User talk:Hrafn/archive1

Hello, Hrafn42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Advice
Put a warning on his talk page then let me know as soon as he violates it. Rlevse 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The best thing is to put a "test4" or "blatantvandal" warning on his talk page. If you keep reverting him, you'll be in an edit war and you both might end up blocked. If you give one of these warnings and he violates it, let me or WP:AIV know and only he will get blocked. If you go AIV, mention the prior block.Rlevse 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heads up
Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edits to the creation-evolution controversy page because the edits you changed seemed to be the result of a consensus. Please see the associated discussion. While I do think that having contributors compiling information from the groups who participate in the controversy is bordering on original research by turning wikipedia into a secondary source, I do not think the particular metion of ICR pointing to research (not pointing to their own research, but just the vauge term "research"), and the immediate rebuttal of the ICR interpretation by mainstream scientists is undue weight. In fact, it appears to be quite damning to the ICR to have so many scientists dispute their interpretations. ImprobabilityDrive 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. No_original_research


 * Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Some good points.  I think you should put them on the creation-evolution controversy talk page, especially the points about them commissioning research.  I was assuming that they were merely pointing to research.  My bad if they actually commissioned it.  (Actually, who ever wrote it should have chosen his or her words more carefully when s/he wrote "Creationists point to research indicating that" if what they should have written was "Creationists point to their own research indicating that..." or "Creationists point to research they commissioned" indicating that".  In this case, I think rather than undue weight, the sentence was just inaccurate or at least misleading.  But go ahead and put your points about them commissioning the research on the talk page, and revert me.  I'll bow out of the undue weight disucssion for tonight.  ImprobabilityDrive 05:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comments on my talk page, I will try to articulate my view here before I refine it for the creation-evolution talk page. But imagine, rather than the Creation-evolution controversy, an article on something you might be less emotionally attached to.  I don't mean this as an insult; I can see you have strong feelings about at least ICR.  Anyway, imagine some other controversy, say the abstinence-birth control controversy, this would be a sociopolitical article.  It is different than an article on birth control, and it is different than an article on abstinence.  It is an article about the controversy.


 * In such an article, we might try to find neutral commentators and observers of the controversy as sources. These would be the ideal secondary sources.  But perhaps that is not possible on many important aspects of the controversy, where important is evidenced by both sides of the controversy repeatedly contesting some aspect or other.  In such cases, we might have to rely on the points and counter points of the forbearance fundementalists, and points and counter points of sex education professionals.  I believe that the wikipedia policy states that while we can use these primary sources, we cannot take sides (in the article on the controversy).  We also have to be careful to identify the sources, not conduct original research, and so on and so forth.


 * An article on abstinence, on the other hand, is different. In this case, if the forbearance fundementalists "facts" are disputed by the more-highly-educated experts in sex education, undue weight arguments would prevent you from treating forbearance fundementalists assertions as facts.


 * But in the controversy article, the intent of the article is to describe the controversy, not resolve it.


 * Does this make sense?  Again, please read On using primary sources


 * The controversy article is a socio-political article. In such an article, there is a controversy.  It should be treated objectively.  Even if the mainstream concensus among educated professionals is that the forbearance fundementalists are dead wrong on almost every one of their contentions, the contentions of the forbearance fundementalists need to be described along side the contentions of the education professionals, without taking sides.  When primary sources are cited, what makes them primary is they are particpants in the controversy.  Consequently, the conflict of interest vis-a-vis the controversy should be disclosed in the prose.  This goes for forbearance fundementalists and education professional assertions alike.


 * I think this is what the goal of wikipedia founders would be on an artical about a socio-political controversy. ImprobabilityDrive 06:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I contend that by taking the side of the scientists in a socio-political article regarding a controversy involving scientists, it is POV--while taking the side of the scientists on a pseudo-scientific article is NPOV. Again, please read On using primary sources ImprobabilityDrive 07:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case you missed it, I undid your changes earlier, but after you justified them, I basically communicated to you to feel free to revert them. I don't want to do it because while I assume you know what your talking about regarding the ICR research, I do not.  ImprobabilityDrive 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV allegations
Hrafn42,

Regarding this deleting and your comments that "Original was GROSSLY POV & in violation of WP:Undue Weight, in that it ONLY voiced the pro-pseudoscience side. Have replaced it with the Intro to the main article", please be patient. Also, I do plan to go to the other article and fix some errors there. I am not sure if you have read the sources, but I would encourage you to do so before you decide that the presentation is unbalance. Also, you should not just delete my contributions and replace them with another article's contents which may or may not be POV in the other direction. This section needs work, but for you to simply replace it so soon with content from another page seems a bit much. Please work with me to find a NPOV presentation. I am reading the sources, and I hope you do too. By the way, it is not POV to quote Sternberg. He is a reliable source, too. If others disagree with assertion, simply include it. I tried to merge your additions with mine. AGF ImprobabilityDrive 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got your message. I also responded to the talk page of the article in question.  ImprobabilityDrive 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And I find it interesting that you have not cited a single opinion from the pro-Smithsonian side. Not one! How can this help but present a relentlessly pro-Sternberg section?


 * Can you show me where you have posted an opinion of something other than the evolution side? Please provide some diffs.  I'd like to emulate you on this.  Also, I am going through the sources.  I am characterizing them as I find them.  I don't have to read all sources before I contribute.  You seem to be only posting pro-smithsonian side.  But I'm not complaining, it is bringing balance.  Please AGF, and let's work together.  ImprobabilityDrive 09:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I added this: "However, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel had no jurisidction because Richard Sternberg's salary was not paid by the Smithsonian, and the investigation was concluded without a fuller response from the Smithsonian."  Is that not pro-smithsonian?  Let's just keep finding sources and present the information as we find it.  ImprobabilityDrive 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Patience please
Hrafn42, I responded to your concerns 05:20, 28 April 2007, but afterwards, you already removed the disputed sentences 05:24, 28 April 2007. Four minutes is hardly enough time to address your concerns. Please be patient and work with me. Again, this is a work in progress, and you really should not be removing cited sentences so quickly, IMHO. ImprobabilityDrive 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, how close are we from removing the POV tag? Do you think we're close yet?  ImprobabilityDrive 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not even close. You are presenting only the pro-Sternberg opinions, and stretching things to present these opinions in the most favourable possible light, while doing your best to minimise issues that would (quite legitimately) reduce the pro-Sternberg sources' credibility (by moving all reference to such to the bottom of the section). It is a blatantly pro-Creationist section.

