A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism: My edits and the ensuing discussion finally prompted me to request my first RfC. My suggestions were rejected and the text in question remained:

Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism".[21] The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual..... Similarly confusing and misleading lists of local scientists were circulated during controversies over evolution education in Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas.[21]

Here again, at one point in the discussion, I did not observe WP:V (when do I learn that my standards for scientific publications and citations need not to be met on wikipedia? If the source is quotable, no matter about the quality of the contents, it is WP:V. I really find it unfortunate that Forrest's paper in Academe has no footnotes. So nobody can look up the 'similar lists' that were circulated).

I apologized for my wrong WP:V claim, but my apology was not accepted.

The discussion preceding the RfC is full of gems (ATTENTION: the gems are taken out of context. Please read the context before commenting). My comments are in the brackets.

1. some ranting drooling creationist rag,
2. I have replaced words like "confusing" with more appropriate and negative descriptions, (No, he hasn't. He just added and misleading)
3. It is not clear WHO did the choice of affiliation, but the choice is certainly consistent with the DI having done it (guilty by assumption?)
4. This text had stood repeated scrutiny for many months with no problem (even though the 'repeated scrutiny' overlooked a near verbatim, but not attributed, quote for many, many, months until I found that out)
5. Certainly the evidence is CONSISTENT with the DI having made the choice, even if they did not. (and thus allegations can freely be made to the DI?)
6. Unless Northfox can cite counterexamples, where the DI is not opportunistically citing the most prestigious affiliation (guilty until proven innocent?)
7. First you object when it was a direct quote, and now you object when we do not use their exact words (No, I did not object the direct quote. I only objected the unsourced verbatim quote that I revealed).

Filll commented on our number of edits (I stood at 372 and he at 16532) here([1]): I would like to answer with the Zen wisdom at the bottom of [2]

some comments of the talk page (before they disappear in the archives)

Here. Seems to be an 'interview' in a hotel room after Myers was expelled and looks like a planned event; was shot from 2-3 different angles simultaneously. Dawkins fed some questions and Myers answered. One reason why future viewings of Expelled have been cancelled may be that Myers said in this Youtube video that he 'instructed' (his own words) people to sign up for future public viewings by the name PZ Myers. Organizers then might have pulled future film showing out of security reasons. Northfox (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd piece of baseless speculation. Following this line of thinking, all the Evil Atheist Conspiracy needs to do is to issue PZ Myers masks and conservative Evangelicals will abandon their homes and flee to the Bible-belt. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm planned event? As in non-spontanious? Sounds sinister. And your conjecture could be true Northfox, but I'm inclined to wonder if they pulled the plug on the private showings because they fear an impending attack by Nazi remnants who are pissed because Crossroads Expelled lables them as "Darwinists". The Nazis hated Darwin, burned and banned his books right along side the bible even (they were a grumpy bunch to be sure). They are very testy about being called "Darwinists". Anyhow thanks for the link. Angry Christian (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no evidence of planned action from far-right extremist groups. But we have a very prominent anti-IDer who instructs people to sign up under false names to attend (and maybe use the ensuing confusion to disturb) future showings. Reason enough for an organizer to take appropriate steps. Northfox (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense; all they'd need to do is to not let in any of the fake PZs, and they'd have a good reason to given that the people had signed up under false names (unlike with the real PZ). Alternatively, the could let them all in. Then what disruption could occur? As explanations go this is less than compelling. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that the Myers and Dawkins clip looks fairly professional, particularly with the camera angles. It does make me wonder why it looks so good. And it looks like it was shot within a day of the actual expulsion. What gives?--Filll (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Myers and Dawkins didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They've both been in the public eye, and it wouldn't be surprising that they knew how to find a camera crew at short notice (whether for hire or through media connections). So it wasn't necessarily planned in advance although it could have been. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, as they were both attending a major atheists convention, it is possible that they'd pre-planned an interview unrelated to the expulsion, and opportunistically made use of the crew to film a piece on it. Or the crew might have been at the convention for some other reason and just got roped in. Or ... There are numerous non-sinister scenarios. Or alternately the Evil Atheist Conspiracy turned their Orbital Mind-control Lasers on Mathis forcing him to expel Myers so that they could hold an interview that they pre-planned on that exact subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Dawkins and Myers had sinister motives. Interesting interpretation by Angry Christian and Hrafn. Just that it looked planned. Maybe there were planning to give their comments on Expelled after seeing it before running cameras anyway, and the expulsion came as a windfall. But the 'instructed' comment is quite revealing. Northfox (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And I never said that you said they did -- my "sinister" comment was in response to Filll's "make me wonder". What I in fact said that you did was make absurd speculations about the relationship between Myers' clearly tongue-in-cheek 'instruction' & the cancellation of previously planned previews. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Hrafn, to quote you from above: Hmmm planned event? As in non-spontanious? Sounds sinister. that was not abut my comment? Anyway, I leave it at that. Northfox (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Northfox: learn to read! It was Angry Christian who said that, not me -- and even that did not accuse you of saying "that Dawkins and Myers had sinister motives", merely that it gave a sinister impression ("sounds sinister"). You are again exaggerating in an apparent attempt to make a martyr of yourself. Please leave your cross and your nails outside. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From what PZ said on his blog a couple days ago, I think they planned to do an interview/conversation well in advance, as part of Dawkins' visit to Minnesota. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that "instruction" bit myself. Sounds like a good way to sort of get even. I would have been fairly annoyed if I had gone out of my way to get to the mall and bring my friends and family and waited in line and then been threatened with an arrest. So I don't blame him at all for giving that "instruction", if it originated with him, or he was just passing on someone else's idea. Serves them right.--Filll (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Objections to evolution: Here I learned the hard way what WP:POV, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability means. I objected the Gregory S. Paul statistic that there is a positive correlation between 'religiosity' and crime, and also the Barna group study on divorce rates among different faith groups. My edits were reverted, because both are verifiable facts. But I and several other individuals, among them professional statisticians, still think that the Gregory S. Paul study is flawed.

