Talk:Quality Science Education for All

Supreme Court appeal - article restored
The Supreme court appeal warrants an article on this topic. I've removed the redirect and rewritten some of the article to that end. FeloniousMonk (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the article that this is cited to makes no mention whatsoever of "Quality Science Education for All", it does not "warrant an article on this topic". According to that article the plaintiff is Jeanne Caldwell. AFAIK, we still have no information confirming that QSEA has any formal existence -- one of the reasons it was moved to Larry Caldwell in the first place. I will be nominating it to be merged back into Larry Caldwell shortly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Is there a shortage of server space all of a sudden? This topic clearly warrants its own article. Odd nature (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "What? Is there a shortage of" reading comprehension? We have NO BLOODY RELIABLE EVIDENCE AT ALL that QSEA EVEN EXISTS (outside Cardwell's deluded mind). Read WP:ORG and stop jumping up and down making claims without any basis in policy or fact. Your baseless claim that "this topic clearly warrants its own article" clearly warrants a WP:TROUT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You should stop being rude and edit warring with FM and me if you want people here to take you seriously. Odd nature (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * State of California Corporation Listing for QSEA I think you owe us an apology, frankly. Odd nature (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wonder of wonders, we now have confirmation that QSEA actually has/had some sort of official existence. Amusingly (i) this is a year (almost to the day) after I raised the issue at Talk:Larry Caldwell; & (ii) its status is "suspended" and there is no mention of it being a "non-profit" (as previously claimed).
 * 2) Now all we need is information on whether QSEA has actually done anything:
 * 3) Has it been a party to any of the lawsuits? If not, then why is the information here, not at Larry Caldwell?
 * 4) Has it been involved, as a corporation (not simply mentioned as Caldwell's vehicle) in anything of note? If not, then why is the information here, not at Larry Caldwell?
 * 5) To put it bluntly, is there any information indicating that this is anything other than a WP:CFORK of Larry Caldwell? And is there any information indicating that it meets WP:ORG?
 * 6) Neither you nor FM appear to 'take seriously' anybody who disagrees with you, so why the heck should I care what you think? It generally takes the metaphorical equivalent of a large brick to get either of you to even notice a discussion, and generally a RfC/AfD/Formal-merger-proposal/similar to get serious consideration of any change of which the two of you disapprove. I let the facts and the logic of my arguments speak for themselves -- and don't expect to be 'taken seriously' independently of them. If I have to be (what you term) "rude" in order to get your attention, I will do so. I consider your failure to address legitimate concerns when reverting to be just as (if not more) rude.


 * This discussion isn't productive. Sources have been provided and there's mass of articles for former and suspended corporations at Wikipedia. Deal with it and move on. Please get used to the idea that not everyone here will defer to your judgment and that you don't need to turn it into a battle when they don't and that you won't win every battle if you do. That's the Wiki way. If you fail to get that then you're just wasting your time- and ours. Odd nature (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A ludicrously inapt comparison. Where WP has articles on such former corporations, I would strongly suspect that (i) the corporation in question did not become "suspended" before it did anything of note & (ii) that the article wasn't entirely about the activities of their founder, who already has his own article. I would take your & FM's demands for me to shut up on matters a lot more seriously if it wasn't for the fact that my viewpoints, in disputes with the pair of you, have a rather high probability of being upheld on RfC/AfD/etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would note that (according to a link just added as an EL) the case was rejected by SCOTUS "without comment" (as happens to a large number of crank cases). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

BLATANTLY off-topic information
All of this is information about actions of Caldwell as an individual, and therefore belong in his article, not here. I am restoring the off-topic template. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * National Center for Science Education/Eugenie Scott suit
 * "In the spring of 2005 he sued the National Center for Science Education..." -- Caldwell, not QSEA
 * Roseville Joint Union High School District suit
 * "In October 2005 Caldwell filed suit in California federal court..." -- Caldwell, not QSEA
 * University of California Berkeley suit
 * "In October 2005 Larry Caldwell filed suit on behalf of his wife in federal court..." -- Caldwell, not QSEA