Please assume good faith. I am trying to work with you. I am presenting information that is verifiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I have tried to address many of your concerns, and also worked to make the contributions match the verifiable sources. I understand that you have specialist knowledge that I do not have, but I am trying to characterize sources accurately. Also, that you think this is pro-Sternberg is interesting, I will continue to work to balance it. Other independant wikipedians have already said the article was biased, in a different direction, so I guess you can't please everybody. But hopefully you and I can work toward a section that meets wikipedia's objectives. ImprobabilityDrive 08:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Your behavior at Creation-evolution controversy has become disruptive and is totally unacceptable. Per discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents I am warning you that it needs to cease immediately. Should you fail to head this warning may be blocked from editing without further warning. I suggest you find a less controversial topic to contribute to for a while to let things cool down and focus on contributing in a more productive and less confrontational manner. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing the preceding warning. Looking deeper into the issue at that article I'm becoming less convinced that this isn't a simple content dispute, not a behavioral issue. FeloniousMonk 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have to bring up issues of WP:CIVIL. You need to tone down your language and assume good faith. I find your personally targeted behavior causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Some statements of concern, , ,. Continued statements like the ones presented will result in editor review. Morphh  (talk) 20:08, 01 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My so-called flawed logic was a matter of opinion, of which I of course disagree. As far as rtc, he does not fit the definition of a troll. He has been around for quite a while and while he may be persistent in debating his thoughts and can sometimes be uncivil himself, he was not deliberate and intentional in attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia.  He is working in good faith to make the article better.  Your better off not saying anything if he doesn't present anything worth debating.  You make direct personal attacks in bold with language that does not help the debate.  "Incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."  Your personally directed attacks create greater conflict and stress.  I don't mind the article disputes and tough debate but it really starts to change when editors seem to personally attack other editors in disrespectful ways.  But perhaps this is more "intellectual masturbation" and you'll tell me where to stick my warning.  Anyway... I'm just trying to help out and make a suggestion.  It makes little difference to me if you get blocked, in fact, it may make my efforts easier.. so have at it.  Morphh   (talk) 12:43, 02 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To your point on logic, I never expanded on an argument for the significant minority as I thought the entire point was irrelevant as all the primary proponents of ID are associated with DI and it would be a completely one sided article if DI was dismissed as POV not worth presenting. Since the article is devoted in many respects to those views of DI. This makes DI one of the more significant viewpoints to be present in this article. But back to the significant minority... Certain polls put the figure at 10% of adults in the United States view human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them".  Other polls show higher values.  This excludes the percentage of those that believe in some form of creation, which could increase these figures.  This, IMO, is a viewpoint held by a significant enough minority and it is easy to name prominent adherents to ID.  Maybe my logic is flawed but in my view you weren't just being blunt.  Being right or wrong has little to do with regard to my comments.  I didn't mean to create a dispute - I only meant to be helpful since you're new to Wikipedia.  I rarely interact with editors with such "bluntness" as you put it, so I felt I should comment.  Perhaps I was wrong to do so... ID is such a controversial article and disputes can sometimes become heated.  No hard feelings I hope.  Morphh   (talk) 22:04, 02 July 2007 (UTC)

AGF
Hi, it seems that you're finding your way around WP:A and WP:NPOV, but it would help greatly if you could assume good faith and work with other editors to get the points you consider important properly cited and shown in the articles in a balanced way. It's best to discuss content on the article talk page so that others can see both sides of the discussion and join in, rather than keeping the whole thing on user talk pages. Also, using bold or CAPITALS in discussions gives the impression of being a bit over-excited, and you'll find that communication works best if such emphasis is avoided as much as possible. Hope you find this helpful, .. dave souza, talk 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back to me on this, as you'll appreciate the "objective facts" we need for articles must be cited from reliable attributable sources, using secondary sources to avoid any unintentional original research when synthesising information from primary sources. While your concerns about bias are appreciated, be assured that these pages are well watched by many who will take care to ensure that the NPOV policy is fully complied with. .. dave souza, talk 11:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC
I have opened an RfC. Please leave your comments at Requests for comment/ImprobabilityDrive. Arbustoo 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Signs
Please realize that deletion debates are not decided by vote count, but by strength of argument and underlying policies/guidelines (e.g. WP:OCAT). Wikipedia is not a democracy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no, they weren't rebutted. The document is arguably defined by who signs it, but the people who signed it are not defined by said document. Surely you don't think it's a valid argument to say that policies that have not explicitly been referred to don't apply?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not Kbdank. If Kbdank says something you disagree with, take it up with him.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with our policies on civility and against personal attacks, and do not come to my talk page to wildly accuse other users that disagree with you of incompetence.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "anybody capable of making such a ludicrously baseless claim is in no way competent" is a personal attack. Don't tell me you're unaware of that. Furthermore, there was indeed a consensus in the deletion debate (as I've pointed out before, you're mistaking "consensus" for "headcount") and that the deletion was backed by the relevant policies and guidelines.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have run out of valid arguments and start using ad hominems instead. These are considered fallacious for good reason. "I disagree with you therefore you are incompetent" is not conductive to discussion.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD review
I'd hold off on filing a review until FM responds to my request to restore the category based on it being a bogus deletion. Odd nature 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FM said file a CFD review. Odd nature 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Be sure to read and follow WP:AADD or Radiant! and his gang will simply discount your comments. Even though its just a bs essay, they seem to think it trumps Guide_to_deletion which says "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action." and Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators which says nothing about discounting comments made in good faith. Odd nature 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Maybe you should check this out Suspected sock puppets/Raspor (2nd). Orangemarlin 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" DRV
I suggest you not respond to every endorsement of deletion at the DRV and try to remain calm and civil. Continued argumentation of that sort will if anything make more people likely to endorse deletion in reaction. JoshuaZ 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note More wild accusations from User:Radiant!
Personal attacks, like you have been making to Kbdank, are not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you persist in such behavior, you will be blocked from editing. Please be more civil in the future.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that Kbdank has recently indulged in taunting directed at me (edit summary to : "Got anything else, or shall we just wait for FeloniousMonk to reply, if he wants?") and specifically invited me to continue a discussion, where I was already pointing out his shortcomings in logic, on his talk page (: "Regardless, I won't bother FeloniousMonk any further. If you wish to continue this, you know where to find my talk page."), I fail to see how two short posts to his talkpage, pointing out the deficiencies of his arguments and comments can be considered a "personal attack" within the scope of WP:NPA, by any stretch of the imagination.


