Conservapedia:Burning the Evidence

Sometimes the administrators of Conservapedia become so drunk with power, and so thin-skinned, that they attempt to remove material that they find not to their liking. There are a few things to note about this practice:
 * The ability to edit articles in the main page space is the defining aspect of a wiki, and such editing often involves deletion. This is to be expected (though "revert wars" can sometimes be amusing to watch, especially when the participants are doctrinaire morons).  However, it is generally considered to be a violation of wiki etiquette to delete material from a talk page.  Talk pages are ongoing discussion journals.  How offensive such deletions are depends on the context&mdash;It is particularly offensive to delete anything from another user's talk page.
 * Because of the way wiki software works, especially the MediaWiki software that is used by Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and RationalWiki, mere deletion of material from any page, main space or talk, does not irreversibly remove it from the historical record. To achieve the degree of perfidy of Orwell's Memory Holes, more drastic measures are required.  Such activity is called "deep burning".  It is frequently practiced on Conservapedia.

The deletion, by person A, of material from person B's talk page, that had been placed there by person C, is a particularly flagrant violation of Wiki etiquette and of common-sense respect for the principles of free speech. And yet, sysops sometimes burn material in other sysops' talk pages. A legendarily flagrant case of this was the deletion, by Conservapedia sysop TK, of an open letter from AmesG (that's right, our User:AmesG!) from sysop SharonS's talk page. Apparently some sysops are "real" and some are just impressionable teenage girls that need to be protected from the real world.

Shallow Burning on Conservapedia
Because deletion of embarrassing material is so common on Conservapedia, when we at RationalWiki point to foolishness over there (see, for example, all the articles in Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP), we routinely point to a "diff" from the CP edit history. Whenever something is "shallow burned", the deletion is visible in the edit history. When you want to cite such a thing in an RW entry, do the following:
 * Go to the edit history and look around. It might look, in part, like this:
 * (cur) (last) 10:15, 25 October 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) (?Drop outs)
 * (cur) (last) 10:13, 25 October 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) (?Not Fond of the Main Page Color)
 * (cur) (last) 09:26, 25 October 2007 Maestro (Talk | contribs) m (?Drop outs)
 * (cur) (last) 09:26, 25 October 2007 Maestro (Talk | contribs) (?Not Fond of the Main Page Color)
 * (cur) (last) 09:17, 25 October 2007 BethanyS (Talk | contribs)
 * Clicking on "last" will show the changes between that version and the one before. Clicking on the date and time (e.g. "09:26, 25 October 2007" will show that specific version.  Clicking on "contribs" will show what other foolishness that person has been engaged in lately.

If you are writing something for RW or elsewhere, and you want to cite a specific individual version, such that it will not be subject to shallow burning, click on the individual version time/date, and, when that version comes up in your browser, copy and paste the URL from the browser's URL window.

A URL pointing to a specific version in this way is called a "permalink". We use them extensively at RW for our citations of Conservapedia Craziness.

If you want to cite a difference (say, a particularly moronic deletion of embarrassing information), click on the "(last)" link for the change (or use the more sophisticated "Compare selected versions" feature), and when the appropriate "diff" page comes up, copy and paste the URL as before.

As a further precaution, take the permalink and preserve it at archive.is. As of January 2018, there are 995 pages captured there.

Deep-burning on Conservapedia
Particularly embarrassing material is sometimes "deep burned".

Page deletion
The simplest way that sysops can do this is simply to delete the entire page. Its edit history (or "fossil record", as we say here at RW) goes into the memory hole. A common place that this is done is with personal user pages and user talk pages. New users often ask embarrassing questions (funny how that happens!), and such users are often quickly banned, and turned into "unpersons" by having their user pages and talk pages permanently deleted. Such users are often naive about this practice, and engage in their embarrassing discussions on their own talk pages.

Savvy operators know about this, and do their work on pages that can't simply be deleted, such as the talk pages for important topics such as Talk:Main Page or Talk:Examples of bias in Wikipedia, or on sysop's own personal talk pages, such as User Talk:TK.

However, in recent times, even important personal talk pages have been deep burned. On October 27, 2007, Jallen/Niandra burned Andrew Schlafly's own talk page. This was repeated on March 3, 2008 under the Newspeak term "routine cleaning". We are attempting to recover the lost data for you.

Conservative's shout-outs
In the single biggest page burning event, Conservative deleted his shout out to PZ Myers. To cover up this whole embarrassing incident, he deleted the Atheism talk page, Public Awarness of the Atheism Article, and then, in a blatant act of overreacting, the big pages themselves: Talk:Mainpage and the right and left mainpage templates all with out their history.

Fortunately a piece of censorship this large would not stand and Philip J. Rayment restored the pages with their history.

This event highlighted how far some of the sysops will go to hide their own screw ups.

Bogus archiving
The more evil sysops (TK was a particularly egregious practitioner of this) will use MediaWiki's page-move feature to relocate the talk page to an archive, and then delete the archive. Archiving moves the material and its edit history over to another page. Operators who have nothing to hide often use this feature to keep the discussions on talk pages to a manageable length, while moving out-of-date material to another location. But, at Conservapedia, there is a more sinister use.

Because of this, the friendly elves at RationalWiki periodically make copies of vulnerable CP pages.

For example, at 20:31 on 24 October 2007, sysop TK "archived" the talk page for Richard Dawkins, on which there had been some interesting discussion. (Briefly, Andy Schlafly, and the other powers that be, are stark raving nuts. But you could have guessed that.)  The edit histories for the archived material involved a lot of Shallow Burning, that permalinks could have shown. Those edits were compressed out, so the archived versions show only the final results. Fortunately, we have saved the version of the page at 09:32 20 Oct 2007 Conservapedia:Burning_the_Evidence/DawkinsTalk0932_20Oct07. We apologize for the incompleteness of this, and are working on more effective means of closing the memory hole.

Instant incineration on Conservapedia
Recently installed oversight extensions to the Mediawiki software have made it possible to obliterate individual edits conveniently, permanently, and in a way that casual observers might not notice, without the inconvenient, heavy-handed, and obvious practice of deep-burning. Individual versions can be expunged from the history. This requires a high level of authority called "oversight" (even higher than "administrator"), and the practice is called "oversighting". Because oversight privileges are so great, very few CP sysops are entrusted with this. The few sysops at CP that have this power are generally among the less psychopathic (other than Andy and Karajou) ones. They seem to be, as of this writing: Andy, PJR, DeanS, Karajou, Jallen and CPWebmaster. However, TK has recently been granted oversight privileges as well. Unlike other forms of burning, oversighting doesn't leave any logs or traces visible to non-oversighters, so it is very hard to see if the above have used their privileges without painstakingly checking diffs.

The practice of instant incineration apparently became widespread at Conservapedia around 13 March 2009. We are developing technical means to ferret out, and make available to our readers, the information that "the encyclopedia that does not censor" censors.

Examples of burning on Conservapedia
There are quite a number of talk pages of higher-than-average controversy in their content, that Conservapedia folks routinely delete material from. They do this even though wiki tradition holds that this should not be done save for libelous or otherwise legally actionable items, a principle familiar to people living in nations with a tradition of free speech.

For your convenience, we have saved some of them from any future deep burning and presented them in easy-to-peruse format. We have omitted trivial changes and deletions that are justifiable as repair of clear vandalism.

Items that are deep-burned are often harder to track down and present to you, but we do our best. The practice of deep burning on Conservapedia is reserved for the most embarrassing topics, of course.

We have saved some examples of burned material in the next few paragraphs. Some of these have only been shallow-burned at this time, but could be deep-burned at any time. Some items are on the boundary between the two&mdash;even though the deceitful archiving has taken place, the original page has not had its history deleted. This means that, with some effort, the burned material can be seen.

FBI-related material
Not surprisingly, issues surrounding the FBI Incident are among the most thoroughly burned. It seems that, at 01:19 on 2 November 2007, TK deleted all the content of the talk page for the FBI itself and then deleted and recreated the page itself. (Deleting the content is shallow, of course. Deleting and recreating the entire page is deep&mdash;the edit history disappears.)  He then helpfully edited back into the recreated page a small amount of material from the original page, from 6 weeks earlier, that he considered harmless.

Fortunately, we have saved much of the burned material here.

Gun control talk page
The talk page for gun control has been a burn magnet for much of late 2008. Partly because, like so many pages, it's full of garbage, and partly because, well, like the FBI incident, it's viral. In fact, the go-around of December 2008 involved a paragraph being shallow-burned (at last count) 13 times. This is more than the amount of mayhem that got the FBI Incident page started, but that was at a more innocent time. Sassing CP is now a much bigger industry.

In any case, Philip J. Rayment appears poised to archive the talk page, at a moment when the interesting material appears to be absent. To ameliorate the loss from such an unfortunate occurrence, we have saved it here.

Conservapedia commandments talk page
In late February to early March of 2009, an issue arose on the commandments talk page (don't bother looking) about whether various edits to Conservapedia constitute a violation of 18 USC 1030, the federal law against tampering with ("hacking") computers used in commerce, defense, and government functions. The powers that be insist that editing Conservapedia does indeed fall within the scope of this statute, a claim which apparently rests on whether the CP servers are "protected", which in turn depends on whether they are used in the "communications" industry. Needless to say, there are those who dispute this contention, and, needless to say, the CP sysops are hard at work deleting such expressions. A large deletion took place on 2 March, 2009, just prior to archiving the entire page and then deleting its content. This of course had the effect of making the removed material hard to find, though the talk page itself has not actually been deleted, so this isn't really a "deep burn". Nevertheless, we have saved the page here.

PNAS reply talk page
The discussion of PNAS's reply to Andy's letter claiming malfeasance in the Lenski study (see Lenski affair) became quite a raucous brawl. The amount of burning that took place is positively legendary. This may be because Andy's claims of expertise were so transparently outlandish, and so his dishonesty, stupidity, hubris, and thin skin were on display in such a big way. The fact that he went public with all this, sending a letter to the editors of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also helped.

The page at Conservapedia is here. It has not (yet) been deep-burned&mdash;one can still see the history. Another fine example of Schalfly's removal of content that pointed out flaws in his statistical reasoning, that would be rather difficult to refute.

Our annotated copy of the page, showing the full extent of the censorship, is here.

Catholic Views on Creation
Another fine example was on 18 September 2010 when a discussion on the WIGOCP talk page centered around a debate that Philip J. Rayment had with Andrew Schlafly regarding Catholicism and views on creation. Upon reading this TK deleted the page as "empty" before bringing it back with the aforementioned discussion scrubbed away. Luckily for us, Ace and trusty google cache were on the button and the original page can be found here.

Other burned pages that we have saved
User ForeverPeace was banned, came back as JeremyJCH, was abused further, and left this parting shot. It was deep-burned by Karajou at 23:20, 12 Feb 2009, with the comment "you are censored here, and your demands that we must be tolerant because we are Christian will not work."

Professorship of Dawkins
{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" class="collapsible collapsed" style="border: 0px solid black;" !
 * - style="Background: rgb(204, 204, 255);"
 * - style="whitespace: nowrap; Background: rgb(204, 204, 255); align: center; font-weight: bold;"
 * :::Note: 
 * :::Note: 
 * :::Note: 

Oxford English
The current entry uses "post" all over the place. It has been established before that at the University of Oxford post is frequently used instead of position. This is what the [ http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/teachersites/oald7/lookup?cc=global Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary] has to say on post:


 *  4 [C] a job, especially an important one in a large organization SYN: position: an academic / government post * to take up a post * to resign (from) a post * We will be creating 15 new posts next year. * The company has been unable to fill the post. * He has held the post for three years. * She was offered a key post in the new government.

Since this is site with a focus on the US, it might be better to replace it by its synonym position. Order 21:59, 12 October 2007 (EDT)


 * There is nothing confusing about the term "post" to Americans. It is not synonymous with professorship in America or England.


 * Is there general agreement here that Richard Dawkins has never been elected to a professorship based on the rigorous peer review ordinarily required?--Aschlafly 23:03, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd have to say I disagree with you. -- Oppen1 23:45, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

No they are not synonyms, "post" is much more general. But why then the "quotes" in the entry, if it just means position?

If there is is general agreement that he was never elected? I guess no, because we got several notes from the university gazette showing that a board was appointed [ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec], and that some time later Dawkins was officially granted the title of professor. Order 23:22, 12 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The reason "post" is in quotes is because so many liberals are disputing the facts about Richard Dawkins's credentials, and hence it is important to show the quotes. Why object to quotes unless you're trying to obscure its authenticity?


 * How do the "quotes" matter? If you want to argue that there is a difference between a lectureship and a professorship, or between a endowed and a departmental professorship. But what is the difference between a "post" and a post? Order 03:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Also, your July 1996 Gazette cite notes that some of the professorships (presumably Dawkins') are subject to this disclaimer: "The title of professor or reader has been conferred by the Distinctions Committee on the following. Please note that in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title is held is still under discussion."--Aschlafly 00:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I did read the disclaimer, and it says exactly what you quoted, namely that the exact subject for some of the people on the list may still be under discussion. But not the title.


 * But your reference to the word "post" in, and the reference to the disclaimer in [ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref] shows that you read both of these documents. I infer that you also read that a board was appointed, and that a few month later the distinction committee did grant Dawkins the title of professor.


 * The onus is now on you to show (1) that the disclaimer refers to Dawkins' position (2) that it matters (3) that there were grave irregularities in his appointment, from the moment that the board of electors was appointed, until his distinction as professor by the Distinction Committee. Both documents from the gazette are legal documents under UK law, so you need stronger evidence than a dictionary. Knowing these documents and sticking to the claims that is appointment fraudulent needs fairly good evidence, otherwise it may become a liability. Not sure that is what you are after, since you said before that you look forward to the day that Dawkins is shamed into admitting that his title is a fraud. Order 03:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly: Why "presumably Dawkins'"? I notice that you cut short the gazette quote - it does indeed state that "in a small number of cases the precise academic subject area in which the title held is under discussion" however it also states that "any changes will be published separately when agreed." Since there is no record of any published amendment to Dawkins' faculty (and certainly not to his title), there is no doubt that both Dawkins' title and his faculty association still stand. Order is correct that – if you believe Dawkins' title is wrong - the onus is on you to show that the Distinction Committee's award has been revoked.

Since it seems clear that you have read at least some of the documentation I've pointed you to, I simply do not understand why the article continues to question Dawkins' professorial title – now largely by referring to a post which Dawkins was awarded prior to his Professorship. Once again, let me be absolutely clear about the errors in the article: I hope the factual errors in this article can now be corrected OurMike 12:39, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) The "post" cited in the article in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, is that which Dawkins was given in [ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec clause 3 of the decree establishing the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science]. This post was to be funded "on such terms and conditions as the Council and the General Board may determine." In [ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/180196/exam.htm October 1995 the General Board determined] that this post would be that of the Charles Simonyi Reader in the Public Understanding of Science. This post was in the Biological Sciences Faculty and the Continuing Education department, and not – as the article claims – in the Natural History Museum. Since this post is not the same as the professorial title Dawkins holds, the article is in error when it states "his "professorship" is actually described by Oxford as a "post"". The two are not the same.
 * 2) The professorial title that Dawkins now holds was later granted to him by the Distinctions Committee of Oxford University. The gazette makes it clear that this position was in the Biological Sciences faculty, so the article is in error when it states "in fact Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History".
 * 3) The professorial title that Dawkins' holds was granted by the Distinctions Committee of Oxford University. The Distinctions Committee is the University's ultimate peer review body. Cases for consideration must first pass through a Divisional Board (a faculty-level peer review), and be refereed by a head of house (college), and head of department or faculty before even reaching the Distinctions Committee. When considering cases the Distinctions Committee's primary criterion for awarding a professorial title is "that research must be of outstanding quality, have led to a significant international reputation, and be comparable in distinction with that expected of a professor in other major research universities." The Committee also demands that "Where an applicant is a member of the academic staff of the University, he or she must have undertaken undergraduate and/or graduate teaching for the University, and for colleges, concomitant with the duties of the university post and of the college fellowship (where one is held), and such teaching must have been performed well." The current article is therefore in error when it states that "Dawkins was never subjected to the peer review process".
 * 4) Given the above, it is clear that Dawkins does indeed hold a (peer-reviewed) title of the highest academic rank, granted to him by Oxford University, an institution of higher education at which he is a faculty member. The article is therefore in error when it states that Dawkins "does not satisfy the Merriam-Webster definition of professor".