Richard Dawkins: Initially, I added just some information about the Oxford Union debate. Interestingly, as long as the wrong information (a devastating loss for the 'creationists' side: 15 to 198 votes) was in the article, the information was kept on the page. A few days after I corrected it to 150 (or 115, there is some ambiguity) to 198 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&oldid=128177886), showing that it actually was a less impressive win for the 'evolutionist' side, it was suddenly not deemed appropriate for a 'lifetime biography' anymore ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&oldid=129582049) and the relevant information was deleted. But I was allowed to reinsert it, albeit as a footnote (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&oldid=131487823).

Identifying the source of trolls

Per earlier discussion on identifying where trolls may be coming from, wikiscanner may prove a useful resource. Hrafn42 06:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of WP:BEANS I won't go too far into this, but, much of the biased editing that can ultimately be traced back to the DI comes from the DC/VA area, home of their PR firm and the location of a former DI staffer. FeloniousMonk 06:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I understand the DI staffer, the one in the DC/VA area that I think FM is referring to, has been suffering some fairly serious physical health problems. Intense disagreements aside, I want to wish him the best possible stable health. ... Kenosis 06:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone provides me IP ranges connected to the discovery institute or their PR firm(s), I'd be happy to do regular checkusers on them to discovery any conflict-of-interest edits they make. Their history in this area (of targetting specific criticism at Wikipedia for exposing their lies) makes me strongly suspect they're not the kind of people to voice their criticism from a distance. Raul654 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that some of the trolls and POV warriors here and on related articles are from a small group that produces sock puppet after sock puppet, or recruit meat puppets from a similar IP address. I wonder if we could be more efficient at identifying and blocking these disruptive elements earlier and easier than our current methods.--Filll 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazon sales rankings are used to justify deletion of critical book information [6]

Overly angry and insulting comments by Professor PZ Myers towards a student who watched an Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed previewing, are removed [7]

The Huxley Memorial Debate took place on February 14, 1986 under the auspices of the Oxford Union, a student debating club of Oxford University. The motion was "That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution". Speaking for the ayes were young earth creationists Edgar Andrews (a physicist, then President of the Biblical Creation Society) and Professor A. E. Wilder-Smith (a chemist). Speaking in opposition to the motion were evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and Professor John Maynard Smith. A few members of the Oxford Union were additional speakers. After approximately 3 hours of debate, the motion was defeated by 198 to 115 votes ^[1].

The debate is named after the historic 1860 Oxford evolution debate on June 30 1860 when Samuel Wilberforce, then Lord Bishop of Oxford, opposed Thomas Henry Huxley, (Darwin's bulldog) during a session of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held in Oxford. The debate centered on the validity of Darwin's ideas as proposed in the Origin of Species. The debate is available in mp3 format and can be downloaded from the Richard Dawkins website.^[2]

John Durant writes that "after due consideration, it [the Oxford Union] came down cautiously on Huxley's side" ^[3]. A. E. Wilder-Smith said in his book Fulfilled Journey that was written twelve years after the event that "In the end the creationists won some 114 of the votes from the voting public of about 300--which was quite surprising, as the Oxford Union represented the materialistic naturalistic evolutionary viewpoint of biogenesis."^[4] A report on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) by John Durant falsely lists 198 votes for the noes and 15 for the ayes.^[5][6]

• Downloadable audio of Oxford Union Debate from Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
• A Critical-Historical Perspective on the Argument about Evolution and Creation by John Durant