard was one of 514 scientists and engineers who signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a controversial petition circulated by the Discovery Institute. The petition has subsequently been used by the institute to promote intelligent design

Ignoring the first part (which really isn't a substantive difference, IMO), we have

1. that questions evolution and is used by the institute to promote intelligent design. (current)
2. which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution. (KC)
3. and used in their campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. (me)
4. which has been used in campaigns to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. (Dave)
5. The petition has subsequently been used by the institute to promote intelligent design. (RR)

Since then, we've generated a few hundred k of text.

Working with those five versions, I decided to modify them to reflect the conversations we've been having. If we follow Evans and treat the petition as difficult to interpret, we need to strike the whole "questions evolution" bit. It may. Or it may not. We don't really know what people thought they were signing. We also don't know how the petition was presented by the DI, so I don't think we should make any strong statement on timeline. So I think we need to strike "subsequently". That adds a level of precision that we just don't have. While the DI is the driving force behind ID, the petition has been used more broadly by ID supporters (try googling the phrase). So rather than saying it was used by the DI, I think we should say that it was used by the ID movement. Finally, the issue of casting doubt on evolution is a real part of the issue. We can't say that the petition itself questions evolution (no one knows what it really says). Chang said In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers...The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. In other words, the way in which the petition is used is to cast doubt on the fact that evolution is universally accepted by the scientific community. KC said that already, so let's stick with her wording. Finally, let's keep thing simple - in the interest of brevity, we probably don't really need the word teaching...KC's version was ok without it.

1. that questions evolution and is used by the institute the intelligent design movement to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.
2. which promotes intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.
3. and used in their campaigns by the intelligent design movement to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
4. which has been used in campaigns by the intelligent design movement to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.
5. The petition has subsequently been used by the institute by the intelligent design movement to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

Working from KC's version (since she's just so much cooler than any of the rest of us), we end up with: (drumroll)

Picard is one of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.

Can we work with that? Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

@Guettarda: there were about 2 or 3 things I could have done that looked like they might work, and I picked one. Possibly I picked the wrong one, or possibly all the options I saw were wrong. Either way, the approach didn't have the intended effect. My apologies. I'm going to figure out why what I did failed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what went wrong. I posted a statement pushing for a particular state, when that point had actually just been reached by others. In my defense, there was so much text prior to that point that I was forced to speed read to catch up again (and the shift in consensus thus eluded me), but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility of having made the mistake. My apologies once again. I'll try to modify my methods so it won't happen again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it was fine. It wasn't as if I hadn't argued for that point already. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, I think that looks very good.--Filll (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That version is fine with me; I don't see it as implying that Picard supports ID. I think it will fit well with the rest of the paragraph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. Sharp analysis. - Merzbow (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fine distillation of the issue which accurately describes the conflict without implying that Picard has taken any side in it. Well done. FCYTravis (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes this solves the issues presented by the absurd language of "the petition promotes intelligent design." Yes, no doubt in the world, and yes I support this version so that we can move on from this mess. Yet I can't help but feeling like I've been had. With the ease at which Filll et al accept this proposal it becomes abundantly clear that hours were wasted arguing over that other more radical construction, for naught. Why is that exactly? This new version only seems like a compromise in light of that other absurdity, but it really isn't much different from the original version that started this mess. The original language read: "The petition, a two-sentence statement, has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of its supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools." The new language simply changes Discovery Institute into the more vague entity "intelligent design movement" and removes the specificity of the promoting of intelligent design "in schools." That said, is Picard part of "the intelligent design movement?" Did she consciously and/or unconsciously lend tacit support to what the movement is doing? These are all suggestions that continue to arise through what is still a "guilt by association approach," since it is clear to anyone with half a brain that those who signed the petition have "doubts about evolution" and we would now be claiming that "casting doubt on evolution" is the mechanism through which the ID movement is promoting intelligent design. The real difference between then and now, what actually tones down the guilt by association, comes from the surrounding information that we have from the newer source, in which Picard directly addresses intelligent design. The question remains however: Why do we need to comment on what the ID movement is using the petition for if Picard isn't known to be part of that movement? The answer given then was "context," but context is only important if it is meaningful to the task at hand, and how is this context meaningful to Picard's biography? In order to associate her with intelligent design, and perhaps even worse, with the "intelligent design movement?" The original questions and concerns have now been washed away in a sea of useless argumentation over nothing, but if you are OK with this new version at least realize that it hasn't changed much. If consensus forms around this version then so be it, and as I said at the outset this is infinitely better than that other absurdity, but I still feel had.PelleSmith (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think the "subsequently" in my version added useful, relevant information, but am pleased by the "used". --Relata refero (disp.) 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm blushing! Yes, your version works for me - lots of hard work there, Guettarda, which is much appreciated. I think we now have a version which works for everyone. Well done! KillerChihuahua 12:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Sχeptomaniac 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a useful analysis, Guettarda, and for a concise well worded basis, KC. Looking it over, the proposal does seem to give a good balance though it's disappointing that it doesn't mention the teaching issue which had been the centre of about a year of wide publicity and discussion by the time the NYT article came out. However, intelligent design proponents seem to be using this petition more generally so guess that's fair enough. Any inference from the juxtaposition of points is clearly there in the NYT article, and it's unsourced speculation (and original research) as to whether Picard signed the petition before or after it began being used by the DI for their purposes, or indeed why more than five years later her signature was still being used for that purpose without any evidence of protest, thus giving tacit support either intentionally or by default. The interview last November does help to clear that issue up, and the proposed wording in the context of describing that interview without giving the dates bends over backwards to give Picard the benefit of the doubt, which is probably for the best. Thanks again for the insight, we do seem to have been talking at cross purposes and that clears things up. .. dave souza, talk 13:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sources that support Guettarda's version

