Talk:Bernard d'Abrera/Archive 1

Untitled
I agree. That is why I have asked several people to look at this article and to make sure that my sources backed up all the claims in the article.--Filll 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also note that what to you seems critical and negative, to others might be less so. It is a matter of viewpoint. An ardent creationist would probably be pleased to be depicted in terms that put him at odds with evolution. This gentleman has written far stronger stuff himself.--Filll 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the most ardent capital-c creationists would enjoy being villified by those they disdian. I only noticed that to me "Natural History Museum" sounded far more illustrious than "British Museum (Natural History)", so the sentence implying that to most it was otherwise I assumed to be a mere guess on the part of an editor (apparently yourself). Of course, the guess may be correct and the inaccuracy of the claim is sourced, but I didn't want WP to "force" the reader to believe that out of two very similar institutional names, one was apparently more prestigious-sounding. That's really all it originally was. Srnec 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I do not feel I am actually vilifying him. He really has contempt for evolution and academia and PhDs etc. And I am quoting him directly. Actually, British Museum is far more prestigious a name than Natural History Museum. It has a very venerable and esteemed past.--Filll 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming you are vilifying him or misquoting him. If we are talking about prestige based on history, then it makes no difference since, as best I can tell, the institution is the same and its venerable and esteemed past is unchanged, only its name is. If we are talking merely about how the name "sounds", the I see no difference. Anyways, I have no general beef with the article, only with the statement I removed. Srnec 04:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved issues
It was a huge pain in the butt for me to dig up information about d'Abrera. Still some things about him I do not know. There are some clues that he mainly lives in the UK, some that he mainly lives in the Australia, and some that he moves back and forth. He might also give singing lessons over the internet to young boys, but I am not sure. He was involved in a college stunt to steal an alligator from the Sydney Zoo. This stuff I did not put in his biography article here. They are among the loose hanging ends that I could not resolve.--Filll 13:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

stub class?
Surely this is more than a stub. At least start? --Filll 06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BM(NH)
The Natural History Museum in South Kensington London was correctly know as the "British Museum (Natural History)" until its name was changed in the 1990's to give it a more popular image. Whereupon it strived to be "The Natural History Museum". Currently it appears to be known simply as the "Natural History Museum" prompting the question "where?". Such basic facts - what else is misrepresented in the article?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.140.3.203 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 August 2007

--
 * Well Anon, why not sign in sometime if you want to post? And sign your posts. As I look at the article, it does state that "the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition", which is completely in agreement with what you said. The name was changed in 1992. This was LONG before the "Dissent from Darwinism" list was created in 2001, and I am sure d'Abrera was not one of the first signatories of the Dissent list in the first couple of years. So the affiliation on the list is inaccurate, by at least 10 years. Do you dispute this? If you dispute this, please provide evidence to the contrary. Maybe there was a secret Discovery Institute with a secret Dissent list that existed before 1990 that you can point us to. Please provide the reference, and then perhaps the affiliation of d'Abrera on the list was then purely an example of incompetence and stupidity and slovenliness and carelessness, rather than outright malfeasance and lying and cheating and dishonesty and misrepresentation! However, the lying and cheating and dishonesty is completely consistent with dozens if not hundreds of other such incidents on the Dissent list, so there does appear to be some sort of pattern, would you not agree?


 * And yes indeed, the museum itself is now formally known as the Natural History Museum. Its article on Wikipedia reflects this. Its website reflects this. The references to it in the literature reflect this. Do you dispute that the Natural History Museum is called, formally, the Natural History Museum, all evidence to the contrary? If you have such evidence, please feel free to present it. Maybe the Natural History Museum is secretly known by its formal name, the "Natural History Museum in South Kensington London" and you can provide us a link to the secret act of Parliament which formally changed its name to this secret name. Please feel free to present any such evidence here, and Wikipedia will be edited accordingly, I can assure you.


 * If you have any other such "basic facts" which are misrepresented, then present the evidence. Your vague assertions are worth a hill of beans, and make me wonder about your POV. In other words, put up, or shut up...--Filll 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

- I have merely stated simple facts, whereas your behaviour appears to be that of someone less than willing to present impartial information. As for the posted message.....

"Do you think it is so smart to log in from the Museum's computers? You know we can tell who you are and where you are.--Filll 13:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)"

....this is shameful. If you had anything of use to say then I suggest that you have certainly undermined this and done both yourself and Wikipedia a great disservice. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.140.3.203 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 August 2007 -

What simple facts have you stated? None that are in dispute with the article. Not a single one. NOT ONE. All you did was repeat an assertion in the article, and then declare that you had found some evidence of a problem. It does not paint you in a very good light, frankly. You appear to be nothing more than a malcontent who claims to have objections and evidence of errors in the article, but is unable or unwilling to state them in any clear coherent manner, or produce any citations in a WP:RS demonstrating his or her position. Produce WP:V evidence of any claims of bias or error that you have. Otherwise, the article stands. And yes, you have signed in from the Museum's computers, and are showing signs of engaging in behavior that might eventually lead to the Museum's access to Wikipedia being blocked. Is that what you want? Would you like to be responsible for this? Do not think you are anonymous because you are not signing in and signing your troll-like posts? Believe me, I could track you right down with minimal effort. So try to behave in a constructive and productive manner here, get a log in, sign your posts, and stop this uncivil behavior. --Filll 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

-

Dear XXX (as you bravely and anonymously refer to yourself in the letter from Australia below),

I have heeded your threats and have informed the IT Department of the NHM.