 * I would also point out that Radiant! is the last person who should be lecturing others on civility, having recently made wild and unfounded accusations against me ( "PLEASE NOTE that the nominator has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to influence and "vote stack" this debate." with an edit summary of "that was predictable").


 * I would suggest that any administrators acting on accusations from either of these two individuals investigate the matter thoroughly first. Hrafn42 10:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Absurdly enough, Radiant! appears to consider simply complaining about one of their own personal attacks to be a personal attack against them (, whose edit summary is "WP:RPA").


 * I'm also curious as to why I received this spurious warning more than three days after I last had contact with Kbdank. If I was paranoid, I might ascribe this to an attempt at intimidation, rather than a legitimate attempt to modify my interactions with Kbdank. Hrafn42 11:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been blocked for persistent personal attacks and incivility after being warned. Comments such as "if your comprehension skills aren't up to seeing a rough equivalence" and references to "character assassination" are entirely uncalled for. Furthermore, your response above indicates you apprently find such attacks acceptable if you believe "other people are doing it too", which is really not an excuse.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that a reference to "character assassination" was a perfectly reasonable response to an unfounded accusation of canvassing. Hrafn42 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also think that "if your comprehension skills aren't up to seeing a rough equivalence" is an entirely appropriate response to a reply that exhibited wilful mis-comprehension of one's original argument. Hrafn42 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that Radiant!'s: ...is bordering on harassment (WP:HARRASS). Hrafn42 12:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * unfounded accusation of canvassing; combined with
 * a very tardy warning on very thin grounds; and
 * a statement that they were going to ban block me (they don't appear to have as yet) simply for offering a defence here against the accusation of violating WP:NPA and leaving a relatively mild comment on the talkpage of a third party (with whom I had previously discussed this matter)...
 * A block is not a ban. The point is that if you are warned about personal attacks, it is not a good sign to respond by making more personal attacks. What you call a "perfectly reasonable" and "entirely appropriate" response above really isn't - e.g. referring to "character assassination" is not a "relatively mild" comment. Finally, "somebody else is doing it too" is not an excuse for anything.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would assert that "character assassination" is a "relatively mild" characterisation of behaviour that included AN UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION OF CANVASSING.
 * I would also suggest that your obsessive interest in how I describe your behaviour on the talkpages of (non-complaining) third parties borders on cyber-stalking.
 * Hrafn42 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would advise against using legal terms in accusations, unless (which I doubt) you seriously intend legislative action. Just a thought.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None of my terminology above is exclusive to the legal profession, merely to fairly formal English.
 * Nothing I said even comes close to a threat of legal action ("legislative action" is passing a law).
 * This therefore strikes me as another wild (and in this case garbled) accusation, that does nothing to raise my opinion of you.
 * Hrafn42 13:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're bored with the Creationist wars
Can you help me out with a whole other series of anti-science articles, starting with List of medicinal herbs. These people are just like the Creationists--if there's no science, rely on faith or spiritual powers. Edit war in an attempt to wear you down. And then attack hard with unsupported claims. Orangemarlin 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Radiant's block
{{unblock reviewed|1=Radiant! has conducted a campaign of harrassment against me, starting with an unfounded accusation of canvassing, several days ago[12], and then a warning that was both tardy (it was made three days after contact had ceased} and thinly-based, then blocking me for placing information on my talkpage (User_talk:Hrafn42#Note_More_wild_accusations_from_User:Radiant.21) defending myself and commenting on the renewed conflict to another user on their talkpage[13]. Radiant! has made a further unfounded accusation that I threatened them with legal action (typoed to "legislative action")[14]. I feel that this ongoing pattern of actions constitutes harassment within WP:HARRASS|decline=This does not address the reason for your block, which is your incivility and personal attacks. That someone else may (possibly) have been doing the same to you does not excuse you. — Yamla 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}}

The reason given for this decision would appear to be that provocation is irrelevant in deciding incivility, and that it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to make gross personal attacks against an editor and then block that editor when they respond in their defence. This is not "somebody else...doing the same", this is both the accuser and the supposed victim doing it first. I do not agree with this reasoning, even if I must perforce live with the resultant decision. Hrafn42 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a ridiculous block. But relax, and let it pass. If what you did is uncivil, I have no clue why the personal attacks in the same discussion by certain others who were diametrically opposed to your view were allowed to attack away. Orangemarlin 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that I've got little choice but to "let it pass", but I'll be damned if I'll let it pass unnoticed. Hrafn42 16:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Gnixon
Since you have been subject to some of this editors civility issues, you might want to comment. Orangemarlin 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon
Oddly enough, as far as I can tell, Gnixon is just about the only Creationist POV-pusher who I haven't clashed with (at least I can't remember any clashes, and none come up on a quick search). I dare say Gnixon is just as charming as the rest of that breed, but I don't have anything specific to bring to the RfC. Thanks for the tip though. :) Hrafn42 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know that's actually enough. The RfC isn't just about any personal battles, but it also has to do with POV-pushing.  Orangemarlin 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An experiment on summarizing support and dissent information
Can be found in my sandbox page at User talk:Filll/supportsummary2. Any comments you might have would be welcome.--Filll 13:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

d'Abrera
I wrote to the Natural History Museum and they had no record of him and were contacting the archive department I guess to see what they know. Hmm...interesting...We will see what they turn up.--Filll 16:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

email address
Set up your email address here. I have something for you.--Filll 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rosalind Picard
While I appreciate your concerns expressed on Talk:Rosalind Picard, using a WP:VAND template for a difference of opinion seems unjustified to me so I've removed it from the relevant user talk page. Although in my opinion there's a good case for explaining the anti-evolution context and the question mark over whether people were signing up to the anti-Darwinism heading as presented, all that's basically covered by the very title of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, so it's not a big deal to discuss it a bit more before imposing one version or another. . dave souza, talk 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, please lay out for me the "good case" for explaining the anti-evolution context. As near as I can tell, the adjective "anti-evolution" appears only in the headline (but not in the text) of Chang's story).  Nor does it appear on the website that the story is about.  Is the NY Times headline Wikipedia's sole source for adopting the view that the petition is accurately characterized as "anti-evolution"?  Moulton 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm being a real ass on Rosalind Picard, but I'm trying maintain the same standard for pro-evolution as I would creationist propoganda. It's difficult to enforce things like WP:NOR WP:V and WP:UNDUE with them if our side is given free reign.