 * I don't think you're sufficiently versed on this to be making all this fuss. Why don't you use the time you dedicate to your campaign to undo this article and use it to read all the sources available? Odd nature (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that ludicrous ad hominem. As you are unwilling (and from previous performance I would suspect unable) to address the facts, or allow the matter to drop, I will seek a WP:RFC on the matter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources & WP:ORG
I would note that of 10 sources currently cited in this article, half don't mention Quality Science Education for All/QSEA at all (just Caldwell), and the other half give it only a mere mention in discussing Caldwell. This level of coverage does not come even close to meeting WP:ORG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the sources again, I have. Taken in context they all support the content they're attached to and are relevant to this topic. I think you're nit picking because you want this article deleted and merged. Irrationally, I'll add. You've hammered out here two new sections and a rant and two attacks on sources in fifteen minutes. Please calm down and work with others here, I've supported you in the past even when I didn't necessarily agree with you. I'd rather not have to change my mind about the quality of your work here. Odd nature (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This state filing, article, announcement and letter alone satisfy WP:ORG: Dad expands science quest The Sacramento Bee, October 2, 2005 Letter to the Editor of California Wild, Larry Caldwell, Summer, 2005 Welcome to New Evolution News & Views Contributor, Larry Caldwell Discovery Institute, November 21, 2006 State of California Corporation Listing for QSEA You're obviously grasping at straws here. Odd nature (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you read the sources again! They are about Larry Caldwell. Half of them don't even mention QSEA. This article is about Larry Caldwell not QSEA (given that it contains no substantive content on QSEA). It is a blatant WP:CFORK.
 * 1) If you want me "calm down" then kindly cease & desist your patronising and dismissive tone and actually address the facts and the policy involved:
 * 2) The facts are "that of 10 sources currently cited in this article, half don't mention Quality Science Education for All/QSEA at all (just Caldwell), and the other half give it only a mere mention in discussing Caldwell."
 * 3) The policy, WP:ORG states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The letter is by Caldwell, so is not "independent". The article expclitly states a relationship between QSEA and the IDM, so the DI piece is not "independent". The SFGate article makes only bare mention of QSEA: "...but from his home office, which serves as headquarters for his fledgling nonprofit organization, Quality Science Education for All." This is not "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
 * I am neither "nit picking" nor "grasping at straws" -- your position has no basis in fact or in policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Potentially off-topic information
Do the lawsuits covered in sections 'National Center for Science Education/Eugenie Scott suit', 'Roseville Joint Union High School District suit' and 'University of California Berkeley suit' belong in this article or in Larry Caldwell, in that they were initiated by Caldwell as an individual, not by this corporation? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In looking through the sources, and some case dockets, QSEA is found alongside Mr. Caldwell's name in many instances. However, to me, QSEA sounds like a simple tax shelter corporation run by Larry and Jeanne Caldwell.  While it is a known corporation (though currently suspended ), the actions made are based solely upon its seemingly two employees.  I think that the details here should be merged into Larry Caldwell, and that a redirection remain here to point the corporation to its founder.  I can't find anything notable about the corporation that did not involve Mr. Caldwell directly, so I believe his article would be the more relevant location. My .02. Rurik (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the merge, for the reasons I've stated above. Odd nature (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What the cited sources say about QSEA
"We would like to welcome our newest addition to the Evolution News & Views reporting team, Larry Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell is a parent and attorney in Roseville, California. He is also president of Quality Science Education for All (QSEA), a non-profit organization which has advocated for quality science education policies in the Roseville school district to guarantee that science will not be taught dogmatically and that teachers will "help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution." Under Larry's leadership, QSEA has been involved in a lawsuit to end Establishment Clause violations by Darwinists who are using taxpayer money to promote pro-Darwinian theology via the Understanding Evolution website. More information can be found at QSEA.org."
 * Primary sources:
 * QSEA has had its status as a corporation suspended (apparently since 2/1/2005) in California
 * Non-independent:
 * Discovery Institute:

"Larry Caldwell J.D. Founder and President Quality Science Education for All Roseville, CA www.qsea.org"
 * Discovery Institute: no mention of QSEA
 * Discovery Institute: no mention of QSEA
 * Larry Caldwell (letter signed):

"...from his home office, which serves as headquarters for his fledgling nonprofit organization, Quality Science Education for All."
 * Independent
 * Sacramento Bee:

(Note: in this list I have excluded mention of Caldwell's 'Quality Science Education' policy -- as it is not mention of the corporation that is the topic of this article.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Granite Bay Press-Tribune: no mention
 * San Francisco Chronicle: no mention
 * The Panda's Thumb (blog): no mention
 * National Center for Science Education: no mention