Incidentally, the letter from Australia does not "confirm(ation) lack of PhD" it merely states that B.d'Ab. was a BA graduate of Univ of NSW admitted in 1965.

Warm regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.140.3.203 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 August 2007

- I am curious as to what point our friend 157.140.3.203 aka shiba5.nhm.ac.uk is attempting to make. The question "where" is already answered in the article on the Natural History Museum: "Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London". Why our friend thinks this question should be answered in an article about a person who was, once, purportedly, a visiting scholar at this museum is beyond me. Our friend's interpolation into this page appears to be nothing but a non sequitor. Hrafn42 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe our friend logging in from the Natural History Museum has any point to make. He is just engaging in trollish behavior, which I am certain the "IT department" of the NHM would not appreciate. I have contacted the NHM myself some weeks ago and would be pleased to deal with them further in this matter if the anon wants me to. This anon wants to make implications about how brave he or she is but does not sign his or her name, thinking this will protect his or her identity. And yes, this letter does in fact serve to add to the evidence of a lack of PhD, if one was needed. I have a couple of articles (including an autobiographical article, with copyright notice) where the subject of this article is described as holding a degree from UNSW and nothing else. Now I have a letter from UNSW confirming the type of degree that it is, which is in agreement with the article by Wieland and the subject's own published comments on the PhD. That is good enough for me, and good enough for WP I believe. If the anon has any evidence to the contrary, let him or her produce it. Otherwise, given the rules of WP on this matter (WP:V and WP:RS), the article stands as is.


 * If the anon has one single solitary shred of evidence to the contrary that is published in a verifiable reliable source, even evidence of an honorary degree from a bible college, then let him or her produce it. The article will be updated accordingly, I promise you. Vague statements and suggestions are not what WP is about. Facts are, rather than the delusional rantings of assorted madmen, liars, and cheats who seem to be associated with the Discovery Institute. So there is an easy way to fix this anon. Produce your evidence. Things will be changed IF AND ONLY IF you can demonstrate convincingly that this article is in error using WP:V and WP:RS sources. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not some religious tract. So, you know what to do...As for the IT department, bring it on. I would be glad to discuss this matter with them. --Filll 18:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will mention again, as I have before that it is only prudent and reasonable to get a log-in, and then SIGN YOUR POSTS. You are far more protected with a log-in than you are without, as should be completely obvious to our anon friend by now. And not signing your posts means someone else must do it, and that is just RUDE and lazy.--Filll 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear XXX

Are you aware that there are other organisations and individuals (students, visting scholars, associates) who have been and are housed at the BMNH/NHM who are treated as members of staff. They are not necessarily noted in staff lists or web offerings. B.d'Abr may well fall into one of these categories. He has certainly been present at the institution over many years; certainly since the 1970's.

Regards 157.140.3.203 Shiba5

---

This might very well be. However, the article only states the facts, as found in WP:NPOV and WP:V sources. I have also contacted the Museum itself some weeks back to verify what was clear from the Entomology Department webpages, and so far, the response has been that no Bernard d'Abrera is associated with the Museum. Now of course, they might respond back and tell me that this was an oversight, and their previous email was a mistake, and correct their webpages. Then of course I will change this article. The article is not here to present speculations. The article is not here to present unfounded conjectures. The article presents the facts, as have been determined and published in verifiable sources.--Filll 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear XXX

Re your messages

'...Do you think it is so smart to log in from the Museum's computers? You know we can tell who you are and where you are.--Filll 13:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you again, now for the 5th time (you sure don't learn very fast, do you?), that it is for your own protection that you should get a log-in account; this will shield your identity somewhat. And you should sign your posts; that is just being polite and civil. Otherwise, people have to do that for you, and it is inconvenient and unpleasant. Please try to show some common decorum. How many times do you have to be asked? --Filll 22:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC).....'

It is nice of you to express your concern for me. I am pleased to see that this has metamorphosed from threats to caring, or are you continuing to threaten me and the NHM? I am not a sneeky career web writer and so do not see the need for hiding my identity to such extent. WP allows this and so I am happy to use this avenue. I have been to your web page where I find it equally uninformative; I don't see the point of your web page.

Regards 157.140.3.203 Shiba5

You still have not learned about how to sign your name or get an account. This is not rocket science. If you want to post here, learn the rules. You sign by placing four tildes after your post as in " ~ ".

I have not threatened you or the NHM. I have merely stated a fact, given your seemingly troll-like behavior here. Take it as a word to the wise. Lots and LOTS of people have had their access restricted for engaging in trolling here, and so it is just a point of information for you. You are free to ignore it and act in a belligerent, contentious manner, however. I am just noting that there can be consequences for this sort of behavior. You think it would be better for me not to inform you, and just let things continue down a negative path until you are blocked or banned? That is what you would prefer?