I understand what is trying to be said, that Picard has no business talking about evo-bio - but you can't use unreferenced statements to establish that. Noone seems interested in actually finding such references. Which really precludes the inclusion of the commentary.

The statement I deleted said computer science has nothing to do with evo-bio. It has something, not a lot, but something to do with it, so I quickly deleted it as patently false. If it was referring to Puicard's special subfields, I'd also suggest that it is still patently false to say that her subfield has absolutely nothing to do with evo-bio ever.

If it is about Picard's own research, training and expertise - which would make the Brayton quote relevant, it would be prudent to find a source to show she has absolutely nothing to do with evo-bio. If you can't find an appropriate reference which establishes Picard has nothing to do with evo-bio; then Wikipedia can't really say so per WP:V and WP:NOR. That also means that the WP:SYNTH of using "her field is unrelated" as the same as "no training or expertise" is on even more shakier ground.--ZayZayEM 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrafn42 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Your demand "to find a source to show she has absolutely nothing to do with evo-bio" is ridiculously unrealistic. It is a far higher burden of proof than Brayton himself considered necessary to make his comments about Bradfield and Egnor.
 * 2) Your original claim that there is any indication that CS & Evo Bio are related is every bit as WP:SYNTH as my (far stronger) counter-argument that it isn't.


 * It 's an unrealistic demand, because it is an unrealistic statement. Please look at List of academic disciplines "Fields of study usually have several sub-disciplines or branches, and the distinguishing lines between these are often both arbitrary and ambiguous." None of your lists of scientific fields say anything about the relatedness of the fields with each other, just that they are recognised as fields. A web diagram like this might show more about how inter-disciplinary science is quite active This one is better


 * The fields of CS & Evo Bio are far too widely separated in the hierarchy for any "arbitrariness" or "ambiguity" in boundaries to make the slightest bit of difference. That argument is completely specious and without merit. The first diagram you cite is worthless, mere PR puffery. Your second diagram establishes no direct relationship between CS & Biology (let alone Evo Bio). Hrafn42 05:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is POV to say an indirect relationship is the same as no relationship. Again, I am being pedantic, but because it's necessary. If you want to say A→B→C→D, say it, not just A→D.


 * And its a totally different matter of WP:SYNTH that claiming the fields are unrelated makes Brayton's comments relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument that they are related is both (1) a matter of synthesis in that you take (A) that Bioinfometrics is (tenuously) related to Evo Devo & (B) that Bioinfometrics is an interdisciplinary field involving computer science and synthesise the conclusion (C) that CS & Evo Bio are related and (2) wrong as a matter of logic (C cannot be drawn as a conclusion from A & B). Hrafn42 05:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not unreasonable synthesis to say a field that relies on applied computer science is at least somewhat related to it. It is unreasonable synthesis to say that because they are listed in seperate categories of science (bearing in mind science is not a bunch of boxes) that they are unequivocably unrelated. I am not asking for the inclusion of a statement saying "Picard's field of computer science is tentatatively related to evolutionary biology, this makes her an acceptable critic", that would be just as stupid and unfounded, and probably even less true than the former - I am saying the issue should just be left alone as we just don't have the sources.--ZayZayEM 06:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is completely unreasonable! By this spurious and vacuous logic, every subject from Anthropology to Biblical Scholarship are related to computer science, as an enormous range of subjects make use of computers and computerised tools in their studies. Hrafn42 08:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But they are related. that's why its so unreasonable to say they unequivocably aren't. It would be okay to say "Computer science is not closely related to evolutionary biology"; but then it sort of makes the following comments pointless. That's why the section was deleted as contentious OR.--ZayZayEM 09:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Taht's not what I'm talking about. Saying "CS is unrelated to evo-bio" does not equate with all CS researchers are have "no training or expertise" in evo-bio. I am a multi-discipline biomedical scientist; but I also have training and (to various degrees) expertise in Japanese language, multimedia systems, sociology and children's education.--ZayZayEM 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please also read BLP policy on blogs as sources--ZayZayEM 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I appreciate that WP:NOR is a tough standard, but it's not unique to this article and has been equally rigourously applied to another BLP which sticks in my memory. That, as it happens, was a creationist, but it was difficult to say so without a RS saying that he was. His own website described some of his writings as creation science, but without a source saying that he personally was promoting pseudoscience, that word had to be left out. Showing that the NAS described "creation science" as "pseudoscience" didn't cut it, and annoying as it was, I had to accept that this was original research, putting two facts together to get a new opinion on the guy. Also, in my opinion it's probably impossible to say, without a very good source making a direct assertion, whether or not she has any relevant expertise. The fact that she's specifically mentioned in the NYT article is notable, as are her contributions to "computer science", but the bit in question is unnecessary icing on the cake. .. dave souza, talk 10:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, as long as the rule is applied even-handedly. The article is chock full of puffery and peacock words that come from sources not-independent of the subject. If we are applying WP:BLP harshly then they must go also. Under such a restrictive interpretation, I rather doubt if there'll be much of an article left on such a minor figure. Hrafn42 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As I noted in the talk, there are secondary sources about her work, and I agree that the bio should be free of puffery and weasel words. .. dave souza, talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but is there enough substantive content not directly related to the subject of affective computing to withstand a merger-proposal with that article? As far as I can see, there's little if anything, apart from her signing of the 'Dissent', for which an argument couldn't be made that it'd be more appropriately placed in an article about the subject, not the person. Hrafn42 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is her role in MIT, as well as her status as a notable signatory of Dissent. These details would be innapropriate on the affective computing page.--ZayZayEM 03:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Puffery and peacock words - I'll wholeheartedly support any motion to remove such unencyclopedic stuff from the article.--ZayZayEM 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eg "Picard is a pioneering researcher in the field of affective computing" the source uses no such adjective.--ZayZayEM 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Using OR in an argument
Synthesising an argument on a talk page is completely fine. I really don't see how else discussion can take place if we imposed wikipedia's strict restrictions on attribution to discussions.