 * What is quite clear, OurMike, through your posts elsewhere, is that you can only engage in Liberal Deceit in inserting your demanded changes. The way to get support for your positions here, is to build consensus through networking, avoiding Liberal Hysteria and interacting with other editors to perpetrate deception to achieve your goals. If that is beyond you, perhaps because of limited intellectual ability, perhaps you should stick to those other places that value deceit and parody. So much of the arguing here is quibbling over semantics. Dawkins cannot be turned into a (excuse the pun) Saint by any stretch of scholarly thought. I invite you to actually contribute here, to this, the fastest growing educational site on the web,  instead of merely engaging in never-ending debate and plotting subterfuge. Otherwise I am afraid I will soon be bidding you adieu. My contact information is posted on my page.  --sysô?-?K /?????! 13:34, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Positioning of Oxford Post
I propose to move the controversy over his Oxford post to the end of the article. --Ed Poor Talk 19:00, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Reply
I've reviewed the above comments and do not see any errors in the entry. No specific errors have been identified. The claim above is false that "the article is in error when it states that "in fact Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History." Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History.

Richard Dawkins relies heavily on his claim of being a professor at Oxford University, and so the placement of the explanation of his "post" at Oxford should remain near the top of the entry. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:50, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I've reviewed the comments as well, and it looks like you're just ignoring the specific errors that have been identified. I see the article is locked now, so this is probably your final say. You do know that not every one of your readers is as stubborn as you when it comes to reinforcing one's own world view? You know that reasonable people are reading this whole discussion, and that most people have a limit to the amount of logical sacrifices they can make to make something true to them? I realize its your site and all, but I think you'd do it a great service if you learned to pick your battles. -- Oppen1 10:21, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * In other words, you can't identify any errors in the entry either, but you dislike criticism of Richard Dawkins' claim of credentials anyway.--Aschlafly 10:27, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Incorrect. As I stated, I read the comments and postings above, and can identify several errors. Furthermore, I dislike your criticism of Dawkins because it relies on these errors. -- Oppen1 10:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Your comment is not credible. If you could identify an error, then you would.  Apparently you can't, but it's obvious that you dislike criticism of Richard Dawkins' claim of credentials.--Aschlafly 10:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The comment is credible. I read the postings and links above, and formed my own conclusion.  The errors identified by Order and OurMike are already listed.  Please re-read the entire discussion, I will not list them again. Richard Dawkins' credentials are non-controversial. -- Oppen1 11:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * More to the point, you must realize that others are reading the postings, clicking the links, and perhaps learning more about the UK academic system than they cared to know in the first place. You must realize that they are also forming conclusions that differ from yours.  Can you accept that given the evidence different readers will form different conclusions? -- Oppen1 11:33, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

RD's spokesman wrote:
 * By 1994, Dawkins was distinctly overextended, his public career as elucidator of Darwinism putting pressure on his day job teaching biology at Oxford. If someone could be found to endow a professorship specifically devoted to promoting public scientific understanding, it would free up Dawkin's Zoology position for a full-time scholar and teacher. [ http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/seattle.shtml]

I guess this means he used to be a university teacher (" professor ") but now enjoys a " professorship " devoted to PR. --Ed Poor Talk 11:39, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * No, Ed, you must've missed the briefing: Dawkins never was a professor and is not a professor. Don't be fooled by the fradulent claims he, Oxford University, and pretty much the rest of Planet Earth make. He only has "a post". =| --Jenkins 11:46, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Jenkins, you need to get out more if you think "pretty much the rest of Planet Earth" is fooled by Richard Dawkins. We're not fooled here and I doubt the real professors at Oxford University are fooled either.


 * Professorships require peer review, as explained by the citations in the entry. No one has been able to provide any evidence that Dawkins was promoted to become full professor based on a peer review by a specific academic department.  Do you finally understand the point now??--Aschlafly 13:10, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I think we cited plenty of sources from Oxford University itself where Dawkins is called the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science and not "that bloke who just got the money for the post of Public Understanding of Science". But fine, I'll grant you the Good Faith. Find me an Oxford University Professor who backs your claim that he is not a professor. Not just one who doesn't explicitly mentions the title. One who claims that Dawkins never was a professor and that Dawkins' claim is fradulent. So far, we've get plenty of sources that do call him Professor Dawkins, but not one that disputes this claim, aside from your interpretation of the events that happened there, mixed with selective ignoring of history around those sources.
 * I currently stand by my claim, and said claim is backed up by the OU Gazette, the Charles Simonyi Chair site, BBC, FOX News, Answers in Genesis, The Royal Society, [ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9112956/Dawkins-Richard Britannica], Christian Courier, Foundation for the Future, [ http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/richard_dawkins/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html Washington Post], and and and. Where are your sources?
 * Do you understand now that all sorts of authority and the media disagree with your accusations??? --Jenkins 13:34, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The Distinctions Committee of Oxford University was previously cited. You failed to indicate how that committee does not qualify your peer-review criteria, you only ignored it outright.  We have yet to hear any commentary from you on what you believe the Distinctions Committee of Oxford University does or why that does not qualify as appropriate academic review. Furthermore, you have now claimed that the "real professors" (quotes to indicate your definition of professor, a significant detail) share your opinion. Can you back this up, or is this speculation? I challenged you earlier to consider how others would read this page and the conclusions they would draw about not only Dawkins' credentials, but your own motivations in keeping the falsehoods in the article. It's clear that many people who have posted here disagree with you, do you accept these conclusions as genuine, or something else? -- Oppen1 13:40, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Here's an analogy: many graduate students earn Ph.D. degrees based on original scholarship. Some people get honorary Ph.D. degrees. The academic community makes a distinction between an "earned doctorate" and an honorary doctorate. The latter looks good when you're trying to impress regular folks, but if you want to wield academic clout, nothing beats an earned doctorate.

The question of Dawkins centers on whether he is a "real professor". In other words, what does his title mean? What does his post imply?

Atheists and materialists (and liberals in general) are fond of citing academic authority when they want to get political support for their absurd positions. The partisans of the global warming theory keep talking about peer reviewed articles in Nature and Science as if these were the be-all and end-all of scientific research. But there is plenty of falsehood in academia; see also Junk Science. --Ed Poor Talk 13:46, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Right, Ed. It's hilarious how atheists make such a big deal about peer review in criticizing material they dislike, but absolutely refuse to allow a criticism of their own based on lack of peer review.


 * In response to "Oppen1", the Distinctions Committee does not engage in peer review within an academic department. Get the point now?  I know, you still want to give atheist Richard Dawkins a free pass and not subject him to the same scrutiny that you use for material you dislike.--Aschlafly 13:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Just to confirm: Andy, does your definition of "professor" explicitly demand peer review to qualify as a legitimate professorship? In other words, statutory professorships and professorial fellowships are not "real" professorships in your opinion? I am not criticizing, just clarifying. Feebasfactor 14:01, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I use the basic dictionary definition, which has already been quoted. That definition, and Oxford's own requirements for the professorship at issue here, implies peer review.


 * Feebasfactor, are you now suggesting that peer review doesn't matter for scholarship?? Funny how Dawkins' supporters emphasize peer review to criticize the other side, but seem to have a different standard for Dawkins himself.--Aschlafly 14:06, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I'll spontaneously quote Oppen, who was apparently ignored:

The Distinctions Committee of Oxford University was previously cited. You failed to indicate how that committee does not qualify your peer-review criteria, you only ignored it outright. We have yet to hear any commentary from you on what you believe the Distinctions Committee of Oxford University does or why that does not qualify as appropriate academic review.
 * Comments? Oh, and I'm still waiting for your sources of other "real professors" who claim that Dawkins is not a prof. --Jenkins 14:09, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I think it was widely covered whether Dawkins fits the dictionary definition of "professor", and the consensus (read: most people who participated, minus Andy) was that he fits whatever definition people could come up with, if I recall correctly. So unless you find a striking argument against the arguments made multiple times above, I would politely request that you find a source that says that Dawkins is not a "real professor". This is getting more and more like "I don't care what sources X, Y, and Z say - I think something else, and I don't want to admit he's a prof because it might give his position weight."
 * Right now, we're actually arguing whether Dawkins holds the title "Professor of etcetc". Nobody is implying that he uses that title to get "authority", and I have yet to see a source that says that Dawkins uses his title to claim authority.
 * What is your position on the issue at hand? Is Dawkins the first Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science? Does he hold that title and thus the right to call himself "professor"? --Jenkins 14:04, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, you continue to misrepresent me. I am not giving Dawkins "a pass" on his academic credentials, they are non-controversial after reviewing all appropriate documentation provided throughout this thread. That is my personal conclusion, and I hold it with confidence. The Distinctions Committee is responsible for awarding the title of professor at Oxford, according to the criteria listed on that page.  Your definition and criteria for professorship are irrelevant, I dispute your selective definitions of terms to state who does and who doesn't get to be a professor at Oxford. You have yet to answer my original query - do you understand that individuals reading this discussion and reviewing the evidence will draw conclusions different than yours, define things like "professor" differently than you, and in general find your stubbornness to be an indictment against you and your project? -- Oppen1 14:26, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Getting back to peer review for a moment - many people associate it with modern scientific practice of other scientists evaluating and checking a scientific claim. Such practices as running the same experiment in your own lab, to see of the results are reproducible.

But "peer review" is often nothing more than a few friends of the journal editor anonymously reading a scientific paper before publication. This is no guarantee of correctness; and rejection during peer review is not always an indication of poor work. Scientists are not saints: they have their prejudices, same as us normal folks. --Ed Poor Talk 14:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Ed, you are unaware how the peer review process works with academic journals. Normally, a journal editor receives an article submission and then sends it out (minus identifying information as to the authorship of the piece) to three to five readers who have some expertise regarding the article's subject. --McIntyre 14:30, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * So Ed, does that mean peer review is not necessarily the be-all and end-all, and is not always as important as it's made out to be? Wait, I'm not sure I understand what point you're making. I personally don't really know how important peer review is in regards to scholarship, but Andy implied that it is very important. I thought... is lack of peer review the basis on which his professorship is being contested here? Feebasfactor 14:58, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The exact words of our peer review article! (Yes, I knew that.) --Ed Poor Talk 15:27, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes...after you placed my words there. I just wanted to make sure you understood that, becuase you said earlier that "peer review" is often nothing more than a few friends of the journal editor anonymously reading a scientific paper before publication. Very clearly, that is not considered peer review.--McIntyre 15:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * By "often" I meant "far too often" (not "normally"). The peer review process can be abused, just like a box cutter (meant for opening packages) can be abused by airplane hijackers.


 * The point is that whether something has passed peer review or not, is not the gold standard for deciding whether it has scientific validity. Many true things are denied by scientists, and many false things are affirmed by them.


 * I expect as the 21st century grows old, the number of scientific errors (and outright frauds) will gradually diminish. The best way to help this along is to enable scientists to be aware of each other's work, and to encourage them to test theories and hypotheses with actual observations - without fear of academic reprisal, such as not having their research grants approved.


 * A major problem is that many sources of research money want certain results, and they won't pay for science which shows that what they want is impossible or untrue. Thus bias creeps in (or takes the palace by storm!) - but it doesn't have to be this way. We need to find a way to reward those who uncover the truth. --Ed Poor Talk 17:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Open?
Are we to the point this can/should be re-opened? --sysô?-?K /?????! 14:36, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I realise I'm not a frequent contributer here, but I propose the following text:


 * Richard Dawkins (March 26, 1941-) is an outspoken evolutionist and atheist from England . He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley for two years before becoming a Zoology Reader at Oxford . . He is now the Simonyi Reader, and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a university chair endowed by Dr. Charles Simonyi to "engage in teaching related to the Public Understanding of Science" and to "promote the public understanding of science both within and outside Oxford."


 * References


 * I'll let the more frequent contributers comment and mold as needed. Hopefully this is a start to ending the edit war. -- Oppen1 15:12, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Big improvement. Please rewrite the whole article! RSchlafly 15:19, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Too bad the restatement above is false. The professorship is clearly defined as requiring the following peer review, and there is no evidence that Richard Dawkins passed such peer review:


 * 3. The professor shall be elected by a board of electors consisting of


 * (1) the Vice-Chancellor, or, if the head of the college specified in (2) of this clause is Vice-Chancellor a person appointed by Council;


 * (2) the head of the college to which the professorship shall be for the time being allocated by Council under any decree in that behalf, or, if the head is unable or unwilling to act, a person appointed by the governing body of the college;


 * (3) a person appointed by the governing body of the college specified in (2) of this clause;


 * (4), (5) two persons appointed by Council, one of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the benefactor;


 * (6) a person appointed by the General Board;


 * (7) a person appointed by the Board of the Faculty of Biological Sciences;


 * (8) a person appointed by the Board of the Faculty of Physical Sciences;


 * (9) a person appointed by the Committee on Continuing Education.


 * Assuming he never passed the above peer review, Dawkins likely holds a merely "post". The Gazette summary has a disclaimer implying that it is not based on a peer review faculty vote, which appears to be the case for Dawkins.--Aschlafly 15:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * What brings you to assume that the faculty vote on his professorship didn't happen? Which rules were broken if they followed the establishing act? Is the establishing act itself a violation of the rules? And do you have evidence for that? Order 20:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * This site's peer review artilce deals with academic publications, not the awarding of a professorship. Why don't you just admit that you simply dislike Dawkin's ideas? With all the evidence that has been cited and linked above, it is clear at this point (and to the rest of the world at large) that Richard Dawkins is a professor.--McIntyre 16:05, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Read the link again: § 270. Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science  .  That link indicates that Dawkins did not go through the peer review required for this professorship.  Maybe you want to call him "professor" anyway, which you have a free speech right to do, but we're factual here and the link is clear.--Aschlafly 16:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The linked act marks the start of the process, and the announcement of the distinction committee the outcome. Do you have any evidence for the time in-between? Because the decision by the distinction committee also gives Dawkins the right to call himself a professor. Order 20:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * It seems you've created in your own head a set of criteria for professorship specifically designed to exclude Richard Dawkins, based on your own desire to discredit him. We call him a professor at Oxford because Oxford awarded the title.  This is fact. You are trying to claim that professor means something else, and we're calling you on it. Quite simply, your definition of "professor" is not fact, it's your own opinion.  You don't get to make up definitions, expect Oxford, Dawkins and the rest of the world read your mind, then accuse him of fraud. We're trying to have a society here! -- Oppen1 17:34, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

So if Dawkins did not go through the peer review process, and this process was required for his professorship, then - Dawkins does not fulfill the requirements of the Simonyi Professorship, which was [ http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml "set up with the express intention that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins."]

Is that correct? Feebasfactor 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Isn't that exactly the same question that was already addressed in Dawkins post - confusion resolved? --Jenkins 17:04, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The link is clear: § 270. Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science


 * No one holds the Simonyi Professorship unless he goes through the peer review process specified in detail in the above link. Because Richard Dawkins has apparently not gone through the specified peer review process, he merely holds a "post" as explained by the link.  This is not something a committee or secretary or publisher of a Gazette can alter on their own.--Aschlafly 17:40, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The acts in the gazette are legally binding documents. You say that he apparently did not follow the guidelines. Do you have proof? Why did the distinction committee give him the title? And do you have evidence for this? Order 20:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The current Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science is Richard Dawkins. -- Oppen1 18:08, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * You have no evidence for stating that Dawkins did not go through the peer review process specified above. The evidence that he did is that he was awarded the professorial title by the Distinctions Committee, as was reported in the University's official gazette, which is the organ of record for all such awards. The Distinctions Committee is the ultimate peer review body of the University, which considers professorial titles after they have gone through faculty and departmental review. This has been gone through in detail several times already in these pages. OurMike 18:32, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Andy, you frequently asked for a error, and there are many errors. Like that the museum isn't part of the university, like that Dawkins is not the Simonyi professor. You have admitted to have read the document establishing the professorship, and the document granting the title of professor to Dawkins, both legal documents under UK law.