And who are you calling "sneeky (sic) career web writers"? The people who have produced Wikipedia? Do you find Wikipedia useful? Well some people do. And so, they have all those "sneeky (sic) career web writers" to thank for it.

My mainpage here is not necessarily for you and is not meant to be informative to you. If you don't like it, so what? If you want to make a page that is informative on here, get an account and make your own. Otherwise...you are free to pound sand. Have a nice day...--Filll 14:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear XXX,

I do indeed find entries in WikiPedia of use but only when they are accurate and not misleading. I have politely been trying to alert you to inaccuracy within your 1st paragraph on 'Creationist activities'.

Thank you for your guidance on ending a message. I hope this is to your satisfaction

Warm Regards 157.140.3.203 Shiba5 157.140.3.203 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you have started to learn to sign. Thanks. Now we just have to get you to understand indenting using the ":" and to stop using the "" to separate posts from each other and we are all set. If you can provide a published source, say in the London Times, to show me that there is some controversy about the name of the Museum, then the controversy can be discussed in the article. However, from all I can tell, from an Act of Parliament in 1992, from the Museum's website, and from other reliable sources, Wikipedia does not have the incorrect name for the Museum.--Filll 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

confirmation of lack of PhD
I wrote to the University of New South Wales to verify d'Abrera's lack of PhD, and this was confirmed:

Confirmation of Qualification - Mr Bernard D'Abrera Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:13:29 +1000

Dear XXX,

I am writing in reply to your email dated 7 August 2007 requesting confirmation of the qualification of Mr Bernard D'Abrera.

I can confirm that we have a student by the name of Bernard D'Abrera. He is a graduate of the University of New South Wales and was admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts on 21 April 1965.

Regards,

Laura Chan

Laura Chan | Client Services Officer | Student Administration and Records | UNSW Student Services | The University of New South Wales SYDNEY NSW 2052 | Phone+ 612 9385 2433 | Fax + 612 9385 1252 | CRICOS Provider Code 00098G -- --Filll 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

POV edits
Thanks to some POV warriors, large blocks of the article are being repeatedly removed. This material has references. No evidence or citations have been presented that contradict these references. I challenge anyone who disputes this material to present their argument here on this talk page. In particular:


 * d'Abrera is listed on the Dissent petition. This can be easily verified.
 * d'Abrera's affiliation on the Dissent petition is easily verified
 * The current name of the Museum is easily verified
 * The date at which the Museum changed names is easily verified
 * There have been numerous other examples of other "mistakes" in affiliation of people on the Dissent petition pointed out in the literature, all of which can be easily verified
 * The website of the Entymology Department does not list d'Abrera

None of this is OR. All of this is from WP:V and WP:RS sources. If anyone disputes these, or anything else in the article, please present your evidence here. Claims of OR or incorrectness without any way to verify them really are pointless. Give me an article in the London Times showing that Bernard d'Abrera is formally associated with an institution called the British Museum (Natural History), for example. Give me an article in Academia Online discussing the PhD d'Abrera has from Harvard, for example. Then I will gladly admit that there is some controversy, and change the article accordingly.

In addition, I contacted the museum by email some weeks ago. They had not heard of him. I am waiting for further confirmation from the Museum as they search their records to try to find any svidence of his association of the Museum. I am being careful. But I am trying to be accurate and follow the rules of WP.--Filll 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP
I have removed some content from this page and temporarily protected it. Remember that, when dealing with biographies of living people our sourcing must be beyond reproach. It is not sufficient to say that X is easily verified - you've got to verify it yourself, in the article. Furthermore, when making an accusation such as "Person X lied about their affiliation," it's unacceptable to come to that conclusion by inference. Though every fact listed above may well be verifiable, the leap from those facts to "d'Abrera is not affiliated with the British Museum" is OR. That this is a serious accusation about somebody's credibility makes that OR far more pernicious and dangerous.

Simply put, the section cannot go back. It violates our policy. Unless you can find a reliable source that levels the accusation that d'Abrera lied about his affiliation, the material is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll - I agree with Phil Sandifer, there's simply no source for this assertion at present. That said, as you're in contact with the NHM it's possible that you may have confirmation of this claim soon.  I'd leave the assertion out until then for the WP:BLP reasons that Phil suggests.  It's a rather serious claim, and we should never put Wikipedia in harms way on these sorts of grounds.  Finally, even if you do receive confirmation from the NHM that d'Abrera can't be found on their books, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's never worked for them.  Staff, particularly on short-term contracts, can fall between the cracks of institutions like the NHM.  Be careful (but keep up the good work!).  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would beg to differ. The statement that "d'Abrera is not affiliated with the British Museum" does not appear in the article. This is inaccurate. The institution that d'Abrera is affiliated with on the Dissent list is the British Museum (Natural History) which did not in fact exist in 2001 when the Dissent list was created, and did not exist when d'Abrera's name was added to the Dissent list, and does not currently exist. This institution ceased to exist by this name in 1992, and this is a concrete reliable verifiable fact. Anyone who disputes this is free to try to convince me otherwise with verifiable, reliable sources. However, I stand on what the reliable verifiable sources have in them. The article never stated that d'Abrera lied about his affililation just that it was incorrect. I have no idea how the incorrect affiliation appeared in the Dissent list, but there are many other examples of incorrect affiliation in the list, and this fact is published in verifiable, reliable sources.--Filll 14:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that care should be taken, but looking at the paragraph it contained the statement that Dissent from Darwinism lists him as a signatory and presents his qualifications and affiliation – that's publicly published information which could be in the article provided it's properly cited, which it didn't seem to be, and the fact that he's listed doesn't prove that he signed it. The claim that the affiliation is misrepresented should be very carefully considered to avoid original research, but as far as I can see it's an assertion that the DI presented misleading information and does not imply that d'Abrera lied. .. dave souza, talk 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim is clearly included in this article to discredit d"Abrera. Whatever innocent interpretations of the claim can be made, its effect is clearly intended to be negative. Thus BLP applies. Phil Sandifer 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is OR and POV of you to suggest that this was included in the article to "discredit" d'Abrera. I would ask that you not resort to such claims. These are facts, published in verifiable, reliable sources. The article does not speculate as to why the incorrect affiliation appears, only notes that is consistent with other instances of incorrect affiliation on the list.--Filll 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In Fill's defense, I would point out that it is in fact uncontested that "d'Abrera is not affiliated with the British Museum". The institution that he is alleged to have been affiliated with had not been part of the British Museum in fact for decades before d'Abrera signed A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, and not part of the British Museum even in name for a number of years before he signed it. I would suggest that Phil Sandifer get his facts straight. At the time d'Abrera signed A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, there was no institution currently named the 'British Museum (Natural History)' for him to be affiliated to, so listing him as being affiliated to an institution of that name cannot help but be inaccurate. This at least is hard, reliably sourced, fact, so cannot run foul of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. British Museum Act 1963Museums and Galleries Act 1992, Schedule 8 Hrafn42 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The article did not maintain that he lied about his affiliation. If you believe it did, please show me where it said he "lied" about his affiliation. I do not myself see the word "lie" or any equivalent in the article or its previous version but perhaps I have missed something. Perhaps a penumbration.


 * The article only notes what his affiliation is on the Dissent list. And then that such an institution has not existed for 15 years, long before the Dissent list was created. And it also notes, from the Museum's website itself, that he is not listed on the Museum's website. The Museum's official website is not a WP:RS for who is at the Museum? The official name of the Museum is not verifiable? The date of the change of the name is not verifiable? I beg to differ. I can provide sourcing in a WP:V and WP:RS source for the fact of the name change and its date.


 * There are many other options besides Bernard d'Abrera having "lied" about his affiliation:


 * Bernard d'Abrera did not actually sign the Dissent petition himself, and in fact this is a forgery by someone associated with the Discovery Institute or someone else.
 * There is in fact another institution called the British Museum (Natural History) with which Bernard d'Abrera is associated with, and the information I have in WP:RS and WP:V sources is wrong; the British Museum (Natural History) is not the same insitution as the Natural History Museum. We would of course require sources for this. At this moment in time, in 2007, there is in fact NO institution that exists called the British Museum (Natural History), as far as I know, and as far as I can tell from the sources. If anyone can provide me a source to the contrary, then I would be glad to see it and correct the article accordingly.
 * The official website of the Natural History Museum is in fact, in error. If it is corrected, we can note this of course.
 * Bernard d'Abrera suffered from some mental lacuna and gave the wrong affiliation by mistake when he signed the Dissent list.
 * The common name of the Natural History Museum is actually the British Museum (Natural History). In spite of all evidence to the contrary in published sources, no one refers to the Natural History Museum as the Natural History Museum, and everyone really refers to it instead as the British Museum instead. If a citation can be provided for this, then of course this confusion can be cleared up accordingly.
 * Perhaps the affiliation of British Museum (Natural History) was a typographic error, and the typist really meant to type Natural History Museum.


 * As to the statements about how these statements above should be able to be determined from the article itself, if the editors would check, they would see that one can determine that these assertions are not gratuitous assertions, but those that can be determined from the article itself:


 * d'Abrera is listed on the Dissent petition. This can be easily verified.

If this is being challenged, which it appears to be here, then the sentence:

d'Abrera signed the petition known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a campaign begun in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, where he is listed as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)".

should be changed to

''d'Abrera's name appears on the petition known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a campaign begun in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, where he is listed as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)".

It should not be deleted. If it is being challenged as inaccurate, then lets give an exact reference instead of making the reader click a link or two.


 * d'Abrera's affiliation on the Dissent petition is easily verified

As above.


 * The current name of the Museum is easily verified

The sentence

This is inaccurate, since the museum became independent from the British Museum in 1962 and the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition.

should not be deleted, but can be cited as:

This is inaccurate, since the museum became independent from the British Museum in 1962 and the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. The first cited source, which was an act of the UK parliament in 1992, includes the text:

which is as the proposed Wikipedia text states. The next two citations are the original Discovery Institute press release and list from 2001 announcing the Dissent list.
 * The date at which the Museum changed names is easily verified

As above, in the act, which we can easily cite in the text.


 * There have been numerous other examples of other "mistakes" in affiliation of people on the Dissent petition pointed out in the literature, all of which can be easily verified

The relevant sentence is:

However, this error is consistent with complaints that in several instances, the Dissent'' list misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories. ''

Since the citation includes the statement:

it is indeed accurate.

Therefore, this sentence is fine, but can be bolstered with further citations if it is deemed necessary.


 * The website of the Entymology Department does not list d'Abrera

This refers to the sentence:

''The Entomology Department's website makes no mention of a "Visiting Scholar" named "Bernard d'Abrera" in the staff directory, nor are any of his publications in the museum's staff publications list. ''

This sentence is accurate, and well sourced. Is the official website of the Museum itself not a reliable source? This was bolstered by my double checking to make sure I had the facts correct.

If you require this to have a further citation in a reliable source, I can find one. I do not think it is necessary, however.

In view of this, I think that we can be very careful, and should be very careful. At most a couple of citations should be added, and as Dave notes, we just have to change a word or two to make it quite clear that d'Abrera is not lying, although I do not believe the original text suggested this in any way shape or form. --Filll 14:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Find a reliable source that puts all of this together. Then put it in. Otherwise, do not put it in. Simple as that. Phil Sandifer 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So it is not good enough that Fill finds a verifiable and reliable source for each of the statements, he now has to find such a single source that covers the entire paragraph? That seems unreasonable. Hrafn42 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By this standard, almost nothing could be put in Wikipedia except blatant plagiarism, or maybe a few explicit pieces of text, all drawn from the same source. No article could have more than one source.--Filll 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These are reliable verifiable sources. Simple as that.--Filll 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of listed affiliation is not evidence that the person is not affiliated
By this argument, anyone's biography on Wikipedia could claim that they were British Lords, or heirs to the French crown, or recipients of the Nobel Prize, in spite of a lack of evidence to confirm this. Clearly, this is not helpful. I believe that noting that the individual at question is not listed on an official document is not OR, and it is not POV. It is just a plain bland fact. Person X is not listed as an heir to the French Crown on a list published by Y. Person Z does not appear on the list of Nobel Laureates on the official list published at W, although person Z claims to have a Nobel Prize. It does not make the leap of inference to say that person Z or person X lied or their information was misrepresented intentionally by someone. That is left to the reader. The inconsistency is noted, and that is all. No speculation as to the reason for this are presented, since that would be OR. For example, stating in an article that the reason for this inconsistency is some given reason, such as: and so on, is probably verging into OR and might violate the rules of BLP.--Filll 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * lying
 * delusion
 * typographic error
 * mistake
 * confusion
 * cheating


 * The point of the information is character assassination. You can't hide behind "We don't say it on Wikipedia, we just make it really obvious." That doesn't get around the basic rule of doing no harm. If his affiliation is, in fact, questionable, somebody other than you has surely noticed it. Cite them. Phil Sandifer 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the information is accurate, verifiable, and NPOV, then the intent behind it doesn't matter. We don't delete good articles because they were originally created for inappropriate purposes. SamBC(talk) 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that d'Abrera's signing of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, and the erroneous affiliation listed on it, is a matter of public record, it is hard to see how reporting it is an invasion of privacy, "sensationalist" or "titillating". Whatever "harm" was done by d'Abrera himself and/or the Discovery Institute. Hrafn42 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that d'Abrera's signing of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, and the erroneous affiliation listed on it, is a matter of public record, it is hard to see how reporting it is an invasion of privacy, "sensationalist" or "titillating". Whatever "harm" was done by d'Abrera himself and/or the Discovery Institute. Hrafn42 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the rabid diatribes d'Abrera himself has published, railing against academia, evolution, PhDs, etc (almost none of which are included in this article, but could be), merely noting his signing of this Dissent list, and the incorrect affiliation on the list is minimal. In his own work, or in reviews of his work, or interviews, or his autobiography, are statements like
 * "breathtaking, headlong frontal assault on evolution"
 * "antievolutionism is far and away the dominant theme, not some minor aside (about 50 whole pages are devoted to ‘dissing Darwin’)"
 * "his passionate loathing of the evolutionary fallacy"
 * ‘viscid, asphyxiating baggage’
 * implications that evolution is not "true science"
 * implications that evolution is not "common sense"
 * suggestions that evolution requires "blind religious faith"
 * evolution is an "ideology"
 * suggestions that evolution avoids or ignores taxonomic knowledge
 * suggestions that science is destroying humankind by subscribing to the theory of evolution
 * claims that evolution is responsible for the destruction of the environment
 * suggestions that the "elite" in "ivory towers" are engaged in a "criminal" enterprise
 * suggests that evolution is a "global pseudo-science cult"
 * "neo-Darwinian hegemony and hubris of the scientific establishment"
 * "tendentiously speculative and unprovable theories of the past that are best consigned to the realm of pure science fiction."

This is a tiny sample. d'Abrera has chosen a certain path and loudly and frequently proclaims a certain philosophy. The Wikipedia article itself is extremely conservative and does not make a fraction of the controversial statements that d'Abrera himself makes. It is hard to see how listing his association with the Dissent list, or the fact that his affiliation is at best incorrect and out of date on the list, in any way harms his reputation, or engages in more sensationalism than d'Abrera himself does. Far from it, in fact.--Filll 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Affiliation
Using the Internet Archive, Bernard d'Abrera is not listed on the Museum's staff list in 2005, but is listed on the staff list in Feb 02, 2001: and on June 16, 2001 and on December 5, 2002 

and on December 31, 2003  but by February 03, 2004, d'Abrera no longer appears on the staff list: .

We certainly should note this, that d'Abrera was listed on the staff list at one time, but no longer is. We can also possibly determine when his name first appeared on the Dissent list, for comparison.--Filll 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He was on a list dated March 2004. Can't find an earlier list for comparison. Hrafn42 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can however confirm that he wasn't on the original 2001 list. Hrafn42 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

At a very minimum, d'Abrera's entry on the Dissent list is misleading and out of date, which as the citation above notes, is very typical for the Dissent list.

It is misleading and inaccurate because the affiliated institution, the British Museum (Natural History) ceased to exist in 1992 by that name, at least 9 years before the Dissent list was created and before d'Abrera could have signed it.

It is at least out of date because he currently no longer appears to be affiliated with the Natural History Museum according to the official department lists on the internet, although he was listed at one time on the list and has now been removed at least 3 years and 7 months ago. The Dissent list has been updated several times since then, with several press conferences announced on new totals in 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 since d'Abrera was removed from the Museum's official list. This also is typical for the Dissent list, since one signatory lists his affiliation as one that has been inaccurate for over 70 years (Leonard Loose, age 96, lists University of Leeds as his affiliation, even though he has had no affiliation with this institution for over 70 years).

It is possible that at the time d'Abrera signed the list, he had already been removed from the official staff list at the Natural History Museum. At this point, we do not know. This would be a more serious situation, but the article does not make this suggestion, and I do not advocate making any suggestions of malfeasance or deliberate misrepresentation or lying.--Filll 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliably sourced and uncontroversial facts
I assert that the following facts are uncontroversial and reliably sourced (with sources listed in the above discussion): I would therefore inquire as to how statement of these facts in a biographical article is in violation of WP:BLP? Hrafn42 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That Bernard d'Abrera signed A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
 * That his "position" was (and remains) listed as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)"
 * That at the time he signed it (between 2001 and 2004), no institution was then currently named "British Museum (Natural History)"
 * That d'Abrera's stated position is prima facie inaccurate


 * I would include


 * it is incontrovertible and verifiable in a reliable source that it was published in Academia Online by two recognized authorities in the field that the affiliations of the signatories in the Dissent list are misleading and contrary to standard professional and academic practice.
 * it is incontrovertible and verifiable in a reliable source that although d'Abrera was listed on the official Entomology Department staff list in 2001, 2002 and 2003, after early February 2004, he was no longer listed as a staff member.


 * d'Abrera was clearly removed from the staff list in 2004, and has not reappeared on the list since then. The reason for this is unknown and we can only guess why, which should not appear in the article, since this might constitute OR.--Filll 18:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with these statements and positions. SamBC(talk) 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible paragraph
The information now to hand is interesting, and does indicate that d'Abrera had some connection with the institution at a time when he could have signed the Dissent list. At the least, the following statement is appropriate in the article:

Moving on to the other points gives some clarification of his position:

The question then is whether this further information is notable. .. dave souza, talk 19:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how notable any of this information is, since the original wording of the article is not demonstrably false, and is in fact well-supported by WP:RS and WP:V sources. Nevertheless, since it appears to be contentious, including more detail might be appropriate in this situation. This is similar to the intelligent design article itself, which was changed to introduce large amounts of extra detail, to satisfy those with certain agendas.--Filll 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest:


 * I would augment this with extra citations to the last paragraph and to the 1992 name change, and the Forrest article, etc, since these appear to be contentious.--Filll 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That begins to seem a bit attackish, attempting to draw conclusions where there may not be any. The Dissent list is supposed to be a petition, so as long as it what was there at the time of signing is right, it's right. Unless there's been a public call for them to update it that we can cite, I'm not comfortable with including it in that fashion. Possibly on the article for the list... The second suggestion here is good, though. SamBC(talk) 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not perceive an attack, but perhaps

seems more benign?--Filll 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think mentioning that he signed the Dissent petition is a valid thing to say in this article (hardly surprising given his known Creationist beliefs)... to go any further, however, and to discuss the issues and problems with that listing, or the Dissent List itself does not really have a place in this article (it might be discussed in the article on the list itself, provided there is a source that discusses it ... if not it amounts to WP:SYNT). In any case, this article is about d'Abrera himself and not about the Dissent list.  So... all this article should say is: "d'Abrera is listed as a signatory on the petition known as "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", a campaign begun in 2001 by the Discovery Institute in support of the Intelligent design theory." Blueboar 19:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. He is listed as having a certain affiliation on the Dissent list, and sources state that affiliation is incorrect.--Filll 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, is not his previous affiliation with the National History Museum relevant to d'Abrera? --Filll 19:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that mentioning the listed affiliation and the issue with it being non-existent (under that name) is relevant, but the rest isn't. That might just be me thought. SamBC(talk) 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So you would remove the sentence: , is that correct? However, the rest is directly related to d'Abrera:
 * he signed the list
 * he is listed on the list as affiliated with an organization that no longer exists, and has not existed for 15 years, as can been verified in a reliable source.
 * he is no longer listed on the Museum's website, although he was at one time.

I fail to see how these are not related to d'Abrera.--Filll 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's an irrelevant degree of detail to give all the years. Just say something like "a position he held until late 2003/early 2004", if that can be sourced (I'm not sure of the use of archives as a source), possibly adding "according to archives of the museum's website". SamBC(talk) 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not necessarily in favor of giving all the years, or all the citations. But they might have to be given, depending on the level of hostility of those with various agendas here. Just take a look at the intelligent design article.--Filll 20:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually he never actually held any position. He was just a visitor, according to several sources, including d'Abrera himself.--Filll 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "visiting scholar" is generally held to be a position, even if it's unpaid, just like "visiting lecturer" or "visiting professor". If he was listed on a staff page, he held a position. SamBC(talk) 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can be, which is why I contacted the Museum directly several weeks ago to find out exactly what his position and title was and current status. And they replied back that they did not know him and referred me to the Museum Archive Department, which was going to try to find a record of his involvement with the Museum. That was 2 weeks ago, and I have not yet had a reply, but I have sent three subsequent inquiries as well. I am trying, but there is only so much I can do. I can just list the facts, and that is all. To assume he has some sort of permanent staff position there under the circumstances seems a bit much, although of course it might be possible. All indications are that he does not.--Filll 21:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have another source which claims he resides most of the year in Melbourne Australia, which would further complicate claims that d'Abrera has a permanent position in London, but I have not used this source yet.--Filll 21:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, whoa, who said anything about permanent? He was on the staff list on the web site, I think that means he had some sort of official position. If it was listed as visiting, then it would be either/both of intermittent involvement and temporary. SamBC(talk) 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Museum itself on the website NEVER described the nature of his affiliation with the Museum. Not once in all those different versions of the staff list. I could look at more of them of course, but I suspect the answer would be the same. His presumed actual title or affiliation of "visiting scholar" is only from an interview with creationist Wieland, from a book review by creationist Dembski and from his affliation on the creationist Dissent petition. So I have tried to firm it up by looking at a variety of sources, contacting the Museum itself repeatedly, etc. Make sense?--Filll 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. I have some creationist sources that claim he has a "permanent" visiting scholar position at the British Museum (Natural History). So I tried to verify it. I found some contradictory information. This is incorrect on a couple of counts, obviously. For one, the British Museum (Natural History) has not existed since 1992.--Filll 21:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The only current connection I can discern is that d'Abrera's company, Hill House Publishers, is one of 67 companies that publish books for the Natural History Museum .--Filll 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts on d'Abrera's affiliation
I therefore think the main problem with d'Abrera's listed affiliation is not that it is not his current affiliation, but that (1) it was an incorrect description of one of his affiliations at time of signing (BM(NH) rather than correct NHM), and (2) that it listed his temporary/secondary affiliation. Hrafn42 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Generally speaking, it would be unreasonable to expect the DI to keep current the affiliations of all 700 signatories to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Therefore generally speaking, it is likely that the affiliation listed will be that at time of signing, subject only to later correction for errors.(This presumption is however slightly lessened for signatories with an ongoing relationship with the DI, as d'Abrera has as publisher of Exploring Evolution.)
 * 2) However, given (1) it is even more unreasonable to list a signatory's temporary affiliation (such as 'Visiting Scholar') as it will quickly become outdated, in addition to the fact that temporary affiliations are generally secondary affiliations.


 * It sounds like the upshot of all this is that d'Abrera signed the DI list giving as his affiliation the old name for an institution that he was a visitor at (judging from Filll's digging around, it appears that he was at the NHM in the capacity as a visitor for at least a couple of years). This just doesn't seem that big a deal to me, and certainly not in the context of other creationist stunts.  While it may very well be the case that d'Abrera is trading on the prestige of the NHM to provide a veneer of respectibility to the DI list, adding this inference to the article seems a form of WP:OR to me (i.e. while the sources may point this way, we don't have a source that explicitly states this).  Other than simply noting that he signed the DI list, I don't think it's even necessary to add a reference to his stint at the NHM, unless it was a period of particular significance to his career (publications, etc.).  That said, the issue of him citing an affiliation at which he was only a visitor (which would be unusual for an academic) is probably still worth noting over at the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article in the context there of dubious affiliation listings (although the digression about the incorrect naming of the NHM seems unnecessary and POV).  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Plumbago. Unless we have a source that explicitly discusses all of this, it should not be part of this article.  Doing so may even be a BLP vio (I will have to read up on that policy)... it is certainly OR. Blueboar 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly, I fail to see how this person's claimed/putative/potential affiliations and past and current career activities are irrelevant to a biography about him. Nevertheless, I am in possession of more information about this situation and the past and current status of the subject, and I am considering this carefully before I continue.--Filll 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think irrelevant is the wrong way to put it. It's a matter of original research, specifically synthesis. Stating that he was a visiting scholar there would be okay, with any reliable source, and stating that he used the wrong name is borderline. Putting it in any context that suggests or implies incompetence or duplicity would be improper. I've thought about this more, by the way, and while I wouldn't say "nonono", I would say "be cautious". If any reliable third-part had written about this discrepancy, then it'd be fair game. SamBC(talk) 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha - thanks SamBC. That's what I meant to say: WP:SYNT.  The guidelines are very clear on this point.  It's all very well having sourced statements, but putting them together to draw a conclusion not asserted in any one of them is synthesis.  That isn't to say that it's incorrect, just that it can't be done here.  Sorry.  --Plumbago 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I mean, it should be noted, I can easily believe that a Creationist is going to have low professional standards, especially if they're a Creationist who is actually affiliated with a relevant scientific field. I can easily believe that there are problems here. And the work done to assemble the problems and figure out that there is something untoward is admirable. But it's not work for Wikipedia, and it's probably not work for this article, given that there's no real direct connection to action or misconduct on d'Abrera's part. Phil Sandifer 15:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is more complex, and less cut-and-dried, than that. The DI is a primary source for "who has signed A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", but arguably a secondary source for their affiliations. Is providing a canonical primary source (a British Act of Parliament), to impeach this secondary source as unreliable on this point, synthesis? Hrafn42 16:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoever said there was? I certainly did not. However, as I said, I am in receipt of some more information on this subject, and we will just have to see how things evolve.--Filll 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we use the example from WP:SYNT:

as a model. According to WP:SYNT, this example does not constitute synthesis. So that is what we might do. However, as I said before, I know much more now, and there are other very sensitive factors involved here. And given that I have more information, which I have not yet revealed in public, and might never reveal in public, my views have changed. And I am pondering what should be done next. I will consult in private with select individuals involved and see how we come to a consensus, given the sensitive nature of this situation.--Filll 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Editorial decisions on Wikipedia ought not be made based on private information. Phil Sandifer 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I should point out that any decision taken is taken by the community, and must be based on publicly verifiable information. SamBC(talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Everyone knows that. However, as I collect more information, and decide what to divulge in public in consultation with those whose interests are involved directly, my positions might change. There is a lot more here than meets the eye. And many other interests to consider than is readily apparent. So we will just have to see.--Filll 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cut the cloak and dagger crap. Wikipedia is based on published, verifiable sources, and is not an appropriate vehicle for advancing private interests that are not "readily apparent." You can feel free to make a justification for including the information. But, in its current form, it flagrantly violates multiple policies. And no amount of secret information you may hold changes that. Either come out with this mysterious new information, or move on. But it has no bearing and can have no bearing on the decisions we make here. Phil Sandifer 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that statement above was really justified or appropriate? My goodness. Look, I am not advocating doing ANYTHING that is against consensus or Wikipedia rules or Wikipedia policies. NOTHING whatsoever, ok? I have no idea where you obtained that impression, but please discard it and disabuse yourself of such notions. I never claimed that d'Abrera was lying or lied. The article never claimed he was lying or lied. It only stated that his published affiliation was in error, or at least in conflict with another source. I think we eventually might do something like WP:SYNTH above, but I am not sure yet. All I said is that my position might change with time. That is all. I do not think that was an unreasonable thing to notify people of. You might of course disagree. And you are free to disagree, but I am free to ignore such assertions if I do not accept your arguments. I will reveal what I, in consultation with others I personally choose, feel is appropriate and prudent to reveal. And no amount of huffing and puffing on your part will change that. Just so long as we are clear, ok? You are also free to "dig around" as well, to see what you can turn up, if you think it is a worthwhile use of your time and you think you have the same or superior access to sources than I do. There is no rush here. There is no frenzy. I am collecting information about this topic, and making available what I feel is prudent and reasonable, at the time of my choosing, to the community for their consideration. I do not mean any disrespect and I do not want this to escalate into some completely silly dispute.--Filll 17:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Phil Sandifer is of course right that this article must carefully comply with policies, and rely only on verifiable reliable sources. There does seem to be a clear and open relationship between d'Abrera and the Natural History Museum, published in both of their websites, so that should be noted without implying anything beyond published sources and without delving into the Discovery Institute's wording. His listing as a signatory of Dissent from Darwinism is notable, as discussed earlier. Do you want me to add appropriate statements about these points? .. dave souza, talk 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would favor adding his status as a signatory for now, and then as things progress, we can decide if it needs to be modified in any way. I am not sure I would yet include a relationship with the Museum in this article.--Filll 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. There's not actually much in it from the Natural History Museum, simply that Hill House is one of the publishers of books they offer for sale, so that's not really notable. Thinking about it, d'Abrera's website is only acceptable as a source about himself, and isn't a reliable source about the NHM so we have to be cautious there. That leaves us with the simple report about him being listed as a signatory:


 * Any problems with that? ... dave souza, talk 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally would favor that, for time being.--Filll 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes perfect sense, all told. SamBC(talk) 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since everyone seems to be in agreement, and the proposed wording does not violate WP:BLP... I have requested that the page be unblocked, so it can be added and we can move on to other things. Blueboar 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've unlocked it. Phil Sandifer 13:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. I think we should move very cautiously here for time being. I will implement Dave souza's suggested wording and then we can mull over what else to do, if anything.--Filll 13:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)