What matters is that OR cannot be included in an actual article. The reference notes used in "unrealted field" section are pretty much textbook WP:SYNTH. They point one point by asking the reader to examine a source and reach the same conclusion as the author (that the fields are unrelated), they then point at an action, point to textbook description of what something is (appeal to authority) and then reach a conclusion using the supplied criteria (if we agree the fields are unrelated, and using this definition of appeal to authority, Picard/DI appears to be attempting to make one and failing). That is how it reads. No matter how reasonable the conclusions are (the join-the-dots is readily apparent), they cannot be included in wikipedia on this article until a RS uses them in relation to Rosalind Picard. Wikiepdia isn't about establishing ideas, its about reporting ideas already established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget I said anything
Can we just forget any discussion on the pedantic nature of my comments on field relatedness. It is not the focus of my complaints. It's more of a problem regarding perception of things anyway. If the commentary is accepted, I would prefer wording like "Picard's own fields of research have no clear links to evolutionary biology", rather than a blanket statement irrecoverably cutting computer science (or even affective computing) off from evo-bio. But I'm not going to push too strongly for it.--ZayZayEM 05:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After you repeatedly deleted this sentence? No we bloody well can't forget it! And it is a little late to decide not to be a WP:DIK. You've been one from word go, to the extent that you have now engendered in me a subconscious urge to reflexively disagree with you, which I have to consciously control so as not to make a dick of myself by disagreeing with something that, in more temperate moments, I would agree with. Hrafn42 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While it shouldn't be extended to bring in arguments or sources that don't refer directly to Picard, as I've noted at Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism the NYT article makes the specific point that she ain't a biologist. ... dave souza, talk 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that. A sentence that attributes NYT as calling her a non-biologist would be good. And I think that is sufficient context to say that affective computer "has no direct relationship" with evo-bio.--ZayZayEM 16:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my comments here
Sorry to give you the impression I was acquiescing to Moulton here

The reason why I just said "Thx" without elaboration was to try and remove some of the hostility on the page, and not get bogged down in further trolling. I did not mean I was automatically satisfied with Moulton's reference and claims. I was just happy we had a source to examine and verify in our own sweet time.

I didn't really see anything productive coming from saying "well, we'll just see about what that source really says", or comments about WP:SELFPUB.

I agree totally with your assessment of the source. Without a third party source explicitly saying "Picard is the founder of affective computing" we can't claim that. I think it may be sufficient to allow the "pioneering researcher" claim though.--ZayZayEM 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One more
Started a Glenn Branch article as well, but I don't have much info about him. A lot of the other people with redlinks on the NCSE page probably aren't notable enough to write articles on (though by no means all of them). It's a shame we can't do like they do in movies and create a "Minor characters in [whatever movie/book]" article... Guettarda 14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good! Given that Category:Anti-creationism‎ seems likely to survive its CfD, I'd dearly like to be in a position to dump a hundred articles into it, to show the shear breadth of opposition to creationism. Or 101. On the 'minor characters' issue, why not spin off a "NCSE staff" article (or a "List of NCSE staff members" article), with more information on each of the staff. This would seem to be perfectly legitimate. Hrafn42 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Legitimate, perhaps, but it really isn't an issue unless the NCSE article approaches FA. No, I was thinking about a "List of minor players in the culture wars".  Come to think of it, "List of participants in the Kitzmiller trial" might make an interesting article (yeah, what can I say, I'm a maker of lists :)  Guettarda 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "List of participants in the Kitzmiller trial" is mostly already covered by the list of witnesses already in its article. Hrafn42 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True (hadn't realised that), but a good list is annotated, says something about the person their relationship to the issue. Guettarda 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'd welcome further annotation in the article. Several of the expert witnesses still lack it, and even the other witnesses could do with a brief mention of their connection to the case & their profession, at the very least. Hrafn42 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be great if someone could tackle Kitzmiller and find a good secondary source summary to fill in the blank at "Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense." Probably the most crushingly unsuccessful defense of the whole affair, and not a word about it. ... dave souza, talk 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, shouldn't be a problem - I'm sure that Humes says something to that effect in Monkey Girl. I'll have a look.  Guettarda 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Crank That Made The Revolution
Is the title of a short story published in Alasdair Gray's Unlikely Stories, Mostly, about the inventor of the remarkably unsuccessful duck-powered paddleboat. The book came out with the erratum slip "ERRATUM: This slip has been inserted by mistake". Which I've lost, but it's a bit like your user page. By the way, our troll looks well cooked by now, best not to feed it any more. WP:DE indicates that ANI is the next step. ... dave souza, talk 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ChristiaNet poll
Hrafn42, if you're going to delete an edit, please have the courtesy to give an actual explanation of why on the talk page. Thanks. --profg 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP
Damn, you beat me to the revert by a nanosecond. :) 10:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Check this out...  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments at intelligent design
I can't see any way that your comments about my participation on that talk page are moving things forward. In particular, you said "I would therefore like to suggest that we concentrate on preparation of these paragraphs and ignore (and if necessary censure) Carl's continued repetition of ephemera." If you know of a reason to censure me, please contact me on my talk page and I will be glad discuss it. Otherwise, please don't make claims that my behavior is somehow inappropriate. Such comments won't move the conversation forward or help to restore the images to the article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And I can't see any way in which your harping on about the same unconvincing (and on occasion obviously fallacious) arguments, in a stridently self-righteous tone is doing any good whatsoever. We know that you want us all to bow down before you and your fellow image-deletion stormtroopers and your infallible understanding of of Wikipedia copyright rules. You told us this several cycles of the debate ago. Repeating your position ad nauseam just sets our backs up further. As far as brokering any way out of this impasse your sermonising is "as useful as tits on a bull". So unless you have some useful and NEW suggestions to make, I would request that you leave us in peace. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 14:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be glad if everyone could stop discussing whether the images' previous use violated policy, and look for a way to move forward to something that everyone can agree is acceptable. Adding critical commentary about the books to the article would be one way to do that. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