You main argument is that you cannot see that the documents contradicts the claim that he isn't a professor, and you have proven this to be true: you really cannot see that this contradicts the claim that he isn't the professor. Of course it is your right to do so. However, this says in the end more about you than about the professorship. Order 20:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Folks, I don't see how the Distinctions Committee has the power to change the charter of the professorship quoted above. If someone has information that the Distinctions Committee has such overreaching power, then let's see it.  Otherwise, accept the above-quoted definition of the professorship as requiring the enumerated peer review.  Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Exactly, we have no evidence that the distinction committee has overreaching power. And you didn't present any either. From the fact that the committee granted the title to Dawkins, we have to assume that everything went according to the books. If you have proof that the distinction committee overreached its power and broke the rules, give it. Order 00:03, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The charter of the Simonyi professorship is proof enough. It states the requirements of the professorship, and the Biological Sciences and Distinctions Committee lack that power.  One or both of those entities acted beyond their authority, or perhaps did not act at all in light of the disclaimer in the Gazette.  Apparently no future notice of the professorship was printed, suggesting that the professorship has not been properly filled to this day.--Aschlafly 00:30, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * No, the charter is not proof enough. You have to show that someone violated the charter, or other rules. The disclaimer just states that the subject of for some may not have been defined yet. There are about 50 names on that list. It maybe Dawkins, it maybe someone else, it may be nobody. You are claiming that the distinction committee acted beyond their authority. Do you have proof for that? Because you accuse Oxford University or an Committee within Oxford University of fraud, and you should have proof for such an allegation. Order 01:54, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, give this up. You're not helping yourself at this point. The Distinctions Committee has the power to change the charter? Overreaching power? Enumerated peer review? You're twisting yourself around the axle, deliberately misunderstanding Oxford policy to support your stubborn notion. Oxford calls him a professor, he is a professor. You have not cited one source questioning his credentials, it is all your own synthesis. And I said it before and I'll say it again, you're deliberately twisting this to support your conclusion so you can call him "a fraud" in your article.
 * At this point, I think you know perfectly well that Dawkins' credentials are not controversial. I think you made a mistake by claiming that he's a fraud because you simply didn't understand how Oxford academic credentials work. You would have corrected it, but since some "liberal" pointed it out, you dug your heels in and convinced yourself you can argue anything. Your control over this site has given you this hubris that you're invincible in debate with anyone you care to label a "liberal."
 * Andy, I'd love to have a true "conservative" encyclopedia. This article is so typical of the shrill, polemical discourse that I see all over this site, all over the evening political talk shows, all over internet blogs. We have enough of that, please try and do something different. -- Oppen1 21:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Andy, if you look at the preponderance of evidence, it is clear that Dawkins is a professor. So why not just admit that he is? I assume you will ask for more "proof," but at this point it would simply be redundant. Either you did not read the links provided above, or you did not understand what you were reading, or maybe you did not want to.--McIntyre 22:10, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Okay, since no one is interested in editing the article, and having the page open, as I asked at the beginning of the sub head, I will leave it locked. --sysô?-?K /?????! 23:19, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy is involved in the discussion, and unless he agrees to change something nothing will change. And if he agrees he can edit or unlock it himself. No objection. Order 00:03, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, seems it was okay for Conservative to make wholesale changes, so I have opened the article. I don't see Andy posting no changes can occur, and he is as capable as anyone else of reverting whatever is inserted without foundation. --sysô?-?K /?????! 01:03, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I meant to say that nothing will change on the parts that are contended. Conservative adds mostly quotes by others on Dawkins, and as long they did say it, there nothing wrong about the quotes. It sure makes the article rather verbose, like the atheism article, but that is just an matter of style. Order 01:31, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, if you are happy with it as it is enjoy! I am certainly happy you like it. Although not the most intelligent person contributing here by far, I don't need to be told 20 times how bad or wrong someone is.  Perhaps a young child might, but not me.  I prefer to actually learn something about the man, other than he is merely a cheater or opportunistic rules bender.  I would prefer my references, on line or off, to actually inform me, preferably in their words,  and in a detailed manner, what and why they think as they do.  I have my Priest and the Holy Bible to tell me what is morally wrong. --sysô?-?K /?????! 06:02, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The fact that you unprotected the article is admirable, but the problem here is that it's still practically protected: If we take out Andy's wild claims (ah, I see that the bit claiming that "the most productive scientists, from Isaac Newton to Louis Pasteur, were devout Christians" is back again, too), we will be reverted, and if we alter/delete/move/reduce Conservative's... er... "let's quote everything that we can twist into something negative about Dawkins" orgy, we will be reverted, too. Oh, and positive things about Dawkins will be twisted into something negative and then moved to the bottom (see: Royal Society).
 * People tried for more than a week (or maybe even weeks?) to edit the article regarding Andy's claims, and they were all reverted. People tried for a long time to edit in Conservative's Atheism article (among others), and they were reverted.
 * So the article looks unprotected, but as long as Conservative and Andy wield their special powers to "win" content discussions (by being stubborn while having the authority to revert infinitely without being told off) and to effectively claim ownership of the article, there is nothing we can do, really. At this point, this article merely represents the views and opinions of Andrew Schlafly and whatever "Conservative"'s real name is. --Jenkins 11:10, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Reply
Richard Dawkins is not a Simonyi professor unless he passed the peer review election procedure by the board of electors as identified above. No such election by the required board has been published in the Oxford Gazette. Case closed.--Aschlafly 23:56, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. The official web page for the seat lists him as such and his name appears as "Professor Richard Dawkins" several times in the gazette.  Your assertion that he must pass a "peer review election procedure by the board of electors" and see it "published in the Oxford Gazette" is an invention by you, and only you. -- Oppen1 00:36, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

The announcement of the distinction committee, as published in the gazette, is the official announcement that Dawkins holds the title professor legitimately. Indeed that closes the case, unless there is proof that the distinction committee acted illegally. Order 01:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Can I propose a simple addition to the text suggested above to close off this particular point?


 * ...He is now the Simonyi Reader, and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford,[2] a university chair endowed by Dr. Charles Simonyi to "engage in teaching related to the Public Understanding of Science" and to "promote the public understanding of science both within and outside Oxford."[3] The legitimacy of the process that led to this appointment has been criticised by [enter name here]. [4 - enter relevant citation] -- Ferret Nice old chat 05:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Reply
The continued, strident refusal by liberals and atheists to accept the plain facts about Richard Dawkins' "post" is remarkable. It demonstrates that atheism is not simply disbelief in the unseen, but also leads to rejection and denial of incontrovertible seen facts that they dislike.--Aschlafly 12:28, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Just out of curiosity, according to your estimate, was there anybody who participated in this discussion and who did not accept the plain "facts" not a liberal or atheist? Order 12:42, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, I'm not a liberal or an atheist and I think that Order and the others are correct. Dawkins has a professorship which was confirmed by a committee. Right now, claiming otherwise is just making Conservapedia look bad. SkipJohnson 12:58, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and I think this article is just plain wrong. Reads like it was written by a lawyer ;-) Ajkgordon 14:00, 15 October 2007 (EDT) please don't ban me!


 * Really?? Funny how neither of you say what you are.  Perhaps a "progressive" like ... Hillary Clinton???--Aschlafly 14:03, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Like many people, I'm simply not easy to pigeon-hole. That's not deliberate, it's just the way things are. It's a bit like Christopher Hitchens being a neocon and a militant atheist at the same time. I have liberal views on some things, conservative views on others. I'm not a Creationist but nor am I an atheist. It's quite normal and I see no conflict. Ajkgordon 14:09, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc., all say the same thing. Trouble is, all support censorship of prayer in the classroom and taxpayer-funded abortion, which reveals their hostility to religion and God's image.  How about you?--Aschlafly 16:25, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Why bother to respond to this silly deflection intended to take the focus off of Aschlafly's painfully distorted reading of Dawkin's title? This is simply another casting of "if you disagree with me you are a atheist and a liberal" --- just more nonsensical blather from the smear-meister of Convervapedia, the national enquirer of the internet. RedDC 19:05, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The continued, strident refusal by you, and only you, to accept something as simple as a professorial title in the face of overwhelming evidence, is remarkable. You finally came around to accepting that there exists, at Oxford, an endowed professorship seat, and then concocted a byzantine piece of "proof" that must exist for us to jump through hoops and go fetch. Your attempt to add this burden is entirely unreasonable, given the fact that numerous sources list him as holding the chair, and you have yet to list even one contradicting it.  This whole thing exists only in your head.
 * The truth is, this isn't about Dawkins anymore. Dawkins has more academic and scientific honors than a dog has fleas, his current title is only a piece of that. This is about you, and your insistence that his professorship is a fraud, a claim made by you and only you. Dawkins' credibility is not in question here - it's yours. I asked you before to consider what any random person of free mind and free will, will think after reading this discussion page.  Ask yourself, when you say outlandish things like "The Simonyi chair is not filled, Richard Dawkins is not the Simonyi Professor, case closed, etc," and someone clicks the link to [ http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml The Simonyi Professorship Home Page] and sees in bright cheery text "The Chair was founded in 1995, by a donation from Dr Charles Simonyi. It is currently held by Professor Richard Dawkins and based at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History" what conclusion would they draw about you? What conclusion would they draw about your project? When confronted with overwhelming evidence, your reaction is to dodge our challenge to prove this controversy exists anywhere else but your mind, revert to name calling, then tangent on to Hillary and school prayer.  Your tactics are as transparent. Everyone who visits can read all this and think for themselves, how many people do you think actually buy it? -- Oppen1 19:07, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The parents of his students should read this page to get an idea of what slop he's teaching, his seemingly pathological dishonesty, his obnoxious habit of projection, and his complete lack of credibility. 19:25, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, to respond to your question re. Clinton, Kennedy, etc. I don't support censorship of prayer in the classroom but at the same time I don't support the imposition of it either. (My kids go to a private Catholic school so it's part of their educational experience. However, the school would never dream of teaching creationism in a science class - that would be illegal and against school doctrine. The inerrant biblical view is but one view in divinity classes. I'm happy with this). I believe it's OK to have tax-funded abortion in certain circumstances such as rape or high risk of death of the expectant mother. Tax-funded abortion should be avoided in other cases. I hope that answers your question. I don't know what that makes me according to you! According to me, it makes me neither a liberal nor an atheist.
 * To put this into perspective regarding this article, I disagree with your assertions about Dawkins' professorship simply because I interpret the evidence differently than you. I would much rather you turned your considerable skills to attacking the manifest problems in his views and his writing rather than on the man himself. His professorship is a red herring. Ajkgordon 08:17, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * In response to Ajkgordon's statement, "I don't support censorship of prayer in the classroom but at the same time I don't support the imposition of it either," I ask his this: do you object to a teacher in a public school leading the class in prayer?  This isn't rocket science and there is no need to duck this basic and simple question.--Aschlafly 18:29, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, give me a chance to answer the question before you suggest I might be avoiding it!
 * Short answer, probably not.
 * Long answer... it's a bit more complicated than that, isn't it? Where I live (France) it is illegal for state/public schools to have any mention or symbolism of religion. As that principle is engrained into the fabric of society and I chose to live here, then I can't really object to that. But we send our kids to a private Catholic school which does have prayer. Indeed they all did their catechism and confirmation through the school.
 * But would I object in the country I came from (UK) where it's common practice to have morning prayers after roll call in state schools? Again, no, and I didn't. It's part of the culture there.
 * I hope that answers your question and allows you to believe that I am neither a liberal nor an atheist. Ajkgordon 12:27, 17 October 2007 (EDT)


 * No, it doesn't address the simple question above: "do you object to a teacher in a public school leading the class in prayer?" Your manner of ducking the question confirms that you probably have some hostility to faith.  Much as you try to appear neutral on that issue, the reality is that nearly everyone is either supportive of faith or hostile towards it.  The above question about a teacher leading a class in prayer reveals the hostility in the answers.--Aschlafly 23:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The short answer is: He doesn't. And assessment that he is hostile to faith doesn't go well with the fact that he sends his kids to catholic school. BTW: What is relevance of  Ajkgordon position on school prayer for the events that led the distinction committee to grant Dawkins' the title? Order 02:22, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * There is none. Distraction is a normal Andy Schlafly tactic when he is losing a debate as seen here. [ http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Was_Benjamin_Franklin_a_deist%3F]--McIntyre 08:01, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * What nonsense. I show no hostility to faith in my answer. I thought my answer was pretty straight forward actually - I was simply putting it in context. To repeat:
 * No, I wouldn't object except in special circumstances.
 * Special circumstances being something like a Muslim leading prayers at a school with a Christian student population, or vice-versa.
 * And I backed that up by stating that I didn't object when my kids were at state school and prayers were said. But that I can't object where I live now because it simply doesn't happen.
 * As you said, it's not rocket science. Straight question, straight answer. You might not want to accept it because you can't equate a non-atheist non-liberal arguing against your obsession with Dawkins' alleged fraudulent professorship.
 * But as someone else said, this is a distraction. You maintain that anyone arguing against your stance on his professorship must be an atheist liberal.
 * Wrong. People are objecting here because we think the accusation is false and efforts would be much more effective in arguing against Dawkins' views and methods.
 * For the record, I find writers like Dawkins and Hitchens damaging to the causes of religion and science. Ajkgordon 08:36, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * OK, I accept your answer, though note that beginning a class with a prayer (e.g., science or history class) is different from your repeated example of prayers generally being said at a state school (i.e., not at the beginning of a specific class).


 * I'm confident that User:Order and User:McIntyre (see above) would object to a public school teacher beginning a class with a prayer. But don't expect them to admit it.--Aschlafly 17:41, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Thanks, but I can only respond based on experience or likely experience. State schools in the UK often have prayers at "Assembly", i.e. a school get together after roll call and before the first class. If I was still living in the UK and my kids' school had a teacher who wanted to lead the class in prayers before a lesson, then I can't see why I would object - unless it was causing a conflict with students of another faith. Having said that I would object to Creationism or ID being taught in science class. But that would be very unlikely to happen in the UK (except a handful of faith schools) and impossible in France.
 * The difference between a US and a European perspective is very interesting. There is not much cross-over between religion and education in Europe (outside divinity classes) whereas it's a major contentious issue in the US. Ajkgordon 17:57, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Ajkgordon, you're sliding back on your earlier acceptance of teacher-led prayer in the classroom. Now you merely say that "can't see why I would object - unless it was causing a conflict with students of another faith."  Suppose one student, an atheist, did object?  Do you then object also???  Also, you seem to contradict yourself now by saying you would oject if a teacher taught Creationism or ID in science class.  How can a prayer be OK with you, but ID not?  Do you object to ID even if that is what all the parents and students wanted?  I can see that when all is said and done, you'll object to prayer in the classroom just as the atheists do.  Indeed, that is the sine qua non of atheism:  censorship of faith in an intellectual setting.--Aschlafly 18:32, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, I'm not sliding anywhere - it's extraordinary how you can twist what I say into matching what you want to believe.
 * First of all, I don't define atheism as a faith, so no, that wouldn't be a condition under which I would object to prayers being said in the classroom. I think it would be clear what I meant to most people - I even explained it above; "Special circumstances being something like a Muslim leading prayers at a school with a Christian student population, or vice-versa." Of course, in reality, there would be compromise. A teacher insisting on leading a class of mixed faith in Christian prayer would be simply obstinate and cooler more sensible heads would no doubt step in a find a compromise.
 * Prayer is not the same as the teaching of ID or Creationism in a science class. At the moment, neither of those "subjects" is classified as science by any education authority that I'm aware of ( i.e. in France and the UK) so I would object to a non-science subject being taught in a science class. ID is unknown here but Creationism is covered under biblical inerrancy in religious education.
 * All this seems eminently sensible and reasonable to me sitting on this side of the pond. I might feel differently if I lived in the deep south of the USA.
 * But again, this is simply distraction. The point remains - here is one non-liberal non-atheist who feels that the petty argument over Dawkins' professorship detracts from valid criticism of his views and methods. Ajkgordon 09:32, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Summary of Established Evidence
From what I can tell, and as objectively as possible, over the course of the discussion the following have been established:


 * All appointments to professor level are the responsibility of the Personnel Committee, and are centralised within the University, as established [ http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/statutes/regulations/520-122a.shtml here].


 * There is no direct documentation either directly confirming or denying that Richard Dawkins passed a peer review process - a requirement established by [ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/weekly/091195/acts.htm#4Dec this document]. However, he is listed as "Professor Dawkins" by the Distinction Committee in 1996, [ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref here].


 * This document refers to Dawkins once, using the word "post". However, this word is used to describe professorships at Oxford in many other instances.


 * Richard Dawkins is addressed as "Professor Dawkins" by Oxford University itself – for example, here, here,[ http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/2003-4/weekly/301003/lecs.htm#5Ref here], and here.


 * Richard Dawkins is addressed as "Professor Dawkins" by numerous third parties including BBC, FOX News, Answers in Genesis, The Royal Society, [ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9112956/Dawkins-Richard Britannica], Christian Courier, Foundation for the Future, and [ http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/richard_dawkins/2007/10/for_good_people_to_go_evil_thi.html Washington Post].


 * The official Simonyi Professorship website states: Simonyi Professorship was set up with the express intention that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins. The same website also addresses him as "Professor Dawkins" [ http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/manifesto.shtml here] and here.

I hope that all of that information is correct. Please correct me if otherwise.

I am working on a rewrite of the "professorship controversy" section, attempting to remain as neutral and as impartial as possible while clearly presenting the facts.

Feebasfactor 19:49, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I agree that many people refer to Richard Dawkins as the Simonyi Professor. Why?  Because Dawkins himself claims that he is the Simonyi Professor!!  Surely you don't think that a self-serving claim confirms the claim.