The intelligent design movement employs "doubting Darwinism", where Darwinism is used as a synonym for common descent and other features of evolution as a way to promote intelligent design. It does this by trying to present a dichotomy where one has to choose evolution or its alternative, intelligent design.

For example,

ID and creation science share the belief that the mainstream scientific discipline of evolution is largely incorrect. Both involve an intervening deity, but ID is more vague about what happened and when.

Indeed, ID proponents are tactically silent on an alternative to common descent. Teachers exhorted to teach ID, then, are left with little to teach other than "evolution didn't happen."

and

ID creationists have no empirical data to support ID. Like earlier creationists, they have established a false dichotomy between evolution on one hand and ID on the other, betting that if they can sufficiently discredit evolution, ID will be seen by potential supporters as more credible by default.

Newsweek on February 7, 2005 weighed in to state:

In fact, the Discovery Institute doesn’t call for teaching I.D. in school either, only the “controversy” over Darwinism. But most scientists don’t believe there is one. The institute’s “Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” whose operative sentence reads “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,” has been signed by about 350 scientists. (AAAS has 120,000 members.)

So Teach the controversy is just one of the Discovery Institute methods of promoting their ideas. They try to create the impression there is a controversy, and present a choice between ID and evolution, which they try to cast doubt on. They do not promote ID directly by this technique. They only try to weaken the other alternative:

And, adding insult to injury, Newsweek didn’t go for reporting unopposed the DI’s favorite trick, their list of 300-some scientists (well, some of them aren’t scientists, and most of them aren’t biologists, but whatever) who signed the DI’s ultra-vague, non-ID-supporting statement.

Even those on the "creationist" or "intelligent design" side agree that this "Dissent from Darwinism" petition is just meant to promote intelligent design by attacking "Darwinism", that is, evolution:

...These words of wisdom are found in a document called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which has been signed to date by 400 scientists from various scientific disciplines. Since Darwin's theory has been entrenched in the public arena, you would expect a controversy to arise when scientists disagree about its claims to explain life on Earth. A battle of Darwinian proportions is raging in the public arena, but not over the "evidence" for Darwinism. This battle is over whether Darwin's theory should be challenged at all. It is a battle for survival.

This war is being waged against what we know to be 'Intelligent Design'.

Clearly, the purpose of the petition is to promote intelligent design by casting doubt on evolution. This is recognized by both critics, the mainstream media, and supporters of the intelligent design movement.--Filll (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a period in the see-also's

....must......fix.......argh! Xavexgoem (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua 12:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there other issues

It looks like we have some agreement on the wording of the description of the petition. Are there other issues that need to be discussed before the page is unprotected? If not, let's go to RFPP to have it unlocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. - Merzbow (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, agree. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I thought about asking for unprotection late last night, but I figured it should wait until there were more eyes around. Anyone have a problem with one of us here unprotecting the article, or should we ask for someone outside to do it? Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask on WP:RFPP just for the sake of having a third-party do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Biography articles needing attention
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Creationism articles
• Low-importance Creationism articles
• Creationism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors