Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Happy Couple (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 17 August 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DYK

On 31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard d’Abrera, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Glad it made it in at last! PS, I toned down the hook a touch. --Espresso Addict 12:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello out there

First of all, you need to do some archiving :) Second, you've got some email. OrangeMarlin 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did a ton of archiving! But you are probably correct, I should hack away some more of this old stuff.--Filll 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d’Abrera

Hi Filll. I notice you've just reversed my edit to remove POV in the introduction of the Bernard d'Abrera article. You've restored the text to:

"Bernard d’Abrera (b.1940), is a butterfly photographer and a publisher. He is a fervent creationist and has taken to injecting anti-evolution polemics into his books of butterfly pictures."

To me, this reads as flagrantly anti-creationist, and clearly breaks WP:NPOV. Describing his work as a polemic, for instance, is fairly needlessly POV. And why exactly is it important to stress that he a "fervant creationist" (my emphasis)? That almost implies that he's more of a creationist than other creationists - surely untrue. Please note that I say this as a fervant anti-creationist. Anyway, can you explain why you think we need this text rather than the more neutral text I edited it to:

"Bernard d’Abrera (b.1940), is a butterfly photographer and a publisher. He is a creationist and expresses anti-evolution ideas in his books of butterfly pictures."

Cheers, --Plumbago 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first let us examine the word polemic:

• From the American Heritage dictionary: "A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine."

I believe that "Dr." d'Abrera's statements in his books certainly fall in this category.

• Here is a recent usage: "'American Theocracy'... is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and for the most part frighteningly persuasive."

Link: 'American Theocracy,' by Kevin Phillips - The New York Times Book Review

Hardly sounds like some terrible thing, does it?

• From the Oxford University Press Literary Dictionary: "a thorough written attack on some opinion or policy, usually within a theological or political dispute, sometimes also in philosophy or criticism. Notable polemicists in English are John Milton, whose Areopagitica (1644) attacks censorship, and H. D. Thoreau, whose ‘Slavery in Massachusetts’ (1854) berates upholders of the Fugitive Slave Law."

From these two examples, I believe that "Dr." d'Abrera's work is definitely in the category of polemic, given his far more strident tone. He brags about how nasty he is in interviews and in his own autobiography:.

Note that in his own autobiography he calls himself the "best known 'Butterfly Man' in the world", although I notice that until I wrote this article, there was not a single mention of him in WP, although we had a list of a couple dozen famous lepidopterists with articles here already. He was not mentioned here at all, prior to my article. He says he is regarded by many as the most prolific author etc etc. Then, from his own autobiography:

for the last 25 years, he has been an outspoken foe of all cod-scientific theories of ‘Origins’ (itself, by definition, a serious metaphysical concept, beyond the remit and competence of the physical sciences) that broadly comprise Evolutionism. Thus, he suggests that such baleful and irrelevant theories seriously compromise any true scientific study of the natural world, which should only be based on collection & curation, observation & measurement, laboratory experiment & prediction, and a generous helping of common sense.

In 2001, in his now famous Concise Atlas of the Butterflies of the World (Hill House Publishers (Melb.& Lond.) the author launched a systematic and scholarly critique of what he sees as the patently unscientific, profligate, and self-serving posturings of the quasi-religion of Evolutionism. He did so on the basis of wishing to free himself and his readers from the neo-Darwinian hegemony and hubris of the scientific establishment, and ‘the viscid, asphyxiating baggage’ with which that establishment continues to burden and impede the true and profitable study of the natural sciences. He further argues that genuine natural science should be based solely on the living fauna & flora (which is also represented in museums), and not on tendentiously speculative and unprovable theories of the past that are best consigned to the realm of pure science fiction.

(emphasis added).

Now does that look like he is taking a controversial stand? It sure does to me. It looks to me that he is arguing fervently for his cause, and against evolution. I originally classified this sort of thing as a diatribe, but then I toned it down to polemic.

From Dembski's book review, as cited in my article:

...the first hundred pages are quite different from what one expects in a typical taxonomic atlas...the entire discussion in these introductory chapters (before we get to the catalogues and plates) is framed as a critique of Darwinism...For strict Darwinists, the opening chapters of this book will be disconcerting. But for critics like myself, d’Abrera’s introductory chapters are supremely refreshing. Yes, there is some colorful prose here...The overwhelming sense one gets in reading the introductory chapters of d’Abrera’s book is of a man who has seen himself, his colleagues, and their work pushed around long enough and who will not stand for it any longer. D’Abrera casts Darwinism as a suffocating ideology and its purveyors as bullies. Consider the following passages from his text:

“Any person wishing to acquire a university degree of any altitude has only to place the word ‘Evolution’ in cunning juxtaposition with the lesser words, ‘Phylogenetics’, ‘Molecular Biology’, ‘Genetics’ or ‘Biodiversity’ in their abstract (or synopsis), and hey presto, they suddenly find themselves copiously funded!” (6)...

“Some may ask why I have included my arguments against the several theories of evolution of species in a popular work such as this. I answer that I do so because ... those who support any or all of such theories do so relentlessly and unopposed in every literary, visual and spoken vehicle that exists - be it base, popular or exalted highbrow. They are totally in control of every scientific journal or book in print and have no intention of having their hegemony threatened....” (53)...

“No field worker who studies insects, may now freely gaze upon his discoveries of insect morphology, biology or behaviour, without the taint of speculative Darwinism compelling him to colour his conclusions. No more is such a worker allowed to make direct, uncomplicated observations about objective facts about butterflies or moths.... Instead he is now compelled through the pressure of insidious programming by the overlords of the scientific establishment, to subject everything he has objectively observed to the tyranny of subjectivist and useless speculation about butterflies and their hypothetical origins. He must do so for no other reason than being able to collect his grant and acquire his PhD or some other doubtful honour of mutual respectability amongst his peers. The really dangerous part of this global pseudo-scientific cultism is that our worker has unconsciously been made to pass from the intellectual liberty provided within the legitimate realms of distinterested hypothesis, into the cul-de-sac of totalitarian absolutism of unprovable dogma.... Evolutionists thus become roped into the bondage of their own theory. They postulate it as holy writ and then labour ceaselessly to find the ‘evidence’ to fit it. Such tendentious labours only bestow the opprobrium of ‘contrivance’ upon the evidence so gleaned.” (64)

This kind of language definitely puts it in the category of a polemic, if not a diatribe. 100+ pages of talk about "overlords of scientific establishment" and "pseudo-scientific cultism" and so on is just over the top.

Interviews and other biographical material about "Dr" d'Abrera just serve to confirm this. He has decided to putnot a sentence or two, not a paragraph or two, and not just a page or two of anti-evolution material in his books. But over 100 pages ! Given that his main customers are museums and university libraries and the scientific community that buy his books to get access to the photographs, this is amazing behavior. Almost ALL of his customers are involved in this evil enterprise of studying evolution, or using evolution in their studies of nature. So not only is his language on this issue extensive and florid, but he serves it up in vehicles which are chiefly purchased by the targets of his attacks and opprobrium ! This is his source of income! He is cutting off his nose to spite his face. I would call this a fervent creationist. He wants to spit in the face of his customers and tell them, over and over, for 100+ pages, that he thinks they are evil and stupid and worse. I would call that fervent. I would call that a polemic, and possibly a diatribe. Would you not?--Filll 14:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rather detailed response!  :-) Regardless of the fervour of d'Abrera, I still don't think the introduction conforms to WP's guidelines on either WP:NPOV or WP:STYLE. On the former point, that I've never heard of d'Abrera (despite reading more creationist nonsense than is good for me) suggests that he's no more "fervant" than any other creationist, so isn't deserving of that particular notice in his intro. The material above, while extreme, is not notably more so than other creationists I've come across over the years (although it's brilliantly over the top). And the whole "taken to injecting anti-evolution polemic" is clearly written from the perspective of an opponent, so equally clearly is inappropriate for WP. Yes, his work could be described neutrally as polemic, but not as being "injected". Anyway, I don't disagree with your view of him, just that we need to present him as neutrally as possible. Amongst other things, it's my POV that in defeating creationists in the cultural marketplace, it's best not to stoop to using the sort of tarring-and-feathering tactics that they (often) do. Tactics which, I fear, the intro to this article is adopting. Just my POV though. Maybe we need a third view? Cheers, --Plumbago 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like that would be good. I could be persuaded that thet the word "polemic" is a bit too difficult for the average Misplaced Pages reader, and should be avoided for that reason, I suppose, although I do think it is quite accurate and appropriate. If you do not like the word "injected" I could replace it with "included".--Filll 17:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to make it easier to read, as noted above. My main concern is the reading ability of the average WP reader, and I maintain that the LEADs must be easily accessible to all and sundry, or at least the widest possible audience.--Filll 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has not always done this, apparently, but has just started the last few years. So I am not sure the current wording is accurate.--Filll 21:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruft and vandalism

Hi,

Along with creationism reference you removed couple of paragraphs that introduce a 40 year old well proven theory. This theory replaces Darwin's theory of sexual dimorphism and explains a huge amount of facts. Can you be more specific why you consider this text "a huge amount of cruft and vandalism"? Sashag 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind myself of whatever this is. It is not helpful to just drop a message like this on someone's page you know.--Filll 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok this was some weeks ago at Introduction to evolution: . The reason I removed that is that this is an introductory article, not an advanced article. In addition, the English of the additions was not clear. Also, the formatting had been destroyed as well by lousy edits in several places. The material about the sex theory also used words that are too big for the readers of this introductory article as well as advanced concepts more suitable for an advanced article. The material was also just shoved into the article indiscriminately and did not belong where it was placed. You want more reasons?--Filll 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you have a Misplaced Pages article on the subject at Evolutionary theory of sex. That article is too complicated as well and has problems with its English. I have thrown a couple of tags on it and asked for some friends to possibly help. If the main article gets put into better shape, then possibly a link to it can be provided at the introductory article Introduction to evolution. I would ask first on the introductory article talk page. --Filll 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera

Hi Filll. You are off to such a great start on the article Bernard d'Abrera that it may qualify to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tipani

I agree that Tipani is interesting trivia, but I just don't think it belongs in the article on Project Steve. All the equivalents of Stephen are listed at Stephen already. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I suppose you are correct. I am a bit puzzled when the Finnish guy told me that it was not the equivalent of Steve, when I found a nice reference for that fact.--Filll 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ian Lowe

{{helpme}}

Ian Lowe, one of the people from British Center for Scientific Education has been trying to help us on the article avoid some wrong statements and potentially libellous statements from editors who might be on the other side of some disputes. Some of this material appears in blogs, which might not be particularly reliable, by those who oppose the BCSE. While I have no problem with using this information as examples of how vehemently the BCSE is being attacked, I feel uncomfortable with characterizing these "rumors" as "fact", particularly when the person involved is strongly objecting. Can someone offer some assistance and/or advice in this matter? Thank you.--Filll 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Sounds to me like you are getting involved in a bit of a tricky area...one place you might like to look is WP:V for information on reliable sources. Blogs are self-published, and are not generally regarded as being reliable. If you are confident that the sources are not reliable, you can remove them yourself. I would caution you to use a descriptive edit summary, explain yourself on the article talk page, and be careful to avoid the 3 revert rule WP:3RR. I will drop in on the article as an uninvolved 3rd party and keep an eye on it for you as well. Definitely remove any libellous statements about living people, as one thing we intend here at Misplaced Pages is to avoid causing personal harm through our articles--this ties into having a neutral point of view. Good luck, and thank you for being proactive and asking for help about this!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Frère Jacques

I saw you reverted my edit to that article. I initially did believe the song refered to the plague but after reading the Ring a Ring O'Roses article, and seeing it called "a misinterpretation" and a "myth", I assumed I had been wrong. --Android Mouse 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think most people think and have thought that is what it refers to. But it might not have been. However, all it takes is for some to believe that to make the reason that people want to attach a grisly and/or morbid significance to Frere Jacques is by analogy with Ring around the Rosie.--Filll 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that the Ring a Ring of Roses article is a tad slanted with the wording on the interpretation of it, or is that just me? --Android Mouse 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you are suggesting. Please elaborate.--Filll 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that the Ring a Ring of roses article is worded with a somewhat of a POV on the possible interpretation of the song, calling it a "myth" and a "misconception"? I was going to try and improve it but wasn't sure if it's just me who sees it that way. --Android Mouse 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not see anything wrong with the Ring a Ring of roses article myself. I found it quite interesting. I gather this is the appropriate view for an encyclopedia article. I am not aware of a huge academic controversy about this. If you have citations for that, then that would be interesting.--Filll 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

other's comments

Hi Filll. I don't like people changing my comments, why did you? Fred ☻ 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. You are going to get upset about this? I did it so a person could easily link back to the user page in question to see what was going on. Do you contend that this changed the meaning of what you wrote? Buddy, if you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, and earn yourself a lot of animosity, you are doing a good job. Why do you not AGF? How on earth did this edit harm you? How did it reflect you in a negative light? How did it alter your intended meaning? Wow...amazing....just amazing.--Filll 14:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats? –carefully does it now. Please answer the question. Fred ☻ 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok now. Where was the threat made? Give me an exact precise wording of the phrase that you personally regard as a threat. I see no threat. I am astounded that you perceive a threat here, purportedly made by me. What exactly do you allege?

As for answering the question, perhaps you missed my response:

I did it so a person could easily link back to the user page in question to see what was going on.

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, or perhaps English is not your first language. Perhaps you just mistakenly skipped over this sentence. Perhaps I did not word it carefully enough. Would you like me to expand on this theme for you? Perhaps a paragraph or two describing EXACTLY what this sentence means? Please let me know at your earliest convenience and I would be glad to cater to your special needs.--Filll 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Filll, my friend, you should not have said the first sentence of the above paragraph.--or indeed written that paragraph at all. To any WPedian, ever, even under real provocation, which this was not. Consider this a serious warning for NPA. DGG (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. However, I do disagree that I somehow wrote something atrocious here. I am completely confused as to why

• wikifying a user name is a vile cybercrime

or

• stating that the complaint about wikification is making a mountain out of a molehill constitutes a terrible threat

or

• my statement explaining why I wikified that name was not clear enough

or

• how any of this constituted some terrible wikicrime and improper behavior.

I did speculate as to why my explanation of the wikification was not clear. That was uncivil? Well...ok...if you say so...--Filll 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here was the first one

Buddy, if you want to make a mountain out of a molehill, and earn yourself a lot of animosity, you are doing a good job.

I suggest you log off and have a break, your last comment was even more uncivil. Fred ☻ 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not perceive that as a threat. I am shocked and surprised that you see that as a threat. Wow.--Filll 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology on my talk page please, I'm unwatching your page. Fred ☻ 15:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will apologize on both pages, thanks awfully. I am sorry you somehow were unable to understand my explanation or missed it. I do not know why, but I am prepared to accept that there is some problem here, which probably is my own. Also, I am sorry that I wikified a name in a post of yours and that this offended you somehow. I will humbly suggest that this episode does speak volumes, which I will leave others better suited than me to judge. I apologize for wikifying a name in a post of yours. I think that it probably constitutes one of the most horrendous violations of wikiquette I could have ever committed, or has ever been committed by anyone on Misplaced Pages ever, and I am deeply truely sorry for it. I did not mean any offense whatsoever and clearly I have deeply offended your deepest sensibilities and sense of propriety here. I was mistaken and I did not mean any offense whatsoever to you or any of your fellows or anyone else who might happen to read that post which I had altered through wikification. I am duely chastised and will wear sackcloth and ashes for this shameful incident and truely grave wikicrime that I have somehow inadvertantly committed by my ineptness and ignorance and arrogance and calumny and abuse of every standard of prudence and decency on Misplaced Pages. I prostrate myself at your feet and beg for your absolution and remission of my sins for this grievous excess and vile atrocious affront. I also apologize for not understanding how the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" constitutes some sort of threat or menace to you, some expression of an intent to do some harm in any way shape or form to you. I must be completely ignorant and unperceptive and have missed that penumbration of semiotical hermeneutics and I apologize for my shortcomings and clumsiness and incompetence and lack of proper sensitivity to avoid offending you or making you feel insecure in any possible way. I apologize for suggesting that your post or statements or claims might have in any possible manner been interpreted in a negative way. I apologize for using the phrase "earning animosity" because clearly any reasonable person would never have been surprised or shocked that something like wikification of a user name on a post would have elicited this kind of response. Your response is completely reasonable and to be expected by anyone with a modicum of decency or the slightest amount of comprehension of the proper and prudent comportment that is to be expected on Misplaced Pages. I am deeply truely sorry and I stand corrected. --Filll 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I'd buss Fred's fundament, either. Absolutely perfect. •Jim62sch• 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Frede needs to really read up on what constitutes a personal attack. He deleted some comments I made to an editor that I felt needed some guidance, calling it a "personal attack". Frede requires some corrective action soon if he keeps up this behavior. No apology was necessary for creating a wikilink on MY PAGE!!!!!! OrangeMarlin 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do find it somewhat amazing that Fred.e can delete OrangeMarlin's comments on someone else's page completely, and call them a "personal attack", and when I just wikilink Fred.e's post on OrangeMarlin's page, a far milder thing, that earns me full frontal accusations of making threats, and being uncivil, and refusing to explain my reasons for this terrible crime of wikilinking another's post. Seems a bit strange to me. Let's compare:

Me:

• I wikilinked someone else's post on a third person's page. I was accused of terrible things for this.

Fred.e:

• He removed someone else's post on a third person's page. He was proud to say that he was protecting the third person from a "personal attack".

I was vilified for my actions, and he lauds himself for his actions, which seem to be far worse at first glance? Hmm...I wonder if there is a double standard here? I don't know...something smells funny to me about this whole thing.--Filll 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I surmise that you detect the odoriferous smegma of putrefaction emanating from the patient's corpus collosum. •Jim62sch• 11:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WQA

Hi - I replied to your note on my talk page. --Parsifal _Hello 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hi there, I think it would be useful to focus the discussion of proposed changes on the sources that would be required to support the proposed broadening of the term 'evolution' from its commonly-accepted meaning. Such an approach avoids any appearance of ad hominem debate and puts the onus on the people supporting the change to produce material supporting their arguments. Tim Vickers 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably true.--Filll 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tara C. Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have persistently criticized me personally in multiple discussions over the last couple weeks despite two warnings. I'm blocking you for 24 hours. Please learn to confine your commentary to the issues and not the people involved. Dragons flight 03:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, since I haven't seen any previous warning, the difs I've seen didn't seem that bad, and in any event DF should not be making the block when he is agrieved party. That said, I suggest you try to stay calm and WP:CIVIL and remember that we're all working together with the same goals. JoshuaZ 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the last few difs, especially consider yourself to be strongly advised about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You should know better than to make these sorts of comments. JoshuaZ 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also:   

Dragons flight 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm highly puzzled as to how the dif at 2:13 is meant to be at all relevant to this. DF, I think you need to chill out. JoshuaZ 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see how any of those diffs are relevant. ornis (t) 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have one big message to DF: You win. You can win every argument. I give. I give up. I apologize for any discomfort or annoyance I have ever caused you. You made your point.--Filll 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up. I'm sorry. Much as you were pissing me off, it wasn't my call to make. Other people think I overreacted and I accept that. I badly need a vacation, so I'm leaving for a while at least. Dragons flight 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 69.140.98.149 lifted or expired. Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  06:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

About your block by Dragons flight

This was clearly an improper block and misuse of his position and tools since he was involved in an ongoing content dispute with you at Talk:Flat Earth Society and elsewhere. I'm sorry you had to suffer this. I'll be following up with Dragons flight and the community to make sure this doesn't happen again. In the meantime, you're free to edit and you can pursue whatever steps you feel are necessary through WP:DR if you're so inclined. FeloniousMonk 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

re. your mailing to unblock-en-l, it looks like User:JoshuaZ has lifted your block but the autoblock may still be active. Can you possibly post the autoblock ID here & I'll look into it? - Alison ☺ 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it did finally work last night. If I find out that it did not, I will post here. Thank you.--Filll 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

blog

first preliminary step would be to write and establish an article for the guy who runs it, to shows he;s a notable and respected scientist. Unfortunately, he probably doesn't meet the standards, see this draft which will make it harder. Perhaps you should start with one run by somebody who clearly does. DGG (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is actually a lady, and I have expanded it a bit. I think she might be on her way to passng the standard for notability I think:

• two books published
• founded a group with 26 PhDs that is involved in politics and government lobbying
• writes frequently in a blog that is widely cited, and has been selected by a very selective organization which is paying all expenses
• contributes to another blog which is also among the most highly rated, and is selective about its contributors; only professional scientists of note

How much more does she need to be notable?

Here is my draft so far: User talk:Filll/Tara C. Smith.--Filll 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)