suggested article
Would you be interested in doing an article on Robert J. Marks II? --I can e-mail you a copy of the relevant CHE articles. 16:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that he deserves an article of his own. From what I've read to date, he seems to have been more Dembski's stalking horse than an actor in his own right, throughout the EIL affair. And apart from this one incident, he seems to have done little to have made himself notable. The full CHE articles would however be useful in determining if Marks was a significant player in his own right, so I'd welcome them. Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary on Darwin's Black Box
I responded on my page. ... Kenosis 04:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down at Rosalind Picard
Please try not to create imaginary battles. I am not attacking you, and I made no such accusation of WP:DISRUPT. I merely pointed to a policy that we could all use a little reminding of. Such as WP:COOL

I don't really appreciate my actions being mischaracterised in such a way. Changing talk headings is not a major issue when they don't accurately portray content, or mischaracterise a situation. I am trying to prevent this from escalating into another giant drama parade, but I don't know if I have the self control.

Moulton, despite being a clearly disruptive editor, has made some very sobering and accurate comments about the editing style of yourself and other wikipedians. These should not be ignored. The observations have been reiterated by independent parties in the relevant RFC on Moulton.

I recommend you do not blow over these comments about your behaviour just because Moulton was banned.--ZayZayEM 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and try and keep vandalism templates for vandalism. this quite clearly was deliberate with non-vandal intentions (whether appropriate or not). It's just confusing, and really doesn't make any point.--ZayZayEM 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being a WP:DIK on Rosalind Picard
ZayZayEM: Hrafn 42 TalkStalk 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Stop nitpicking. Citing a WP-policy in a revert edit summary has the clear implication that you are reverting for violation of that policy, and is thus an accusation of violation of that policy.
 * 2) You were so desperately concerned by this imaginary "mischaracterisation" that you responded in the section, but didn't bother to change its title until 10 hours later.
 * 3) Changing title headings, without agreement, is hardly routine. If you don't like the heading that I put to my comments then you are welcome to start your own section with your own heading. Changing the heading for my comments is altering their context, and thus misrepresenting them.
 * 4) You give no impression of "trying to prevent this from escalating into another giant drama parade" -- in fact you give every impression of doing everything in your power to provoke one.
 * 5) I have no intention of raking through Moulton's ravings to see what "very sobering and accurate comments" you think are there. He is not somebody I would go to for lessons in etiquette -- but then neither are you.
 * 6) The template was for people who "delete or edit legitimate talk page comments" -- which is relevant for somebody who is compulsively editing section-titles (you are the only person other than Moulton who I've seen doing this). For my part, I find it "confusing" trying to follow a thread on a talkpage, when somebody insists on changing the section titles.

Action-Network Theory
I'm not sure the link on that page should have been removed. That link may make sense. JoshuaZ 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I rather doubt if anything in ISCID's short article would "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." HrafnTalkStalk 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case the article is actually a response by one of the major proponents of Action-Network Theory to one of his critics rather than one of their normal junk pieces. JoshuaZ 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Editor(s): Greg Sandstrom"? I don't see him mentioned in Actor-network theory at all. HrafnTalkStalk 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, for some reason I got the ISCID link and the link right below it confused. JoshuaZ 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problemo. I've made sillier errors of comprehension in my time. :) HrafnTalkStalk 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

importance
In general, articles are placed into "Top" importance if they are referenced as "see also" in the main article, as they are, as it were, the effective "second" articles on the subject that someone looking for information would see. All those articles which I had marked as "Top" are referenced in such a way in the main Intelligent design article. I do note that the project at present doesn't have the same phrasing for determining assessments as some of the other projects. I've noted in the past that WikiProject Germany has among the most easily understood ways of determining assessment in their importance scale, and basically follow its guidelines even for other projects, at least in regard to the main sub-articles of the main article itself. I was actually thinking of trying to adjust those ratings to fit more easily for the id project, but am having some trouble with phrasing it. If, of course, you believe that the articles do not deserve such priority, feel free to adjust them. I make mistakes more often than I really like to admit. John Carter 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about the differences in scope of project. However, the main point, that these are the articles that, as it were, one is "sent to" from the main id article still holds. Whether these particular articles should be referred to from the main page is another matter entirely, and whether other articles should be added is yet another question. But in terms of basic logic, I think it makes most sense that those articles which you are directly lead to from the main article are probably the articles which should have more attention after the main one. Of course, like I said before, feel free to make any changes you see fit

On an unrelated point, considering that my proposal to expand the scope of the project to the broader Category:Creationism on the project talk page has still gone unanswered, it looks like I might be altering the scope of the inactive WikiProject Origin of life and related debates to deal with that broader category, probably in the next day or so. Just letting you know that there might be another project in basically the same field devloping shortly. John Carter 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight??
I await your explanation in creation science talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMSPhydeaux (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edit here. I did nothing to change the meaning of anything (in fact, I made it more WP:NPOV), yet you reversed me for WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Please explain. Thanks! --profg Talk 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "internet author" is POV, unnecessarily quoting the anti-science rantings of a crank like Gentry, is clearly giving his viewpoint undue weight. HrafnTalkStalk 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I only quoted Gentry to qualify what had already been referenced in the article. I didn't add the reference, and "internet author" is also merely a paraphrase of what had already been referenced. Why, then, revert me? --profg Talk 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Why, then, revert me?" -- Eli Eli lema sabachthani? Please, we really need the wood, climb on down. Your edit was crap, that's why it was reverted.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response, Jim. Hrafn, do you have a more suitable one? Thanks. --profg Talk 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Profg, I don't find your rationale for including a lengthy & inflammatory quote from Gentry to be credible, and whether it is a paraphrase or not, "internet author" is POV. I have answered you twice now. Any further questions on this edit on my talkpage will be regarded as WP:DE and summarily deleted. HrafnTalkStalk 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Granite
"No substantiation for *all* granite having these" The statement,  "Robert V. Gentry proposed that polonium haloes in certain granites represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually,"  sounds like we are saying that  "Robert V. Gentry proposed that only polonium haloes in certain granites represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually." That is the reason why I changed it. Saying that "Robert V. Gentry proposed that polonium haloes in granite represented evidence for the Earth being created instantaneously rather than gradually" does not necessarily mean that all granite have polonium halos. Just like saying that uranium in granite shows the earth is 4.5 billion years old does not mean it is found is all granite, but saying uranium in certain granite shows the earth is 4.5 billion years old sounds like only some uranium shows the earth is 4.5 billion. While this is true in the case of uranium it isn't true with polonium halos.EMSPhydeaux 13:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all granites have radiohalos, therefore only certain granites have radiohalos. HrafnTalkStalk 14:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design
I'm out of here for tonight. Do have a good day there in the "land down under". And thanks for your efforts. ... Kenosis 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind
There is now a Request for Mediation active at Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind. Hrafn, you seem to have been omitted from the list of interested parties. --Robert Stevens 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because I've only recently ventured an opinion on the neutrality issue. Does it serve any purpose to insert myself into it? HrafnTalkStalk 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy for you to weigh-in with your opinion. It was completely and oversight on my part, leaving you off.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