 * Only one document in the above listing matters: the express requirements for the Simonyi professorship.  Surely we can agree that the express requirements for the Simonyi professorship are what one must satisfy before calling himself the Simonyi professor.


 * There has been no official statement explaining how Dawkins satisfied those express requirements. To the contrary, the establishment of the professorship suggests that Dawkins himself is given income for a "post" not subjected to the peer review requirements, and only future candidates will go through the peer review process set forth (and customarily required) for a professorship.--Aschlafly 20:30, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, at this point it is obvious that Richard Dawkins is a professor. For some reason, you have willfully ignored the evidence, presented ad infinitum, above.  This is your blog, so you are of course, free to do that. However at this point, you are not making Dawkins look bad (which seems to be your goal) but yourself and Conservapedia in the process. --McIntyre 20:45, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Sweet Fancy Moses!! Surely we can agree that your mind is jumping in circles to try and hold down this delusion of yours. There is no conspiracy. There is no four corner simultaneous day. Richard Dawkins has not fooled one of the most prominent academic institutions, one of the most prominent scientific scocieties, several prominent Christian apologetics organizations, several major news organizations, "liberal" or otherwise, into believing that he is a professor. Surely we don't think that you have uncovered the grand conspiracy, bringing down his precious house of card, forcing him to admit that this whole time it was a scam. After this you're gonna say his F.R.S is a sham, and unless we can dig up Newton to authenticate the process his fellowship is null and void. Do you see now how we can see through your rhetorical devices?
 * You have been challenged multiple times now to find at least one individual that supports your statement that Dawkins does not hold the Simonyi Professorship based on this little technicality that you've concocted. We've also challenged you to consider how this affects your own credibility. -- Oppen1 21:42, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Folks, no one has specifically identified anything false in the entry. The peer review requirements of the Simonyi professorship are clear and apparently you're in denial.  Fortunately, others are logical and are willing to accept what the Simonyi professorship requirements expressly state.--Aschlafly 21:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * We all agree on what the documents say. Nobody denies that the establishment act set out the rules for a new professor. And that the a position for Dawkins was funded from the donation. And noone disputes that the distinction committee gave Dawkins the title. You have this story in mind of what or could not could have happend in-between those two documents were published. Unless you you give proof it is as believable as the account that on evening of the establishment act the university board carried Dawkins on their hands through the streets of Oxford, rejoicing in joy, praising his many accomplishments in Gregorian chants. I don't have proof for any of this either. Order 22:31, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Andy, who would that be? Is this the part where you finally find someone to back you up? No, you're just gonna keep saying it over and over. It's already true to you, you've made it that way in your mind. I asked you again, do you think you're actually convincing anyone? How yould you rate your own credibility with anyone but yourself? -- Oppen1 22:41, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm not trying to "convince" anyone. The truth is worthwhile regardless of whether anyone else chooses to accept it.  If it makes you sleep better at night believing that Dawkins is somehow the Simonyi Professor, then goody for you.  Realize, however, that those who care about the truth are likely reach a different conclusion based on the express requirements of the Simonyi Professor and what Dawkins has failed to achieve.--Aschlafly 23:27, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I've already stated, Dawkins is irrelevant, and do you not also care about your credibility? You are passed the point where you feel you need to justify your state of mind, and instead just state what you feel is "fact." I'm confident anyone reading this discussion and analyzing the facts (not "facts") will come to a conclusion different that yours. Your own justification for continuing to believe what you want to believe only hurts yourself. -- Oppen1 00:08, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, whatever. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.  The fact is Richard Dawkins, whether you like it or not, is a professor.  Your continued denials of the obvious have made yourself and Conservapedia look foolish.--McIntyre 23:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Folks, your namecalling and frequent use of words like "foolish" and "hurts yourself" is getting tiresome, even for a talk page. Post something substantive here, or be silly somewhere else.  Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:16, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm sincerely interested in how you view your own credibility. -- Oppen1 00:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * As pointed out, ad nauseum, you have been presented with proof after proof. To my knowledge, no one has called you names, at least not in this discussion. The piont is, why do presist in stating that Dawkins is not a professor? And please, do not say it has not been proven, because it has been, over and over.--McIntyre 00:50, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Feebasfactor has given has given substantive summary, with documents to back every point up. You keep repeating that Dawkins failed to meet the criteria. This is your own assesment, however, and you are not only not the instance that had to decide on it, you failed in addition to give any evidence that justifies your assement. The distinction committee, who was entitled to decide, and which had all relevant documents, disagrees with you, and the evidence that they did is their announcement. You have been asked repeatedly for evidence that the decision of this committee is fraudulent. You are blaming them for an unlawful act, and you should have evidence for such an accusation. Order 01:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Feebasfactor's work was impressive, but left out key points like this: "Leading universities do not permit the 'buying' of a professorship for someone."  That is indisputable, and Dawkins' bypass of this rule is an embarrassment to the academic community.  That is true to an even greater extent if you insist that Dawkins holds a "professorship" bought by Simonyi.--Aschlafly 18:27, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Endowment is fairly common in Anglo-Saxon Universities. What you need to prove is that someone did bend the rules. If you had proof, you'd have a scoop. But you haven't. Order 19:42, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Endowments are common. Buying a professorship for an individual are not.  I can't think of another example.  Can you?  I can see what's wrong with buying someone a professorship.  What's next, "Oxford Professor Al Gore"???--Aschlafly 19:58, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Pointing to Gore doesn't help you with the lack of evidence with regard to the Distinction Committee given Dawkins the title. You have been asked to give proof for the latter allegation. Asking for proof yourself for something else doesn't do it.   Order 20:11, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * In other words, User:Order, you won't admit that is objectionable for someone to buy a professorship for someone else. If Simonyi's purchase of a professorship for Richard Dawkins is fine with you, then you should be fine with someone else buying an Oxford Professorship for Al Gore.  But you won't admit that, will you?--Aschlafly 20:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Purchasing a title which would entail breaking the rules the Oxford is not only questionable, it is probably also illegal. Therefore, I asked you to come up with proof. If you best argument is to bring in the name of Gore then your other arguments must be poor. It is kind of an admission that you do not have proof. 04:07, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The Simonyi professorship has defined goals and criteria [ http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/manifesto.shtml] that were approved by university act . You're comparing Oxford to a mail order diploma mill. You have not demonstrated that your criticism of the endowment is shared by anyone.  You've been asked for a simple reference to prove that this elaborate fantasy exists anywhere but your head.  -- Oppen1 20:40, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for leaving out the phrase "Leading universities do not permit the 'buying' of a professorship for someone." Perhaps I should have just instead asked for a source, or reworded to a less assertive or ambiguous stance. However, I'm not entirely clear on why this point is "indisputable"; what, for example, constitutes "leading universities"? Is their policy consistent? What reason do I have to think so? If a source can be found to substantiate this claim, excellent, but otherwise it has little value in its current state. Feebasfactor 23:24, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Feebasfactor, that's the most amazing part of this whole debate. The Richard Dawkins fan club sees nothing wrong or unusual about buying a professorship!!!  Can you believe it?  Do you think the reaction would be the same if, for example, someone bought an Oxford Professorship for Michael Behe or Jonathan Wells?  The howls of protest by the same folks who defend a purchase of a professorship for Richard Dawkins would be enormous.  Surely we can agree about that.--Aschlafly 23:31, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Andy, you imply that the "buying" of the title was illegal and in contrast with the established rules of leading universities as Oxford. Just because you call it "buying", doesn't mean that it was "buying", you will have to give proof. Otherwise it is a simple endowment. You are still failing to bring proof, instead you try to steer the discussion onto all kinds of tangents. Order 04:12, 17 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Order, don't duck the central issue. Would you say that the donation of a professorship at Oxford University for Jonathan Wells would be fine???  Look at how you use one standard for the evolutionist, but a very different standard for the proponent of intelligent design.  When you can look at your contradiction objectively, then you will have taken a step toward your freedom.--Aschlafly 17:34, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
 * The central issue isn't Jonathan Wells. And it is neither the concept of endowed or named professorship. I have little problems with either of them. The central issue is your claim that Dawkins title isn't legit. You are implying bribe on the side of Simonyi and Dawkins, and violation of its statues by the University of Oxford. You have failed to give proof for either of these allegations. I can understand that you want to change the subject to Jonathan Wells - I don't even know him - since you failed on the subject Dawkins. Order 20:18, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, I am not surprised, having debated Andy Schlafly before, I can attest that changing the subject is his standard tactic, as seen here. [ http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Was_Benjamin_Franklin_a_deist%3F]--McIntyre 20:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Well... Wouldn't it be fine? Would there actually be anything wrong with that? Ultimately it's up to the University of Oxford to handle such matters as they see fit. If it was deemed appropriate for a proponent of intelligent design, like Michael Behe or Jonathan Wells, to receive an endowment or to have a professorship donated or "bought" for them or whatever - then, well, what grounds does anyone else have to object? I apologize, I suppose I'm probably "missing the point" again, but I just don't see what's so wrong or unusual about it. I still don't know which are the leading universities that "do not permit the "buying" of a professorship for someone". Feebasfactor 18:36, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Setting aside the issue of whether or not Dawkins assist the understanding of science by the public, I would be interested in knowing if there ever was a case where an endowment largely involved the hiring of one individual for a university or college. If so, was it a modern case? Conservative 22:14, 20 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Isn't that what an endowed chair or professorship generally consists of? Or did you mean something more specific? I was under the impression that those happen fairly frequently - but in any case, I don't really know either. On that note I'd like to ask about the "leading universities" again, as I'm still working on a possible rewrite of the "professorship controversy" section. However, I don't want to pester and the discussion has unfortunately gone off on somewhat of a tangent... Feebasfactor 00:13, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * No, an endowed chair is named in honor of someone, usually deceased. Leading universities never allow the donor to buy a professorship (recipient of the income) for someone who was already not a professor. Just suggest the idea of buying a professorship to someone who is a real professor and he is likely to recoil in disgust. Surely you don't think money should be able to buy that.--Aschlafly 00:24, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Current article
IMVHO, the recent edits (by Conservative, I think) are much better. Still a bit of ad hominem in there but countering his views and writings is a much stronger position than the professorship issue, which is a distraction. Congrats. Ajkgordon 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

New Section
Andy, maybe it would help others here if you clarified your position again. Your reply to FeebasFactor above suggests that you accepted that Dawkins is a professor, but that he obtained his professorship through bribery, cronyism, fraud, favoritism, or some combination of those factors. Is that a more or less correct description of your stance?-- Bayes 00:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * No, it's not correct. I'm merely pointing out that those who insist that a professorship really was purchased for Dawkins are making him look even less credible.-- Aschlafly 00:24, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * So, all you have is problem with endowed professorships in general? Or can you be a bit more specific of what you are accusing Dawkins of, if not bribery, cronyism, fraud, or favoritism. I am currently browsing through the gazette of another leading university, and I already found one of you claims to be wrong (the one about endowments being named in honour of a dead person; it happens, but not exclusively). But, I'd like to know what you are looking for. Order 00:40, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * The Distinction Committee at Oxford, as well as other documents related to Oxford, refer to him as a professor. If there were no mistakes or underhanded activities involved, is Dawkins not a professor? My point is that there are only a few possibilities:


 * Dawkins is a professor
 * Oxford, along with a number of organizations listed on this page, is lying
 * Oxford, along with a number of organizations listed on this page, have been defrauded through one of the means I mentioned above.
 * Which is it?-- Bayes 00:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

A leading Intelligent Design Organization wants to promote this article
A leader of one of the top 5 intelligent design organizations said he wants to promote the conservapedia Richard Dawkins article until it has 1,000,000 views. In addition, a intelligent design advocate is going to ask a investigative journalist to investigate the situation in respect to the peer review process that Andy has been mentioning in respect to Dawkins current position.

I am guessing with the overspill into the evolution, intelligent design, atheism and other articles Conservapedia might be able to get way more than 1,000,000 views. I am hoping for 5 to 7 million views. I can also contact the press and I am guessing other conservative websites would promote this as well. Recently, Conservapedia got 60,000 views because one conservative organization linked to us and promoted us in relation to our homosexuality article. An even bigger organization says it also wants to promote our homosexuality article via a joint effort once I complete an article I am working on.

I am going to abridge the Richard Dawkins current article until the investigative journalist looks into the aforementioned matter above. Conservative 16:15, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * By the way, I have contacted Andy about the leader in the intelligent design organization promoting this article and also told him about the investigative journalist. Conservative 16:20, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Great, we'll notify Oxford legal counsel.- Feiner 16:58, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Contact Oxford about what? The matter is merely being investigated and there is currently no mention of the matter in the current article. Conservative 17:01, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Wait, isn't it still there? Has the article been changed? I didn't think a clear consensus had been reached regarding this matter, so what sort of changes could've permissably been made? Sorry, I've been trying to follow and understand this article and its talk page, in the hope of maybe clearing up the issues and reaching an agreement on how to better word the article without compromising its points - but the changes as of late have been very confusing. Feebasfactor 20:38, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

principles of weighing historical evidence and the Richard Dawkins professorship issue
I believe a main weakness of the debating between the two sides of whether or not Dawkins is a professor approved by peer review is that neither side has appealed to the discipline of historiography (principles of weighing historical evidence). Now there is a Pulitzer prize winning historican by the name of David Hackett Fischer and he is a very logical and astute historian and I think he is a conservative as well (he cited Scripture in one of his works and we all know that conservatives are generally more logical :) ).

Here is some background information:

Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics.

Here is a overview of Fischer's rules taken from Josh McDowell 's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and please pay attention to the bolded portions below:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

The above rules were taken from Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8))

I think using rules 1,4, and 7 above the issue of whether or not Dawkins is most likely or not most likely a professor is very clear. I will let each side argue their case and afterwords I will offer my verdict on the situation.


 * Hmmm, it's a good guide but is Dawkins' professorship historical? It's current. If you do want to use those rules, then the assertion that Dawkins is a professor meets #1, the assertion that Dawkins is not a professor fails on #4, and #7 is satisfied by it being more probable (considering OU calls him one) that Dawkins' is a professor than he isn't.

I don't know what your investigative journalist is intending to uncover but if he's using those rules than I imagine not a lot. But then that's not what investigative journalists do. Ajkgordon 15:52, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Ajkgordon, I would first say that I wanted to correct two things you said. First, I merely said the leader of the intelligent design movement was going to ask a investigative journalist to look into the issue of whether or not the peer review process took place in regards to Dawkins being a professor. There is no guarantee that the investigative journalist will have any interest.

Second, there is a historical question here and namely it is did the peer review process take place in regards to Dawkins being a professor.

Next, Dawkins makes the assertion that he is a professor and implies the historical assertion that a peer review process took place. Andy makes the assertion that "apparently" no peer review process took place. Now Andy is violating rule number #4 above because just because there is no direct evidence that the peer review took place doesn't it didn't take place (absence of direct evidence is not evidence of absence -rule #4). Also, Andy is not giving us any evidence that it did not take place so he is violating rule #1 by making the assertion that it apparently did not take place. Then applying rule #7 with the fact that the Oxford Gazette called him a professor, which is indirect evidence he is a professor, the probability that the peer review process took place is greater than it did not take place.