unequivocal
Moved to User talk:4theChildren -- any further comments here will be summarily deleted. HrafnTalkStalk 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you note this, arguing just now is rather a waste of time and effort. Gotta get some food organised myself, back soon ;) .. dave souza, talk 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Biopsychiatry
Hello. I noticed this edit. It might be worth noting that the article was created as a result of Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. The consensus at the time appeared to be that is was a good compromise, and not a content fork. Consensus can change, of course, (as can the neutrality of the article) but you might wish to tread carefully here, as the last POV tagging regarding this issue ended up in a shit-storm. I have no axe to grind either way, but I just wanted to give you notice of the long and acrimonious history of POV this content, lest the anti-psychiatry mob swoop on you unprepared. Rockpock e  t  05:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These articles came to my attention because an anti-psychiatry POV-warrior was attempting to use them as a basis for POV edits on Pseudoscience. Biopsychiatry controversy is POV-fork, in that it gives only the minority anti-Biological Psychiatry viewpoint. While allowing this to happen may be beneficial for Biological psychiatry‎, it is not good for wikipedia as a whole, in that it allows a blatantly POV article to continue to exist, and now for it to be used as a basis for POV-pushing elsewhere in wikipedia. HrafnTalkStalk 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking the archives, I found this: "Properly written, an anti-biological psychiatry article is no more a POV fork than having both evolution articles and creation-evolution controversy articles, or both abortion and abortion debate articles." -- the problem is that the article is not "properly written", so is a POV-fork. HrafnTalkStalk 06:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that similar arguments formed the basis of that RfAr, it might be worth reviewing the discussion there. This article used to be the criticism section of the main article, but was spun out as a result of that case. I offer no opinion on the quality or neutrality of the text, but the existence of a controversy article is/was not meant as a POV fork and thus should probably continue exist (in a suitably worded form, of course). Rockpock  e  t  06:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And all I'm saying is that letting POV-warriors have their own articles creates more problems than it eliminates -- and as it has now allowed the problem to spread beyond Biological psychiatry, you can expect increased outside scrutiny on the matter. I also note that, in spite of your repeated references to it, the RfAr yielded no sanction of this POV-fork. HrafnTalkStalk 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom rarely rules on content and prefers to defer to consensus (as they note in accepted finding of fact 6). The consensus among pretty much all involved was that an article on the controversy was acceptable if neutrally worded. There are POV-warriors on all types of valid articles, the problem is with the warriors, not the articles. I welcome scrutiny on the matter, but if you believe the very existence of article of that title is a POV-fork, you should nominate it for deletion and have the debate there. Discussing it at Talk:Pseudoscience isn't going to change that. If you concern is how the article is written, then suggest improvements on its talkpage and I'm sure someone will be along presently to discuss it with you. Rockpock  e  t  07:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What possible reason did you have to believe that the article would be "neutrally worded", given that its creation was an explicit compromise with a POV-warrior on the topic? Is "the very existence of article of that title" reason to believe it to be a POV-fork? No. Is "the very existence of article of that title", created, and by and large maintained, by a known POV-warrior on the topic, reason to believe it to be a POV-fork? Most certainly. Having only just become aware of the article, I'm not going to AfD immediately (as such precipitate actions tend to lead to inconclusive results), but I don't really see a viable alternative given the level of ubiquitous and pervasive bias displayed in it. HrafnTalkStalk 07:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your pernicious labeling of another editor as a "POV warrior", when you have "just become aware of the article" is astonishing in its lack in good faith. A brief review of your talk page suggests this isn't the first time other editors have noted this either. I suggest you judge and article on its content, not an inferred motive of its creator, especially as you appear to have no experience of the editor in question. The gentleman who contributed to this article has a strong, self proclaimed opinion on the subject, but is also a writer and academic, and - after some guidance on our policies - has shown himself eminently capable of writing neutrally. I say this as someone who has had serious issues with his POV in the past, and have spent a great deal of time working with him. I look forward to the AfD discussion. Rockpock  e  t  07:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket: I was merely assuming good faith and taking you at your word, that this situation was the result of a "long and acrimonious history of POV" of such magnitude that it resulted in an RfAr. This is more than enough substantiation for the strong suspicion that Cesar Tort is a POV-warrior. HrafnTalkStalk 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That was quite some time ago. So I would say that its enough for the strong suspicion that Cesar Tort was a POV-warrior. People learn from their mistakes, and I don't believe Cesar's intention was to promote his POV with this particular article. Anyway, there is little point arguing over his motivation - the article should stand by itself. I, personally, don't have major issues with it as it is (though there are a few minor things). You clearly do. There is nothing wrong with such differing opinions, and wider discussion would help resolve it. Rockpock  e  t  17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And on top of this I have Biopsychiatry controversy itself, which Cesar Tort is the creator & main contributor of, which gives only the anti-psychiatry POV of the controversy. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Could it be .... a duck? HrafnTalkStalk 17:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow that reasoning. Of course the article focuses on the the Anti-psychiatry view of the controversy, as it is only that view that considers it controversial. That is what the article is about. An article about intelligent design is not POV because it doesn't describe evolution. There is an important distinction between describing a POV and demonstrating one. You are also incorrect to assert that that it only gives the anti POV. For example, I personally wrote and sourced some sections such as:
 * According to biopsychiatry, genetic and environmental factors both appear to be of vital importance in determining mental state and therefore certain genetic factors can predispose people to particular mental illnesses. To date — and in contrast to diseases affecting almost every other human organ but the brain — only a few genetic lesions have been proposed to be mechanistically responsible for psychiatric conditions, though there are reports of significant associations between specific genomic regions and psychiatric disorders. The reasons offered for the relative lack of genetic understanding is because the links between genes and mental states defined as abnormal appear highly complex, involve extensive environmental influences and can be mediated in numerous different ways, for example by personality, temperament or life events. Therefore while twin studies and other research suggests that personality is heritable to some extent, the genetic basis for particular personality or temperament traits, and their links to mental health problems, is currently unclear}}


 * This is clearly not an anti- POV and instead states the alternative, mainstream view of the (so-called) controversy. Perhaps there could be more about the maintream opinion of biopsychiatry, but that is mostly stated in the main article (as noted at the top of the page). Rockpock  e  t  19:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The piece you cite is a remarkably palid and equivocal defense of conventional Biological Psychiatry, as well as being very short and hidden at the bottom of the article -- which is probably why it didn't previously register as a defense at all. Read WP:UNDUE: "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." This article clearly gives undue weight to the anti-psychiatry side of the "controversy" (which is definitely a "minority" and may even be a "tiny minority" view, yet gets the vast majority of coverage). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

{indent) Again, I feel you are missing the point. That argument is cogent to when this information was in the biopsychiatry article, however when the subject of the article is the controversy, then the its both proper and appropriate the controversy be discussed. If that is a minority view, so be it. The important issue is whether the controversy itself is significant enough to be notable. If it is, then describing the minority view that it is a controversy is not WP:UNDUE, as long as it is made clear that it is a minority belief. That section is not written as a "defense" - you appear to be confusing description with promotion. It is a neutrally written description of what the majority believe. It is not "hidden at the bottom of the article", it is in the middle in the appropriate section on genetic factors, and it is not "very short" - it is actually slightly longer that the following paragraph that discusses the alternative, minority view. There is a similar description of the majority view in the section about biochemistry, incidentally, perhaps that didn't register either?

You appear more interested in debating this with me than doing something about it. I'm sure you are not going to change your mind (I wouldn't want you to), and I have discussed this issue for long enough at the RfAR with a significant number of experienced editors to be comfortable with my interpretation. If you want the article deleted, we have a mechanism for that, if you think they should be merged, there is a mechanism for that too. If you believe there should be more about biopsychiatry in the article then please source and add it. If you think the current sourced content can be re-worded more neutrally, then have a go doing so. Thats your options, when you choose what you want to do, I'll be happy to take part. Until then, I don't think there is much to be gained by continuing to discuss this. Rockpock e  t  06:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It is you who is missing the point. A controversy has two (or more) viewpoints. This article is only giving significant coverage of one of these viewpoints, the minority viewpoint. Therefore it is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. I'm sorry if I misspoke slightly and said "defense" instead of "description of the defense", but the point still remains -- that this article's coverage is grossly weighted towards the minority viewpoint, and is thus not NPOV.
 * I would also note that you were the one who elected to bring this "debate" to my talkpage. This POV-fork of an article was not discussed on the RfAr -- that claim is completely fallacious. As I have little knowledge of biopsychiatry, I will not attempt to edit it. However I am sufficiently widely read to know a militantly POV article when I read one, even outside my areas of expertise. This being so, I have tagged the article for attention by somebody with both a better understanding of wikipedia policy than you have exhibited and a better understanding of the subject matter than I possess. Good day to you. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 08:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, some appears to have conveniently escaped your attention: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Proposed decision Ironically enough, I spent most of the ArbCom concurring with your position, however I was convinced that the article was sufficiently different to exist by itself. What you appear to be really concerned about is not the neutrality of the content that is there, but the lack of content that you think should be there, but isn't. The best solution to that is to add that content. If you are not willing to do so, then why should anyone else? Its easy to go around declaring problems with articles, less easy to work towards solving them. I brought the discussion to your page because I thought you had an interest in improving the page, and that RfAr would have helped inform the background. However, if all you are interested in doing is tagging and moving on, then there was little point or purpose. Goody day to you too. Rockpock  e  t  16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I missed this subpage -- I am not in the habit of reading every subpage of a RfAr that I am not myself involved in. If you wished me to take notice of it, you should have drawn it to my attention earlier. My concern is that the article is completely and blatantly unbalanced. Why should anybody else add content? If they're happy with a biased article with a perpetual POV-tag on the article, then they would have no reason at all. A better question might be why should I spend a significant amount of time researching a topic that I have neither background in, nor strong interest in, simply to remedy your flawed compromise? As with any problematic article outside my area of expertise, I tag it, watch-list it and move on. I cannot remedy every flaw in wikipedia -- so I concentrate on the ones I can remedy efficiently, and tag the rest for somebody better qualified's attention. Your original message bears no resemblance to your claim that "I brought the discussion to your page because I thought you had an interest in improving the page, and that RfAr would have helped inform the background." It far more closely resembles a warning than an invitation. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I considered it "completely and blatantly unbalanced" I would take action myself, as I did during the original RfAr. The fact that I have not should suggest you that I don't consider it as such. If you find it so, then you should do something about it. If you don't what will happen is the template will be removed before too long, as someone just tagged it and "moved on" without a suggesting a specific remedy. Perhaps your opinion would be shared by the community, I don't know, since neither you nor I are the ultimate authority on interpreting policy around here you can't know either. The point of the original post was to notify you that a number of editors - with extremely different personal POVs - considered this solution as acceptable within policy at the time of the RfAr. They may be wrong, but the only way we are going to get to the bottom of it is to consult the community and determine wider consensus. For the record, the article was written by a published author on the controversy around biopsychiatry - and you summarily dismissed his expertise - so don't hold your breath for "somebody better qualified's attention".  Rockpock  e  t  18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)