Lastly, I think our rules of historical evidence should be applied uniformly. Do we have any direct evidence that Dr. Gary Habermas passed peer review to become a professor or that he obtained his doctorate? If we don't and we apply the same standard of evidence that we are using for Dawkins then rightfully we have to put in the Gary Habermas article that apparently Dr. Habermas did not pass peer review to become a professor and he apparently never obtained his doctorate. I think those two aformentioned assertions regarding Habermas would be unreasonable. Conservative 16:16, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I stand corrected. Twice! Thanks. Um, are you sure you want to do this? :) Ajkgordon 16:23, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * AjkGordon, I think that when anyone makes an edit to a conservapedia article and they know the attendant talk page exist they are entering into a situation where they knowingly take the risk of being corrected.  I also believe that human error is a fact of life and that all conservapedians should be open to revising a mistake they made in regards to editing.  Fischer corrects professional historians in regards to historiography so I do think that Andy a non-historian should be open to modifying his post after he sees Fischer's sound historiography principles. Next,  Andy has changed his mind in light of evidence before in regards to his decisions (the American vs. English spelling of words commandment) so I don't think it would be disastrous to admit error here. In short, I don't think the whole Conservapedia project would end because Andy revised a post of his. Conservative 16:43, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, good luck. Personally I think that stance is eminently reasonable. Ajkgordon 16:48, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

AjkGordon, I do think that I am acting in the best interest of Conservapedia here. I think that other conservative websites would be more likely to link to this article if the introduction were revised. Given my current contacts I am postive I could get one to two conservative websites with respectable web traffic to link to this article but currently my hands are tied. Conservative 16:43, 22 October 2007 (EDT) I think you are probably right. I have made the disrepute argument before but to no avail. Ajkgordon 16:57, 22 October 2007 (EDT) <dd><dl><dd>Ajkgordon, I am not saying that anyone did anything disreputable. I do believe that in order to resolve disputes that cordiality and diplomacy should not be discarded. Conservative 20:13, 22 October 2007 (EDT) <dl><dd>No, I meant that the article as it stands runs the risk of bringing Conservapedia into disrepute not that anyone was disreputable. I agree with you about cordiality and diplomacy. Ajkgordon 20:17, 22 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl><dd>I think this article has a lot of potential if it had a few revisions. There are a lot of people who would like to hear the other side in regards to Dawkins but currently the first 50 Google results seem to be totally monopolized by the Dawkins fan club. I do think if we created a dissenting view of the first 50 Google results that we might get a lot of traffic. I don't think much effort has been expended to do so in the past and I don't think it would be hard to do as a lot of people are not fond of what Dawkins promotes. Conservative 20:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl> <ul><li>I think you mistake your position here, Conservative. If you wish to relinquish your Sysop position, and gather forces to show Andy where he is wrong, go for it. If however you wish to remain a part of Conservapedia's administrators, you should stop your constant efforts to make him wrong, and be supportive. You are all about making deals with other sites to feature only content created and controlled by you. You are certainly not about promoting CP and what it stands for. Is this a clear enough statement (as you requested) as to if I agree with your silly historiography principles? If it isn't you just let me know. -- <font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 00:10, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dl><dd><dl><dd>TK, I don't think you showed that I am constantly trying to prove Andy wrong. Andy and I have disagreed on a total of 2 articles. Next, I don't believe that Andy wants to foster an environment where everything he posts is automatically correct. Such an environment is decidedly anti-intellectual, not realistic, and not befitting an encyclopedia. An environment like that is would be akin to a cultlike atmosphere like Jonestown and I don't believe that is what Andy wants. Lastly, I would appreciate it if you kept the focus on the actual article here. If you have a complaint against me I think my talk page or email is the appropriate place. Conservative 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl> <dd>TK, I would also state that I would be glad to work with others in regards to request for articles that I have on my plate right now. In fact, RobS and I worked together for an article that Concerned Women of America wants CP to produce. Conservative 00:53, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dl><dd><dl><dd>TK, in addition they are not my historiography principles but the principles given by an eminent historian and nobody has told me why the principles are unsound. Conservative 01:22, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl> <ul><li>Interesting confession, Conservative. Historians and their opinions on most anything are a dime a dozen. Some even claim that Evolution is the only possible way to explain life. Do you accept those opinions by eminent Historians? See how your own arguments are poppycock? Nice of you to inform the rest of us you are working for another site, though. Finally the truth comes out. -- <font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 01:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dd>First, Fisher is a Pulitzer prize winning historian. Next, you are committing the genetic logical fallacy so instead of engaging in fallacy show me where Fischer is unreasonable. You try to attack Fischer because you cannot attack his reasonable historiography principles. Next, I am creating content at CP which Concerned Women of American wants to link to and thus bring us internet traffic. Lastly, I wish to make a correction, RobS and I worked on something together that I think some other websites might want to link to (at least RobS and I thought it was a noteworthy topic). Conservative 01:42, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl> <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>Conservative, we can't sell our principles just for a few web hits. Giving into Dawkins deceitful claim of professorship would be hypocritical. SSchultz 01:50, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dl><dd>Schultz, I would kindly state that you are presenting a false dilemna. Show me where the above analyis using a sound methodology for answering historical questions is errant. I could just as easily say Dawkins is a professor and leave it at that but I think demonstrating my position using a sound methodology of deciding historical questions is a far more reasonable approach. Conservative 02:04, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dl><dd>Conservative, the fact is that Andy has already made a decision on this page. He wants the facts regarding Dawkins' fraudulent professorship to remain. I don't understand why you're choosing to go against him like this. Moreover, all the talk about your methodology for deciding the question sounds a lot like the way evolutionists talk about defending their theories. SSchultz 15:27, 23 October 2007 (EDT) <dl><dd>To be fair, SSshultz, it doesn't appear to me that Conservative is "choosing to go against [Aschlafly] like this" - rather he using an historical research tool to ascertain whether the assertion that Dawkins is not a professor has any merit. It's just another angle to help editors with their judgement. Ajkgordon 16:17, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl></dl></dl></dl> <ul><li>Me, Me, Me!! It is like a broken record. The rantings of a Bot. Show you! Tell you! I think I need to complete my article on Internet Trolls. I certainly have more than enough material to masterfully demonstrate what one is. I hope Concerned Women and Peter will be interested in it as well. If not, I have been in contact with several very large sites, who all get millions of hits daily, who are interested in linking to it! Anyone who is interested in collaborating on it, please contact me. -- <font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 02:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </li></ul> <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd>TK, I have no desire to attempt to have unrelated discussions regarding your unsupported accusations that are unrelated to the article especially when I think they are unreasonable. Conservative 02:16, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl> <dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd><dl><dd> I usually disagree with Conservative, and I've raised an eyebrow at his "millions of hits" claims. However, following Fischer's principles is an excellent means of resolving the discussion over Dawkins' professorship. Really, it has gone on far too long.-- McIntyre 02:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT) </dl></dl></dl></dl> I was asked to weigh in this matter. Not sure if makes a difference, but at least I can try. <ul><li>First, the principle laid out by the historian Fisher aren't that different from what the CP guidelines try to achieve, except that his are more specific to history writing. There is nothing wrong to look at the best practice used by historians when you write biographical articles. I could even imagine that some of Fisher recommendations would make it into the CP guidelines, since they reflect common sense, used elsewhere as well. <ul><li>As TK pointed out, historians are able to quibble over all kind of things. The nice things about sticking to such guidelines is that you quibble on a slightly higher level, and it increases the chances to stay on topic. In a charged atmosphere, like on this talk page, even the most benign observations become a litmus test on political loyalties, and can lead to personal insults. Take as example SSchultz' latest comment; it doesn't give any evidence on the matter, but instead calls you a hypocritical sell-out. Hardly illuminating any fact, other than SSchultz' idiosyncratic way to participate in discussions. </li><li>If you want to have lots of web hits, it might even be better say clearly what you accusations are. Bayes asked a few days ago what the allegations are what the allegations are, if not cronyism, bribery, or fraud, but no-one felt competent to answer it. If you would put into the article that you are accusing Dawkins, Simonyi or the University of Oxford of cronyism, bribery, or fraud, and you get some journalist to feature it prominently, you might attract a big deal of people who want to have a look. I mean, who does not enjoy a mud fight. If you don't want to look like some yellow press newspaper, you should of course have some evidence. The kind of evidence you find if you go to the archives of the University of Oxford and look up the minutes of the Distinction Committee. Its boring, I know, the kind of boring the set of rules by David Fisher are. Order 02:48, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * McIntyre, I want to stay on topic but I briefly will say that I think taking a defeatist attitude and saying Conservapedia cannot get millions of hits to various articles stifles creativity and initiative. One article for Conservapedia is getting 600 hits a day.  I don't think it is a stretch of the imagination to get an article like that to get 6,000 hits a day via various methods to grow its Internet traffic. Conservative 03:19, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Please document those 600 hits per day, Conservative. Can you provide realistic proof of that? Where are you seeing those hits? It is important that you stop, making statements without backing it up as you say it. Not later. Not by giving another answer, but directly stating how you arrive at that figure. If you are using the built-in counter on CP, we already know page counts have been artificially inflated, such as the Goat article with over 100,000 hits, several thousands per day. You have already been made aware of that, and acknowledged via email you knew of it. "Various" efforts smacks of pandering and manipulation of the numbers. Is that something we should aspire to? Do you consider "ratings" to be a scholarly effort? -- <font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">şŷŝoρ-₮K <font color="DC143C">/Ṣρёаќǃ 05:31, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * TK, I am not going to wrangle with you regarding whether this article or that article was artificially inflated. I do think getting web traffic to conservapedia is important as new traffic means new editors.  And with new editors can come new expertise and a greater depth of the number of articles plus expansion of articles when needed. But again, please keep on topic in regards to this article. Conservative 06:53, 23 October 2007 (EDT)


 * }

PNAS Reply
{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" class="collapsible collapsed" style="border: 0px solid black;" !
 * - style="Background: rgb(204, 204, 255);"
 * - style="whitespace: nowrap; Background: rgb(204, 204, 255); align: center; font-weight: bold;"
 * Huntin' and Shootin' and Nuclear Fission
 * :::Note: this is the PNAS reply talk page. It has undergone an amazing amount of censorship.
 * :::Note: this is the PNAS reply talk page. It has undergone an amazing amount of censorship.


 * Yes, we are aware that Bugler was a parodist, but face it, all he's doing here is agreeing with Andy and Andy is agreeing with him! In any case, this page is an exposition of what happens on Conservapedia, not an analysis of the fundamental motives of the people involved.  For all we know, many of the others are parodists also.

- Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

Initial discussion
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- jp 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--Aschlafly 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)


 * "...the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court." Which is why the Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al. decision was so important. Science was able to vindicate itself against the claims of intelligent design creationism. As for PNAS: It's not like the reviewer is saying anything that commenters here hadn't told ASchlafly already. -Drek


 * Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by pseudoscience of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. Bugler 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth?


 * If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received.  That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities.  Solely from the dismissive nature of the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound.  We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.


 * How can we distinguish? Can we distinguish?  Well, yes.  Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues.  The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”.  These are reasons to reject the criticisms.


 * Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter. Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc.  The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS.  However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to the paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking.  Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist !


 * On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study? We have little that goes beyond assertion.


 * It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit. It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--Toffeeman 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--Aschlafly 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--Brossa 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--Aschlafly 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. did correctly in their original paper"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--Brossa 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. Jirby 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--Aschlafly 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?Jirby 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the letter.--Aschlafly 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? Jirby 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, suckadick moron who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. Raul 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. Raul 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--Aschlafly 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... Raul 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Please
Please, stop deleting entries in this talk page. It puts conservatives in bad light. Let's answer with reason and debating skills instead. This is particularly aimed at user:Aschlafly.

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--IanG 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, Pila 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Fine, then I'll just say I agree with the response.--IanG 17:44, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Next step
Andy, the PNAS Editorial Board seems to have taken point 5 as your substantive objection - and has rejected it out of hand. Perhaps you should submit a new letter and use your 250 words to argue specifically for that point. --JohnZ 19:21, 13 September 2008 (EDT)


 * if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. Markr 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--Aschlafly 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Toffeeman's comment seemed to me to be substantive in any sense you could name. In what way was it a 'misrepresentation'? Sam99foster 10:13, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Okay, let's get back to basic, substantive comments. When I read the PNAS response, I don't see it being a "non-responsive explanation" or a "failure to address the five errors identified in the Letter to PNAS". What I see is a refutation of the objections raised by Aschlafly in his letter with regard to the statistics-based issues he raised. The PNAS response devotes seven sentences to explaining why the underlying statistics in the published experiment were sound, and following accepted practices. A follow-up point in the second paragraph states that the statistical misunderstanding by Aschlafly is of such a basic level that the PNAS journal is not the appropriate forum to respond with a lesson in experimental statistics to explain his misunderstanding in detail. In short, they are stating, professionally, that Aschlafly needs to learn more about experimental statistics and then re-examine his issues to see if they are, in fact, issues (which PNAS says they are not).

The PNAS response also states that their letters forum is not the appropriate place to raise objections about whether Lenski has disclosed his data or not to the public. That is a professional response as well.

What I'd suggest then, is that the appropriate response is for Aschlafly to defend the statistical analysis he used in identifying his issues, to respond to the PNAS assertion that it was erroneous. To summarize, PNAS didn't dodge a response - their response is that the analysis was flawed. Any response by Aschlafly to that assertion is up to him. --DinsdaleP 11:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I concur with DinsdaleP. The PNAS response is pretty much what I expected given what I perceived to be the general lack of receptiveness to information provided by others with more experience in biology in the discussions leading up the letter's creation (clearly, others have differing opinions). Thus it would appear that either biologists as a class are terribly poor at recognizing "the truth" or maybe it's not the biologists who are having the problem. I'd like to suggest another route, in addition to DinsdaleP's suggestion to explicitly defend Andy's statistical claims. Recall that the strains and cultures described in the paper remain available to other scientists if they choose to reproduce the experiments. In the several months since the "Lenski affair" began, what success have Conservapedia members (at least those interested in the topic) had in locating bacteriology labs sympathetic to Conservapedia's mission to investigate Blount et al.'s work and rerun the experiments? As numerous others have noted, reproduction of experimental results is a gold standard in science. The strains provide the best evidence for or against the conclusions in the paper. I'd humbly suggest that obtaining the help of a friendly lab would provide the most sure and direct means of resolving the issues.--Argon 18:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)--Argon 18:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be correct or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.


 * My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of substantive - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --DinsdaleP 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some substantive insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--Aschlafly 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--Argon 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you absolutely 100% certain that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? BenHur 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they did in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.


 * I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --DinsdaleP 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five very specific statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * "The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?


 * "The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --Brossa 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'll second that. I hold a Ph.D. in complexity theory, and I don't see any problem with the two techniques above. That's just my opinion, but the fact that other opinions exist should at least make people pause for thought on this one. I'm certainly no raving Liberal, as I hope you can see from my edits here.


 * I do think the PNAS letter was very disrespectful in its attitude, and perhaps too brief and dismissive, but I think it did make a valid point (in a bad way). Ultimately Andy, as great as you are at other things, from what you've written here you don't appear to have any real expertise in statistics beyond that of a reasonably-gifted layman. I don't think you're going to make any headway against these people until you acknowledge these limitations, and seek out somebody like Behe who has the relevant expertise and can add some academic weight to your arguments.


 * Where do we go from here? I think we should stop, take a step back, reevaluate some of the claims made here (some of which I'm afraid were wrong imho) and seek out heavyweight help. I hope you don't mind this constructive criticism and take it at face value. MikeR 09:08, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --Aschlafly 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))


 * I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you absolutely 100% certain your own statistical analysis is correct on this?  Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   BenHur 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Torrent of nonsense
Aschlafly suggests: "The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper."

Faulty logic on four counts: 1) It is not a "torrent of nonsense" to independently repeat experiments. That is the basis by which experimental results may be readily confirmed or disproved and reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. 2) Nobody suggested that Aschlafly repeat the experiments by himself. It is understood that he doesn't have the facilities to do that. What I suggested was that Conservapedia editors try to locate sympathetic scientists who have the resources to run the experiments. These experiments are neither expensive nor difficult to reproduce. It just takes time (a few minutes a day for most of the work) and a lab. 3) If another lab group found that they were unable to reproduce the results despite using the strains provide by Lenski and following the paper's techniques, that would force a serious re-evaluation and likely, a retraction of conclusions made paper. 4) I made no "demand" that the experiments be repeated. I *suggested* that it would be a good idea. I wrote: "Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment."

Given the substantive remarks provided above, will Aschlafly or anyone else acknowledge that rerunning the experiment in an independent lab has legitimate merit?--Argon 12:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--Aschlafly 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Thank you for your clarification.  Actually, yes, I have a University education in statistics to Master's level, and I have looked at what you suggest are "five errors", and I have indeed made my own decision.   I'll reserve comment for now.   BenHur 18:40, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you removed this comment of mine?  I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense?   BenHur 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Your comment was not an "indictable offense," but it violated the rules of this page: "Substantive comments only, please."  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * This is confusing.  Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page".   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    BenHur 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--Aschlafly 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * (removed another non-substantive posting)--Aschlafly 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm sorry about that, I didn't realize the name was the issue, I've had it since last year and have only returned to edit here again recently.  Do you wish me to forget this username and create a new one?   I am happy to do so if you wish.   Finally, does your comment also refer to the other users on this page such as "jp", "jirby", "Pila" and "Bugler" (whose names you didn't seem to have a problem with)?   BenHur 20:09, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Andy - I too, like BenHur, am confused by your definition of "substantive." For example, jp writes only about his opinions of the state of modern science and the current scientific community, nothing at all specific to the PNAS reply letter. BenHur, however, has asked questions directly regarding your original letter (Regarding the use of the Monte Carlo technique and Z-transform) in an attempt to further clarify your position. As far as I can tell, he is not denying the validity of any statement you made, but rather asks for the actual math you performed and further elucidation on the reasoning behind your points. I can hardly see how that is not substantive, it is directly related to the subject at hand: Your letter to PNAS and their response. To quote yourself, "you doth protesteth too much." It is indeed your prerogative to question scientific studies and to raise issues, but to expect to be taken seriously, one should have a complete set of supporting mathematics and evidence for your questions. So far, I have seen you produce no specifics on why Lenski performed an erroneous statistical analaysis, nor why PNAS' claim that your challenges are incorrect is incorrect itself. --AndrasK 20:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations should have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--Brossa 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * It takes much more than a 9th-grade education to thoroughly evaluate professional microbiology and experimental statistics. The letter was rejected because the objections raised demonstrated fundamental misunderstandings of the techniques used, and thus were not up to PNAS standards. That's all there is to it. Period. The objections were vague (far from "very specific") and offered no corrections (and none have yet appeared on this site either). They only said "that's wrong" without support, which accomplishes nothing. That letter, like all such correspondence, was evaluated purely on its own merit, and not because PNAS is afraid of being proven wrong (in fact, that's when science is most exciting!). Furthermore, anonymous review is common practice- you also wouldn't have gotten a name if he/she had agreed with the letter. Kallium 18:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--Aschlafly 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --Brossa 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--Aschlafly 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome".  It seems to me that you have explicitly removed only the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   BenHur 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --DRamon 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the Talk:Letter to PNAS page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--Brossa 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at Talk:Letter to PNAS. Are you trying the classic trick of "the answer is over there," when it isn't?  Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors.  I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--Aschlafly 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  MickA 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled "Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function..." The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: "The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population." The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there was a potentiating mutation rather than a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.


 * Point two states: "Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this." I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for all experimental conditions anywhere; just that the mutation rate is constant given the conditions of a particular replay. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.


 * Point two also states "If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically." This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately.


 * I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--Brossa 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false.  If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.


 * Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect.  Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--Aschlafly 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!


 * I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three for scale: it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions.--Brossa 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Brossa, you don't address how Lenski did combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you.  Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site.  Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?


 * Your account will be blocked for your 90/10 rule violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * But Aschlafly, you still have not yet explained your own mathematical analysis.  It seems you will do anything to debate with others, but nothing whatsoever to actually explain your own thesis - constantly repeating that you are correct is not a reasonable argument.   A very large number of editors have asked some very simple question which you must surely have the answers to, since they are fundamental to your thesis, yet you utterly refuse to provide an answer and instead debate, debate, and block.   Surely this discussion can be kept on a reasonable, open-minded  keel AND at the same time, include extensive statistical and mathematical explanations from BOTH sides of the issue?   None of us - yourself included - are enjoying this 'debate about a debate'.   Please, try to back up your argument with some actual evidence.   BenHur 20:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski did combine the three experiments"
 * Me, earlier on this page:"This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments." "Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?" "...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation)."  "If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)..."
 * Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.


 * ASchlafly: "Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2."
 * Me, earlier on this page: "The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same." "It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions."  "It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions"


 * ASchlafly: "Your account will be blocked for your 90/10 rule violation unless you improve soon."
 * Me, earlier on this page:"If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response..." "I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to."  "I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did."
 * I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--Brossa 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Please provide your statistical analysis
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. MickA 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I did. Which point don't you understand?--Aschlafly 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? MickA 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Andy this is the hollywood breast cancer argument over again. You have made a series of vague statements without any actual numbers to back this up. DanB 21:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --DRamon 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * PNAS have directly addressed his concerns. They made it quite clear that there is no obvious ("subtle or obscure") statistical errors. If Andy's letter had raised any serious concerns then they would have asked the authors to respond. The only reason this is continuing is Andy "twice as many statistic courses as you" won't accept that he is wrong. DanB 21:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)


 * It is not the function of the editorial board to "defend" a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to "put his name" on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --Stitch75 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? MickA 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Improper
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat inappropriate for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. Fred1776 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. Bugler 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone.  It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma.  True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others.  We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --Toffeeman 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * (EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than "elementary". The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. KimEide 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the Liberal establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. Bugler 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. KimEide 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --IanG 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (At the risk of a block) Not "believe everything on the basis that they are experts", but neither "disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal". If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept something told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --Toffeeman 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the "expert" view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.

Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--Aschlafly 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. KimEide 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What might wash with Liberal agnostic theology professors won't wash with true Christians. Bugler 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. KimEide 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I disagree. I have found that when people use the word "scholars" that it is very specific to their side.  So what is your definition of a scholar?  In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs.  All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.  Taken across America, that number would be much higher. Learn together 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
 * If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. KimEide 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible.  Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics.  The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith.  Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority.  MickA 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. KimEide 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those "experts". I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics.  Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts.  Why?  The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--Aschlafly 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.


 * Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them.  If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it.  His own "biographical sketch" doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were

in.--Aschlafly 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The absence of biology students in your statistics courses does not prove that no biology students take statistics (and I am surprised that you knew what the major was of every student in your classes); as a life sciences graduate student I see biology students take statistics (usually biostatistics) all the time. Also, you are quite quick to jump to conclusions - just because Lenski does not list his fields of study for BA and PhD does not mean he is hiding something, and a biographical sketch is not a detailed CV. His honors and appointments in microbiology are all quite apparent.


 * Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of "Letters to the PNAS". It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. KimEide 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--Aschlafly 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?


 * Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level.


 * I'm not "anti" this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. MikeR 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error.  Check out evolution syndrome.--Aschlafly 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. MikeR 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one.  But beware, the evolution syndrome you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution.  Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here.  So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute.  You may have to use your own mind on this one.--Aschlafly 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I've not really seen any "hysteria" here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.


 * As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. MikeR 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance?  I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology?   What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct?   It could only but strengthen your argument.   BenHur 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:


 * Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al
 * Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change
 * When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution

Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....BillK 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Your first example is a defense of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--Aschlafly 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. Above are the links to three articles that "contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article." I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? JohnDee 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? Fred1776 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Clarification on peer review and anonymity
There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.

The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.


 * I hate to say it so bluntly, Andy, but you more than somewhat had this coming. You provided, quite simply, an elementary knowledge of statistics, and an ignorance of a vast collection of general knowledge. I believe it is entirely possible you suffer from Creation Syndrome IssacP 10:24, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Statistics examples
I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are "pro" (support) and 52 are "con" (against) the hypothesis. So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were "pro" and 2 were "con." If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 "pro" and 54 "con", so more than 50% "pro" (in a large total sample size!), appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --DRamon 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Point 5 Confirmed
I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

But it doesn't matter who I am - my argument is made on a completely objective basis not on my personal views.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why this aspect of his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than that of the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that P is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

Although the combination of data from several experiments is a specialised area of statistics, I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.) Generally speaking, the outcome of a combined analysis of several small experiments which all point in the same direction (or at least in a similar direction) will be more significant than that of any one of those experiments, as is shown in the larger table above.

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. KennyMac 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)


 * That's very nicely put, thanks. You should work on some of the stats pages here. Of course, technically any sample is ultimately just a combination of n samples of size 1. MikeR 13:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--Aschlafly 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * "The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so"--KingOfNothing 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. Etc 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * KingOfNothing is correct. The point is that, if a series of experiments all indicate (or tend to indicate) the same conclusion, the result of analysing the complete series of tests may be much stronger than that of any one test (i.e. it may have a much lower significance test probability). This is as true of Lenski's experiments as of the simple example above. Hence Aschafly's criticism of Lenski's paper in this respect is invalid.
 * Regarding Etc's point: If you paraphrase Aschafly's argument in his Letter to PNAS as the hypothesis that one weak result should cast doubt on several stronger results, even though they all tend to lead to the same conclusion, the example above disproves that hypothesis. No further mathematical analysis is necessary. (By the way, a carefully argued text is not a rant.) KennyMac 09:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * "It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above". No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: "I suggest you try harder with an open mind". --CrossC 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has just been blocked for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted "open mind" of which various people here speak. BenHur 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Dear Aschlafly,
After reading your letter, the response from the PNAS, and the entire Lenski affair you dragged yourself into, I have some information you might want to read. Simply put, the PNAS was on the right track, see below for why

1.Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations "arose by 20,000 generations." The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved the contingency hypothesis depicted in Figure 3.

Reading over the paper, I didn’t find anything about a “historical contingency” around the 31,000th generation. What I believe I am seeing is a misunderstanding, Lenski was looking for two scenarios, First he indicates that if the ability for the E. Coli to consume citrate was due to a mutation, than the rate of the mutation would remain constant, but if it was population that made the mutation more likely, there would be a point where the mutation rate would increase. The graph simply showed both options, so I believe there was a misunderstanding of the graph.

2.Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this. If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.

I am not sure what you are trying to point out here. As the PNAS pointed out, mutations are random. Another note is that Lenski adressed this in his paper, and highlighted it in the article, even pointing out changes in the third experiment. Just a question, what do you mean by treating “them similarly statistically.”?

3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim.

Erm… why was the Monte Carlo resampling incorrect? I cannot make heads nor tail of what you were thinking when you wrote this. Also, the result was inconsistent with the null hypothesis by a margin of 92 percent.

4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

First off, modern technology grants quite a decent ability to detect the amount of bacteria in the sample, and there were NO Cit+ variants in it, nor were they mentioned in the paper. Honestly, do you believe that Lenski and his assistants were playing “toss the bacteria around”? Your assumption that there *had* to be Cit+ bacteria in the sample is incorrect, and seems to be based off your misunderstanding of the field.

5. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.

Again… what? There is simply nothing “wrong” or “incorrect” about combining different sized samples to test the results. There are correct techniques for testing this kind of things (“Z-transformation” method, to be specific!) and it was used to make the test. Finally, your claim about the paper not being publicly available is false, as you can easily find it by going to Lenski’s site All the information is right there, 3 clicks away from a Google search.

Might I ask you to clarify the questions and insight I have provided above? AlexaJ


 * Your posting is filled with gross misspellings, "I don't get it" type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I suggest you try harder with an open mind.  Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)


 * ... 7 slightly misspelled words doesn't give an apt enough excuse not to respond, Andy.Jirby 01:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Can we assume from your lack of response to these points (and others above) that you don't have the expertise to answer these questions? It's okay if you don't, you should just be humble and admit it. JohnDee 09:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Are you not making an assumption here, JohnDee? If you were in his position, would you have answered a letter with all these mistakes and a condescending tone?--Carolyn 09:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Read over this talk page. Andy has never directly answered any criticism of his PNAS letter. He either removes the comment from the talk page, bans the user, or just refuses to answer the question. Sometimes all three. Given this and the criticism I've seen on this page from people who seem to know what they are talking about, the only conclusion I can come to is Andy doesn't actually understand why z-transformations are applied, what a Monte Carlo re-sampling test is, etc. If he understood any of this, I would assume he would actually answer their questions. JohnDee 10:20, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * "Are you not making an assumption here". Spelling mistakes signify little beyond spelling.  If you were to consider swimming to the bottom of the Pacific and I said "you won't be able to, you can't breathe underwater" then I would be right.  If I were to write "U wont bee able to, yu can't breev undewatta" I would still be right about your ability to swim to the bottom of the Pacific.  Woefully wrong about spelling, but spot on about the status of your gills.  On the "tone" of the edit I might remind you that PNAS took exception to the "tone" of the letter.  "Mr. Schlafly's final comment about release of data is uncalled for".  Professor Lenski certainly took exception to the tone of both emails to him: "(g)iven the continued rudeness of your second email" (my emphasis).  And, naturally, it makes little difference to the validity of the criticisms: if I were to say "you *******************, you can't breathe underwater" I would still be right.  So "your spelling is bad" or "you are being rude" simply fail to negate the statement "the letter was wrong". In the abscence of a negation coupled with plenty of corroboration, we a forced to the conclusion that the letter had little merit. --Toffeeman 10:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I am resting under a similar assumption. My next couple of questions, Aschlafly, first off, why did you refuse to give a direct answer to a single question, instead option to say "Your spelling was bad, hence, you are closed minded." I think you mean to say "I have no idea how to give a correct response, hence I will just refuse to answer you." Until you actually answer my questions, I will assume you do not understand how to answer. Second, yes, there are "I don't understand" parts in my questions, parts I wanted you to clarify so I could understand them. Refusing to answer those makes it look, again, like you simply don't understand, in this case, you don't understand what YOU wrote. Finally, the "general link" was a link to the cumulative research of Richard Lenski, so that point is completely invalid. If you could respond to my post WITHOUT brushing it off, it would be deeply appreciated. (by the way, I re-checked the spelling just for you.) AlexaJ

Schlafly, admitting you were wrong does not in any way reflect weakness, nor does it have to affect your belief in any way. On the contrary, admitting you are wrong proves you are sure of your capacities to better yourself, and that you are willing to learn. If you say it right, you will also have a good chance to eanr the respect of some of the people that criticized you.

Continuous denial, and refusal to answer because of a few spelling mistakes, on the other hand reflects fear of making mistakes, and has the effect of worsening your image. You choose. Fred1776 15:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Just for our own awareness, can I please ask you AlexaJ what your expertise in this subject matter is? Thanks--Carolyn 10:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

REPLY: I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, "The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.

In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5. When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--Aschlafly 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--Aschlafly 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a "sample" is either:


 * 1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)
 * 2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)


 * Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --Toffeeman 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


 * No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--Aschlafly 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free here. --BillA 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


 * You say "statistical technique used," but you should have said "statistical technique cited." In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size:


 * "When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis."see p. 1371.


 * In other words, the cited paper actually supports Point 5.--Aschlafly 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))

Applying the formula described above..

So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0<P<0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P<0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P<0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). --Toffeeman 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were "extremely significant").  Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading.  Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner.  I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.


 * People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong.  But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.


 * Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--Aschlafly 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


 * "a falsehood is still a falsehood". Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.


 * Oh? Do you mean Lenski's falsehood? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at <0.0001.  That is true, not false.  Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at <0.0001.  That is true, not false.  There is no falsehood.  Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers.  He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers.  If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim.


 * How do the words Lenski uses "mislead". If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to?  You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent.  That is the right conclusion.  If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to?  You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent.  That is the right conclusion.  To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect.  By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect.  Thus is cannot be said to be "misleading".


 * I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to "Tu Quoque" would be too great.

--Toffeeman 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The falsehood consists of pretending to apply the Whitlock Z-transform in a straightforward, logical and correct manner. I think the Lenski paper is intentionally misleading by using the "whether or not" wording, when both alternatives are nonsensical.  Point 5 has been proven above to be correct in identify an error in the Lenski paper.


 * "Toffeeman", your blocking history suggests you have been less than straightforward yourself. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful.  You're not fooling anyone here.--Aschlafly 17:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Lenski did apply the Z-transformation correctly, both weighted and unweighted. The data points extracted from each replay are the generation numbers of those replicates that gave rise to Cit+ mutants. Thus Replay 1 produced four data points: 30,500 31,500 32,500 32,500. Replay 2 produced five data points: 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,500. Replay 3 produced eight data points: 20,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,000. Thus the N for replay 1 is 4; replay 2 is 5 and replay 3 is 8. The fact that replay 3 used 38 times as many replicates as replay 1 does not mean that it should be weighted 38 times as much; it only produced twice as much data, not 38 times as much.


 * Suppose I want to find out what the average age of a murderer is in three cities. In L.A. I interview 72 random people and find that 4 of them were convicted of murder; I record the ages of the four. In Seattle I interview 340 people and find that 5 of them are convicted murderers; likewise in Singapore I interview 2800 and find 8 murderers. In the end, I have 4,5, and 8 data points from the three cities; the number of people I had to interview to obtain those data points doesn't factor into the analysis of what the average age of the murderers is.--Brossa 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * In your first paragraph you simply repeat the error underlying Lenski's paper. You, like the paper, incorrectly apply Whitlock's Z-transform.


 * The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done.  That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it.  Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-Aschlafly 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * So, what is the p-value you find when performing the calculations according to your way? --Stitch75 12:03, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, "Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the reciprocal of its squared standard error." It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to be insisting should be done.
 * Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. DanB 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


 * ASchlafly, you state that I incorrectly apply "Whitlock's Z-transform" (actually the test belongs to Mosteller & Bush and/or Liptak ). Whitlock describes weighting by the reciprocal of the squared standard error. The standard error of the mean is proportional to 1/sqrt(N), so the reciprocal of the squared standard error is proportional to N. Thus larger studies are given more weight. I maintain that the sample sizes N of the three replays are 4, 5, and 8 respectively. Weighting based on those three N does not weight all three replays equally as you claim: it gives replay 2 25% more weight and replay 3 100% more weight than replay 1. Rather than simply repeating that I am wrong, will you please state what you think the sample sizes of the three replay experiments are, and, in your opinion, what the correct application of the Z-transformation would be?--Brossa 18:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)


 * The Lenski paper states how it weighted the experiments, and that weighting is incorrect. Admit it.  Moreover, the incorrect weighting in the Lenski paper was not likely an inadvertent error, as it inflated the significance of the results.  I found the wording used by the Lenski paper to describe its (incorrect) weighting to be artfully misleading.


 * Provide me with federal funding as Lenski received, and I'll write a paper for you. But I don't have to write an alternative paper to point out glaring errors in Lenski's paper.--Aschlafly 08:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to "earn" the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... AndyM 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)


 * I hope you're joking. If Andy had any actual training in statistics that gave him some sort of parity with the entirety of PNAS or Lenski, then I might agree with you, but thus far I've seen no evidence that Andy has any understanding of the field whatsoever as it pertains to this discussion. Till I do I'm a fence sitter leaning towards Lenski. Jirby 11:27, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I'm not asking anyone to write a paper or replicate an experiment. I'm asking ASchlafly to support his statement "The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done"(bolding mine). I have stated publicly, subject to challenge by others, that the sample sizes (n) of the three replays are four, five, and eight respectively. Furthermore, using n of 4, 5, and 8 in the weighted Z-method DOES NOT weight all the replay experiments equally - it weights replay 3 twice as much as replay 1 and 8/5 as much as replay 2. Tell you what: I'll drop all my questions about Monte Carlo and the Z-transform, and simply ask ASchlafly one question: what is the sample size, n, of the second replay experiment? He need not even do any calculations - a statement in words that will allow someone else to do the calculation will suffice. This is not a complicated question to answer; the paper states how many replicate cultures there were (340), how many cells there were in each replicate (3.9x10^8), how many replicates gave rise to Cit+ cells (5), and which generations those Cit+ replicates came from (4 from 32,000 and one from 32,500). I will even give my answer: five. Furthermore, I will say why I believe that, using the murderer/age analogy: performing the 340 replicates is the same as interviewing 340 people in order to find out if any of them are convicted murderers. Finding that five replicates gave rise to Cit+ mutants is the same as the survey finding that 5 of those 340 people were convicted murderers. Finding that the Cit+ mutants arose from 4 replicates from generation 32,000 and 1 from generation 32,500 is the same as finding the ages of the murderers. The five data points in the Lenski study allow one to calculate the 'mean generation of clones yielding Cit+': 32,100. This is the same as finding the mean age of the five murderers. If I want to compare this hypothetical murderer age study to some other study of the mean age of murderers, I would weight the studies based on how many murderers were in each study, not on how many non-murderers were included in the initial survey.

Surely ASchlafly can say what he thinks the n of the second replay is, even if he won't say why he thinks it. Is it five? 340? The number of replicates times the number of cells per replicate? Something else? No analysis need be performed on the resulting number.--Brossa 15:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)


 * OK - would you care to put in writing that after ASchlafly gives you his response, you won't start obfuscating the issue with Monte Carlo and Z-transform issues? You understand: it is typical of liberals to, after being proven wrong, to start pretending that they were talking about an entirely different issue altogether. After ASchlafly states the sample size of the second replay experiment you will consider yourself answered. Correct?


 * Brossa, your rant is misplaced. One cannot salvage an error in logic by questioning which of superior alternatives should be used instead.  The sample size of an experiment is the number that comprises the underlying sample used in the experiment, not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.  Maybe you can debate yourself over what the correct underlying sample size is, but it is plainly not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.--Aschlafly 19:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)


 * So that's an "I don't know" then? Or did you mean something else?--Brossa 07:34, 24 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aschlafly, are we not getting back to the distinction I made here? A suggestion that you rejected?


 * If we are agreed on what constitutes the sample then it is clear that Lenski did combine the sample in a logical manner with proper weighting. He followed accepted practice and used established statistical techniques.  Your letter did not dispute the soundness of accepted practice and established techniques, it alleged that Lenski had diverted from them.  If the sample is agreed then this allegation is untrue.


 * If, contrary to your earlier statement, there is a dispute about the sample then it is Lenski who is correct on the sample size. Lenski is testing a hypothesis about Cit+ replicates. If you were testing (to use Brossa’a example) “most murders are committed by 20 to 35 year olds” you would include murderers, you would not run statistics on the age of fraudsters.  You may get your data from a source that includes fraudsters, say prison records that include details of all types of criminals.  However you would exclude non-murderers, and correctly exclude non-murderers, when reviewing the age of murderers.


 * That is the situation we have here. Lenski’s null hypothesis is that Cit+ replicates arose randomly.  This says no more about Cit- replicates than it does about what Lenski had for lunch the day he wrote the paper.  The presence of Cit- replicates is a result of the method of generating the sample, a side product.  To give another example, if you were doing an experiment breeding chickens you would generate a lot of manure: you wouldn’t include it in the analysis!


 * Finally the argument has no end product: if we erroneously consider the Cit- replicates as part of the sample the null hypothesis is still refuted. Your objections to Lenski’s wording do not establish deceit on his part, yet they would were they to be established themselves.  Your objections to Lenski’s calculations, however, would not establish the falsity of his conclusions even if the objections were correct.  The calculations of the three differing weightings above are not intended:


 * 1.	to show that Lenski was honest (he was, but that is established by other evidence)
 * 2.	to show that Lenski correctly applied accepted statistical techniques (he did, but that is established by other evidence) or
 * 3.	to show that only Cit+ replicates are part of “the sample” (they are, but that is established elsewhere)


 * The calculations of the three differing weightings above show that your objections are moot. --Toffeeman 07:37, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. International Weekly Journal of Science -- jp 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Not confirmed
Like Kennymac and Longstop, I have some qualifications in this area because I have taught statistics to researchers (not mathematicians) - actually for even longer than Kennymac. I've read the contribution from Longstop and I've decided that the best thing I can do is to replace it in its entirety because it makes the point quite well. (Actually both points - the statistical point and the one about reviewing scientific papers.) But my qualifications are really unimportant - as Longstop said, it doesn't matter who says something in science, it's what they say that matters. After all, the most important discoveries in science in the 20th century were made by a patent clerk who wasn't an academic at the time and hadn't even been a particularly outstanding student.

The rest of this posting is cut-and-pasted from Longstop's contribution earlier this week.

Start of quote The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.

The point that ASchlafly makes (headed REPLY, shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.

The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).

The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data.

On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. End of quote DavyJones 17:55, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I may not have expertise in statistics, but I read this one report by someone who does:

"

Not confirmed
Like Kennymac and Longstop, I have some qualifications in this area because I have taught statistics to researchers (not mathematicians) - actually for even longer than Kennymac. I've read the contribution from Longstop and I've decided that the best thing I can do is to replace it in its entirety because it makes the point quite well. (Actually both points - the statistical point and the one about reviewing scientific papers.) But my qualifications are really unimportant - as Longstop said, it doesn't matter who says something in science, it's what they say that matters. After all, the most important discoveries in science in the 20th century were made by a patent clerk who wasn't an academic at the time and hadn't even been a particularly outstanding student.

The rest of this posting is cut-and-pasted from Longstop's contribution earlier this week.

Start of quote The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.

The point that ASchlafly makes (headed REPLY, shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.

The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).

The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data.

On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. End of quote "

Source is here - [] Seems pretty interesting, does anybody want to respond? JohnyGoodman 09:41, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Point 5 Rejected
1. Before I make my main point, would either Aschlafly or Bugler like to comment on why they've repeatedly reverted my contributions to this Talk Page. I thought we weren't supposed to delete other people's stuff on Talk pages unless it's for a very good reason (obscenity, racism, etc). In this case, what are they embarrassed about?

2. I do have specialist knowledge of this area, despite Bugler's assertions to the contrary (made without any evidence whatsoever, may I say). But I repeat, it really doesn't matter whether I have particular qualifications or not. In science, what matters is what is said, not who says it. The most outstanding scientific discoveries of the 20th century were made by a patent clerk who had no academic position at the time.

3. I repeat my cut-and-paste from Longstop's contribution last week. If Aschlafly or Bugler don't agree, kindly discuss it on this page, don't just delete it with no explanation.
 * "The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.
 * "The point that ASchlafly makes (headed REPLY, shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.
 * "The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).
 * "The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data." DavyJones 16:36, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Referring of Scientific Papers
Another point that Aschlafly and Bugler reverted with no explanation was the explanation of why CP readers shouldn't be concerned about the fact that the Lenski paper was reviewed within 14 days. This is perfectly normal practice for a leading journal. If you're invited to review a paper for a leading journal and they give you 7/10/14/etc days, you only agree to review it if you're sure you're going to have time before the journal's deadline. So there's absolutely no reason to suppose the review wasn't done properly.

Again, if Aschlafly or Bugler disagrees, please explain why, on this page. Don't just delete what I've written with no explanation. DavyJones 16:36, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Point 5 Rejected
Referring to ASchlafly's latest revert: OK, so let's forget about my specialist knowledge of the subject. It really doesn't matter. In science, what matters is what is said, not who says it. Remember that the most outstanding scientific discoveries of the 20th century were made by a patent clerk; the facts that he had no academic position at the time and a rather moderate educational record were irrelevant.

So, I repeat: if you don't agree with me, present a reasoned argument against my points and don't just delete my comments (it's not wiki etiquette to delete other people's comments on a Talk page unless they're abusive or obscence). At least you haven't been so feeble as to block me to prevent me from contributing to this page, as you've done to other contributors. So I now repeat once again my cut-and-paste from Longstop's contribution a couple of weeks ago - as I said, if you don't agree with it, present a rational argument against it.


 * The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.


 * The point that ASchlafly makes (headed REPLY, shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.


 * The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).


 * The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data. DavyJones 19:02, 2 November 2008 (EST)


 * DavyJones, Whitlock's paper is correct and Lenski should have applied it. You provide nothing meaningful to the contrary.  Read my posting below and contribute to this encyclopedia, or go rant somewhere else.  Your account will be blocked if you simply continue to rant here.


 * Moreover, as I already explained above, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.--Aschlafly 19:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)


 * Michael Whitlock does not agree with your interpretation. He states that "the appropriate weightings should be 4, 5, and 8, the sample sizes." --Brossa 18:10, 13 November 2008 (EST)


 * Aschlafly,
 * 1. A reasoned argument is not a rant. No-one should be afraid of a reasoned argument and it would be cowardly to use superior power (i.e. control over who can and cannot contribute to CP) to avoid having one.
 * 2. Please see above for my comment regarding Whitlock's paper on whether or not to weight the Z-test. That paper is not decisive (it cannot be decisive as it only considereda limited number of scenarios in computer simulations) so it cannot be considered "correct" (your word). I would say that whether or not to weight the Z-test is purely a matter of choice at the present state of scientific understanding.
 * 3. I and many others have pointed out on this page (including discussions which you've archived) that it doesn't actually matter in biological terms whether Lenski used the weighted or unweighted Z-test. The result is still significant, albeit at different levels.
 * 4. I understand from that fact you're now arguing about the precise level of significance of Lenski's result that you've conceded my main point, that your Point 5 is not tenable. Can we at least agree on that question? DavyJones 18:19, 3 November 2008 (EST)

ASchlafly and others: if you don't agree with me, present a reasoned argument against my points. Don't delete other people's comments on a Talk page and for goodness sake, don't be so spineless as to block me to prevent me from replying to you. I repeat what I wrote last week before you deleted my contribution to this discussion and blocked me.

I do have specialist knowledge of this area, despite Bugler's assertions to the contrary (made without any evidence whatsoever, may I say). But I repeat, it really doesn't matter whether I have particular qualifications or not. In science, what matters is what is said, not who says it. The most outstanding scientific discoveries of the 20th century were made by a patent clerk who had no academic position at the time.

I now repeat again my cut-and-paste from Longstop's contribution a couple of weeks ago. If you don't agree with it, discuss it, don't delete it.


 * The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.


 * The point that ASchlafly makes (headed REPLY, shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.


 * The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).


 * The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data. DavyJones 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Refereeing of Scientific Papers
Another point that Aschlafly and others deleted was my explanation of why CP readers shouldn't be concerned about the fact that the Lenski paper was reviewed within 14 days. This is perfectly normal practice for a leading journal. If you're invited to review a paper for a leading journal and they give you 7/10/14/etc days, you only agree to review it if you're sure you're going to have time before the journal's deadline. So there's absolutely no reason to suppose the review wasn't done properly.

Again, if you disagree, discuss, don't delete and don't block. DavyJones 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Lack of statistical expertise
Sorry, I really can't let this slide. Andy, by claiming that you've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses you are in effect claiming expertise in the subject. Anyone with experitse, or even basic knowledge of statistics, would not have written Mystery:Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims, wherein you argue the following: There are currently 500 "Hollywood" women under 30 who would disclose a diagnosis or breast cancer (a made up number, but we don't need to dwell on that). We have an acknowledgement of 3 "Hollywood" under 30 women ever who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Therefore the rate of breast cancer in Hollywood women under 30 is at least 3 in 500 (more than 10 times the national average). If you can't figure out the blatant error in that statement then there is no way on earth you can expect any of us to believe that you are capable of finding flaws in others statistical analysis. While it is possible that you did once "excel" in high level statistics courses, it is pretty obvious you have not retained what you learned. Nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't pretend to have expertise you don't have. TomG 16:53, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Removal of substantial postings
Mr. Schlafly, Why are postings that are critical of your point of view removed? It seems like lots of questions get asked about your criticism of Lenski, but few get answered. In addition, responses to your replies often get deleted. This seems contrary to the spirit of a wiki, and also dishonest. Please help me to understand. Thank you. Jimmyjohn 11:36, 25 September 2008 (EDT)

Have we given up?
Not much activity here in the past few weeks. Have we given up on pursuing this matter further? Conservapedia should work on continuing to keep the Lenski study and its flaws in the news. Is there anything else we can do? Perhaps write to local officials about the misuse of public funds for studies like Lenski's, and also to complain about PNAS? --DRamon 16:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


 * We exposed five fundamental flaws in the study, and told the truth. The truth doesn't care whether some refuse to accept it.  There will always be people who deny the truth, particularly when they stand to profit from falsehoods.  For now, I've moved onto more pressing issues on this site.--Aschlafly 16:56, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


 * What do you mean by "profit from falsehoods"? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who has a different point of view from your own must have mercenary motives for disagreeing with you? That's a very bizarre point of view. DavyJones 20:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * The suggestion is that those who lie very frequently do so forr reasons of greed. Your denial of this self-evident fact, and your deceitful twisting of Mr Schlafly's words, speak volumes of you, DavyJones. Bugler 06:56, 1 November 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, I don't see how you can accuse me of twisting Aschlafly's words. The implication of his statement above is that he believe that what he wrote was true (although his Point 5, at least, was incorrect) and that people who disagree with him ("deny the truth", in his words) are seeking to profit by doing so, which is not correct.


 * More importantly, I don't see how Aschlafly can give up on an argument he started. It's plain from what KennyMac and other wrote that his Point 5 is not correct. Now, is he going to do CP readers the favour of reaching a rational conclusion to this discussion or is he going to resort to his ploy of blocking contributors with whom he doesn't agree? DavyJones 20:03, 1 November 2008 (EDT)


 * It would seem that "Moving on" is easier on his ego than to concede he was wrong. It's simply amazing that all traces of this incident are yet to be removed from this site, with bans administered to anyone who dares to mention it. That's the usual protocol for protecting Andy's fragile ego.


 * "DavyJones" you're making false statements here and that will not be allowed. Point 5 is confirmed and you've provided nothing meaningful to rebut it.  Also, evolution syndrome is not allowed here either.  If you do not contribute in a meaningful way to non-evolution entries in this encyclopedia, then your account will be blocked.--Aschlafly 19:26, 2 November 2008 (EST)


 * The local officials have nothing to do with the distibution for scientific money and that is a good thing. --Stitch75 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Gun Control Talk

 * }

Commandments Talk
{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" class="collapsible collapsed" style="border: 0px solid black;" ! -
 * - style="Background: rgb(204, 204, 255);"
 * - style="whitespace: nowrap; Background: rgb(204, 204, 255); align: center; font-weight: bold;"
 * :::Note: this is the version of the commandments talk page just before TK deleted a number of things, including a section that mysteriously didn't make it into the archive that he created. We have flagged the burned material for you.
 * :::Note: this is the version of the commandments talk page just before TK deleted a number of things, including a section that mysteriously didn't make it into the archive that he created. We have flagged the burned material for you.
 * :::Note: this is the version of the commandments talk page just before TK deleted a number of things, including a section that mysteriously didn't make it into the archive that he created. We have flagged the burned material for you.

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4

Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited.

Conservative 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable"
I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.Qc 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my cp:Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia goes a fair way towards answering that.
 * There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
 * This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
 * Philip J. Rayment 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


 * "It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "


 * This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. Qc 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Two questions
I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. HelpJazz 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago.  There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones.  But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic.  It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
 * Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it.  But then there's not too much that would be off limits.  And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
 * But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.


 * We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is.  This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits.  That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
 * Philip J. Rayment 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.


 * That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as "tl|copied from") to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.


 * Hey, Help Jazz is my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) HelpJazz 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Celebrating the Death of Inevitability!
When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

Suggestion
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. Bugler 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. HenryS 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. Bugler 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Where are these conversations? Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. Bugler 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. Bugler


 * Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however.  Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place


 * This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:


 * I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.


 * That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. Bugler 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message.  I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it was bad enough to warrant a short block.  But this raises the question of how much a private conversation should be used to justify a block.  I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some.  Philip J. Rayment 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
 * The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. Bugler 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "both on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands.  Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? Bugler 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * That still doesn't tell me where this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was here.  Correct?  And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked?  Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary.  Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. DanH 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level.  He can come back with an apology first, I would think.  Karajou 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Please list banned sites
Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --woozle 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. HenryS 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--Hurst 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement.  Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task.  It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site."  --Benp 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--Hurst 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)


 * We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --Benp 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --Ed Poor Talk 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism.  What a shame. HenryS 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

lol As I recall many of those liberals who "Resorted to acts of cyber-vandalism" we're summarily banned without any explanation. Further more you guys really have to stop quashing all mention of that nasty little incident that you people had with the FBI.. I mean you believe in open acess to information right? Dawoad

Amendment Recommendation
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... Alexander 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that any schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? HelpJazz 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


 * All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral.  I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow?  We're conservapedians.  We have a point of view.  And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend.  Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate.  But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.


 * Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:


 * 3) Information that's both genuinely neutral and non-political.


 * Alexander 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 * If you add number 3, then what's left? HelpJazz 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


 * No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's allowed on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. Alexander 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. HelpJazz 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)


 * The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful.  Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--Aschlafly 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Comments Section
Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? Umlaut 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: .--Andy Schlafly 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed;  I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning.  Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"?  You are right, though.  It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". Umlaut 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's legalese and cries out for a translation.


 * Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --Ed Poor Talk 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * 'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. RobertWDP 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first.  A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.


 * Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it.  When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--Andy Schlafly 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think.  Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--Andy Schlafly 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail.  While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail.  I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. Umlaut 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:


 * Section (a) lists the offenses.
 * Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
 * Section (c) lists the punishments
 * Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
 * Section (e) defines terms
 * Section (f) allows legal investigations
 * Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
 * Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:
 * Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
 * Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
 * Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
 * Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
 * Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
 * Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
 * Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

Philip J. Rayment 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. Umlaut 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another liberal deceit, a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished.  Umlaut, you are in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments with your endless talk, talk, talk.  I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --₮K/Admin/Talk 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation.  Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. Umlaut 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Well, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion (no matter how wrong it is), Umlaut. You will now have lots of time to argue that at some liberal site, as it is more than clear you are dedicated to talk, talk, talk, argue, argue argue, and have been for many months here contributing absolutely nothing. Thanks for stopping by, Godspeed to you! --₮K/Admin/Talk 08:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Almost any web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable. How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"?  And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction?  Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction.  Philip J. Rayment 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * The whole of 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (2) reads:
 * (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—


 * (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
 * (B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
 * (C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;


 * As can be seen the subsection in question wouldn't apply to any form of wiki. Subsection 2 applies only to those instances when somebody attempts to obtain information from a computer (or equivalent record) when they don't have permission to access that information.  It's an objective test of both actus reus and mens rea (i.e.  Is it a reasonable that the average person would know in any particular case that the information is a) protected and b) not to be accessed by those who do not have permission to access it, and, then knowing both those things then makes an attempt to obtain that information).  This subsection obviously does not apply to any wiki as a) wiki's are designed to have publicly accessed information and b) that information is not protected from being obtained.  The subsection also doesn't apply to vandalism as the subsection deals with the obtaining of information not the depositing or removal of information.  The subsection would apply however, if somebody hacked or attempted to hack a wiki's site in an attempt to gain protected information (i.e. any information that it is reasonable to assume would be protected, such as a user's private details).  Now that isn't to say that other parts of 18 § 1030 wouldn't apply to vandalism (basically because I haven't checked the rest of section (a) yet) but section (a) subsection (2) certainly wouldn't cover it.--Ieuan 11:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * And what is the application here of outright harrassment of an individual(s), up to and including cyber-terrorism? Karajou 12:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * Interesting question, by the looks of it 18 § 1030 section (a) subsection (5) might cover harrasment of an individual(s), but only if such a harrasment caused physical damage and the harrasment didn't occur through authorized access. To be honest it looks like this is the wrong piece of legislation if you are looking to prosecute harrasment.  It might be worth looking at legislation that covers harm to an individual.  As to cyber-terrorism 18 § 1030 does cover it, but only in section (a) subsections (1), (3), & (5); at a federal level it seems that US Government only considers cyber-terrorism to be something that occurs against itself and its own interests.  Attacks against private computers don't seem to be considered acts of cyber-terrorism, instead it seems to be considered to be attempts at theft, fraud or disruption of commerce, all of which cause monetary harm.  Again I need to emphasize that is the point of view solely from 18 § 1030.  It could be that other pieces of legislation are more appropriate.--Ieuan 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 * The case of the teenage girl who committed suicide in Missouri as a result of online harrassment; what laws were applied in that? Was it federal or state or both?  Karajou 13:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * Well, I've gone through the whole of section (a) of 18 § 1030 and this is what I've discovered:


 * Subsection (1): having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations,&hellip;&mdash; obviously doesn't apply in this case as wiki's shouldn't contain information that breaches this part of subsection (1) (and if they did the wiki itself would be in violation of this part of subsection (1))


 * Subsection (1) cont.:&hellip;or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;&mdash; Again this part of the subsection obviously doesn't apply to the vandalism of wikis, unless the purpose of the "vandalism" was in fact to transmit information that could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation.


 * Subsection (2) See above post.


 * Subsection (3): intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;&mdash; Again doesn't apply to wikis, as they aren't nonpublic, or for either the exclusive use or non-exclusive use for the official business of the Government of the United States.  Again the objective test applies here: is it reasonable that the average man would know that any particular computer is a)non-public or b) for the exclusive or non-eclusive use by the Government of the United States.


 * Subsection (4): (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;&mdash; Doesn't apply to Conservapedia on multiple grounds.  The only way somebody can add or delete material to this site is with authorization.  That authorization gives the user the right to add or delete material as he wishes.  A user cannot be said to have exceeded his authorized access unless he acts or attempts to perform an act that is greater than his auhtorized access (i.e. a user that has only edit rights on Conservapedia would exceed authorized access if he deliberately made an attempt to access users IP addresses, or deliberately made a personal attempt to block other users.  However, a user cannot be said to have exceeded authorised access by deleting or defacing an entire page of information, as the granting of editing rights to that person grants him the authorised access to be able to do these things {i.e. the ability to edit is granted in the authorized access, the user hasn't had to hack the site to gain the ability to delele or add information}).  That such changes are undesirable are immaterial as to whether somebody has exceed authorized access, as it is the granting of full editing rights, whithin the focus of this law, that grants the user the authorization to make those changes.  Vandalism of wikis also fails to fall under the protection of subsection (4) as the mens rea of subsection (4) is the intent to defraud.  When used in such a manner the term defraud has a legal rather than a dictionary meaning, and the legal interpretation of fraud or defraud is applied to those acts which seek to obtain that which has monetary value and to do so in an manner deamed illegal.  Vandalism isn't an attempt to defraud (i.e. the vandal isn't seeking to make monetary gain), rather it is an attempt to damage or cause harm.


 * Subsection (5): It is this subsection that probably comes closest to addressing the problem of vandalism.


 * (A)
 * (i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
 * (ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
 * (iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and&hellip;


 * This would cover vandalism on Conservapedia except for two problems;
 * i) '&hellip;intentionally causes damage&hellip;&hellip;recklessly causes damage&hellip;&hellip;causes damage&hellip;'&mdash; Again it is a pecularity of the law that damage is that which is considered to have incurred harm, be it physical or mental, or monetary costs.  Vandalism to Conservapedia wouldn't fall into this category because it doesn't incur damage involving monetary cost to a protected computer as any such vandalism can be repaired by a volunteer, thereby incurring no cost as the volunteer isn't charging to repair the vandalism.  Nor does such vandalism add more to the running costs of the site compared to a user making a legitimate edit of the same length.
 * ii) '&hellip;without authorization&hellip;'&mdash; As discussed in subsection (4) the fact that a user has to apply to Conservapedia and be accepted as a member before he can gain editing rights means that his access to articles and his right to edit them in any way that he sees fit is authorized by the owner of the site. If the owner doesn't want a user having full editing rights there are many ways to ensure that a user doesn't have those rights, ranging from not granting those rights, restricting those rights (i.e. the user is not being able to delete or add material directly, but instead the user has to make submission for consideration for inclusion in Conservapedia), or removing those rights completely.  The fact that the owner grants full editing rights means that authorization is given for the user to make full edits, whether they are helpful or unhelpful.


 * &hellip;(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—
 * (i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
 * (ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
 * (iii) physical injury to any person;
 * (iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
 * (v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; 


 * And it is this part of the subsection that ensures that subsection (5) wouldn't apply to Conservapedia. Obviously subparagraphs (B/ii), (B/iii), (B/iv), and (B/v) wouldn't apply and that just leaves subsparagraph (B/i) (loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;).  Any vandalism to the site in terms of editing (as opposed to a (D)DOS attack) doesn't incur monetary costs as such vandalism is easily repaired by volunteers at no cost to the site (i.e. when a user repairs vandalism to the site that user doesn't invoice the owner of the site for monetary compensation for work done).  Nor does such vandalism cost the site's owner any more in costs than an legitimate entry made of the same length.


 * Subsection (6): knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—
 * (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
 * (B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;&mdash; Again this is a section that doesn't apply to Conservapedia as a) vandalism on Conservapedia isn't attempting to defraud traffics, b) Conservapedia isn't involved in commerce through www.conservapedia.com and c) isn't a computer used by or for the Government of the United States.


 * Subsection (7): with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;&mdash; Again doesn't apply to vandalism on Conservapedia as the vandalism isn't an attempt to extort money or items or goods that have a monetary value.--Ieuan 13:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)


 * }

Fred Phelps
{| cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" class="collapsible collapsed" style="border: 0px solid black;" !
 * - style="Background: rgb(204, 204, 255);"
 * - style="whitespace: nowrap; Background: rgb(204, 204, 255); align: center; font-weight: bold;"
 * ==No linking to Phelps's web sites==
 * ==No linking to Phelps's web sites==
 * ==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. MountainDew 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --Mtur 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. MountainDew 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality?  As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page.  CEinhorn 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. MountainDew 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.


 * Posts not signed are ignored. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Discussion of subject
I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. MountainDew 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p ColinR 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. MountainDew 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. ColinR 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, this was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. ColinR 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny. One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) MountainDew 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


 * But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... ColinR 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
 * This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--Elamdri 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution. And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) MountainDew 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. ColinR 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. MountainDew 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


 * OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page.  Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--Jack 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. MountainDew 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


 * The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --Jack 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --Jack 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Edits by Jack
please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. RightWolf2 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced.  This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today.  He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs".  That is an objective, well documented fact.  However, the sysops delete it from the main page.  However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up.  --Jack 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


 * The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article.  Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible.  In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen.   The article is about his views and him.   And he is certainly notable. RightWolf2 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


 * RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. MountainDew 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


 * 1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views.  2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window.  3.  I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade.  Just to add God's word.  4.  Your views of Phelps are "your views".  Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. RightWolf2 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Landover Baptist
Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--Elamdri 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. MountainDew 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

?
"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. Tmtoulouse 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -<font color="#007FFF">Ames <font color="#FF0000">G yo! 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual
There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--Ashens 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. MountainDew 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative!  Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--Ashens 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


 * My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.NSmyth 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe.  Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident Opcn 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-<font color="#007FFF">Ames <font color="#FF0000">G yo! 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --Li?us the Turbogeek(contact me) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --Gulik3 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone. Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --Atkins 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. DanH 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

What the #$@%
This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. Opcn 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so.  Banned User Teresita 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps and Religion
"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin. --Gulik3 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

disgusting liberal bias
this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1Manifestdestiny 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man.  Karajou 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
 * but jesus did condemn homosexuals. Cryingeagles39 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent.  Karajou 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. DanH 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. -- Sysop- TK /MyTalk 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

God Hates Canada
Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? Kazumaru 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? DanH 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. Kazumaru 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)


 * Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. Kazumaru 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Phelps And The Democratic Party
Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --Ouzo 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we've addressed your concerns. The "God Hates Fags" Left. Rob Smith 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Activist!???
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --AllahuAkbarJihad 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --AllahuAkbarJihad 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^ô?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --Fredphelpsisamoron 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --MichaelM 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! Tubesock 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? DanH 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --MichaelM 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. DanH 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --MichaelM 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
 * OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. Rob Smith 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there.  Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^ô?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --JimmyR 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --BillCasey 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. Maestro 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --BillCasey 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.


 * So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded leftist. What's wrong with that?  Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring music content and being pro-, once courted a constituency there.  Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket.  Perhaps the  Committee made the award to the wrong guy.  Rob Smith 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --BillCasey 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
 * hmmm, so Phelps is or ?  Rob Smith 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --BillCasey 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Very interesting; on I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless.  Perhaps Phelps is an example.  Rob Smith 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --DanielJamesRideout 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. Wiederlich.   Rob Smith 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. SkipJohnson 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --NathanRodgers 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * If it was not for the fact of Phelps political, in support of political candidates, or the fact Phelps ran for political office on the ticket of a major political party, we would not be having this discusssion. But given the political realities, we can only use Phelps own stated political affilliations.  Rob Smith 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --NathanRodgers 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
 * You say "was associated." We have no basis for that.  It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps.  And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than, not any personal, inner,  change in his fundamental beliefs.  Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. Rob Smith 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a Democrat. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. ItMathers 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Very well said, Mathers! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^ô?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of liberal we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps? So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. BillyFranco 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * 1) denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
 * No evidence that he feels this way
 * 1) taxpayer-funded abortion
 * Certainly not
 * 1) same-sex marriage
 * HA!
 * 1) support of affirmative action
 * No evidence of this
 * 1) support of political correctness
 * Not at all
 * 1) censorship of prayer in classrooms
 * No
 * 1) compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
 * Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
 * 1) government-controlled medical care
 * No evidence of this
 * 1) labor unions
 * no evidence of this
 * 1) elimination of abstinence-only program funding
 * Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
 * 1) income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
 * No evidence of this
 * 1) a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
 * No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
 * 1) support for gun control
 * No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
 * 1) government programs to rehabilitate criminals
 * No idea
 * 1) environmentalism
 * No evidence for this
 * 1) disarmament treaties
 * No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
 * 1) globalism
 * No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
 * 1) opposition to a strong American foreign policy
 * No evidence
 * 1) support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
 * Seems unlikely
 * 1) opposition to full private property rights
 * No evidence of this
 * 1) limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
 * Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
 * The "leftist" portion is cited. Rob Smith 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? BillyFranco 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Perhaps we need CP:Common knowledge. Rob Smith 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a  trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even one of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? BillyFranco 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
 * Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal.  He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there.  Rob Smith 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it is basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist is calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? BillyFranco 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * "calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
 * Where in the text does it say this? Rob Smith 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The leftist article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the article. BillyFranco 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.
 * Congratulations, and good for you. Unfortuneatly, like the theory of evolution, you can not impose your  on me, and force me to accept the .  Rob Smith 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
 * 1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
 * 2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
 * 3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?

I'll wait for a reply. BillyFranco 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6] * Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3] * AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3] IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States Here is yet another shining example of liberal deceit. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^o?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)


 * <RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away.  Rob Smith 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)
I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --Konservativekanadian 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--Konservativekanadian 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^o?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --Konservativekanadian 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --Konservativekanadian 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)


 * I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. ItMathers 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)


 * It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^o?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) ItMathers 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
 * We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. Rob Smith 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --Konservativekanadian 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.
 * They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories.  Rob Smith 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --Konservativekanadian 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise.  Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing gay rights and the homosexual agenda, for example.  Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people.  Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church.  Voila!  We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.


 * Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity.  Rob Smith 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --Konservativekanadian 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">s,y^s^o?-?K <font color="DC143C">/S.????? 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)


 * }

Further help
You should make use of Internet archive sites. E.g. archive.org currently has copies of Andrew Schlafly's talk page from various points in 2007. However there are two caveats: (1) archiving is sporadic, so they might not have what you want (2) older archives disappear, so if they do have what you want, save a local copy for yourself while you can.