Talk:Cheri Yecke

Bias rarely requires deletion. A rewrite is generally the fix for this sort of thing. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Where in the hell is the fix? The bias has gotten much worse -- an addition was brazenly censored today by FeloniousSkunk on the grounds of being a "non-notable self-promotion by long-known internet crank."Larry Fafarman 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is merely a bio of Dr. Yecke and what she has done through her life. She is no longer a candidate for public office and is now going to Florida where she will be appreciated, and has already been welcomed with open arms. The Democrats in Minnesota can stop their smear campaign any day now, they already threw out a brilliant mind. Florida is now lucky to have her!!

She is sure as hell a candidate for public office now -- she is running for Florida commissioner of education.Larry Fafarman 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not you are an internet crank, your blog is not notable enough for inclusion here and the attempted inclusion was self-promotion. Please read WP:COI. JoshuaZ 03:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are full of crap, dunghill. By your rules, any participation in a Wikipedia discussion is a self-promoting "conflict of interest." The references to Elsberry and Myers here and the links to their blogs are self-promoting "conflicts of interest." The Wikipedia rules say that blogs are not supposed to be used as sources at all. But if you can do it, then so can I. And what in the hell does notability have to do with self-promotion?

FeloniousSkunk called me a "long-known internet crank" -- that makes me "notable." So there.

There might as well be no Wikipedia rules at all, because no matter what the rules are, you jerks are going to bend and twist them in your favor. If I post under my real name, you will say that I am promoting myself. If I post anonymously, you will say that I must post under my real name. And of course, you don't have to follow the rules -- the rules apply only to me.

Darwinism must really be on its last legs if it is necessary for you Darwinists to resort to that kind of censorship.

Considering the bad reputation that Wikipedia has acquired for unreliability -- and a major cause of that unreliability is arbitrary censorship of contributions -- you jerks are really pushing your luck.

OK, here's the deal. I will post anonymously on Wikipedia and link to a blog which I will set up. The blog will be under the name of a notable person who is so famous as to not need any "promotion." That way we will not be breaking any rules.

Laugh while you still can, you lousy scumbags. Larry Fafarman 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Joshua is right Larry. FM is too about notibility, for that matter. You'd be using your time better to raise the notability of your blog, but inserting it here is not the way to do it. Odd nature 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The lunatic Larry Fafarman has posted the latest on his blog:

"Now they have plumb run out of excuses -- they can't even dream up any more phony reasons for canceling my edits. Right now I am planning a late-night editing raid."

Keep up your standards by banning this lunatic.

Yecke has hired a company, ReputationDefender, to scrub references to intelligent design from any mention of her online:[1] We need to keep an eye for them on this article. Odd nature 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll point out that ReputationDefenders did not ask for the blog post to be removed, just the one quote Yecke disputed. --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This woman is an anti-science religious whacko.

This is the transcript of Yecke saying that local school districts can, indeed, teach "intelligent design" if they decide they want to.

CPY: Well, creationism is off the table completely because of a 1987 supreme court ruling. The issue really is intelligent design and evolution and the there was language that was put in the conference committee report that accompanied the no child left behind act that said you know students should be exposed to all sides of a controversial issue. And we brought that up to the committee members because we didn’t want to see this just evolve into a controversy. We spent a lot of time on the math committee just just talking about the use of calculators, and time is precious, so we wanted to make sure that we stopped any kind of controversy at the beginning. And it is well understood now that this is a decision that would be made by local school boards and not the state.

This is verifiable; go check the video. I think that the article can be less diffident on this score. --Wesley R. Elsberry 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that's promoting ID by any definition. Thanks, Wes. Odd nature 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

She was not "promoting" ID -- she only said that "students should be exposed to all sides of a controversial issue." I think she was mistaken when she said that "the issue really is intelligent design and evolution" because there are also non-ID scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticisms of evolution, e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (an example of a pseudoscientific criticism). Also, she did not misrepresent or misuse the No Child Left Behind Act because even though the language she was referring to is just in a Congressional report and not in the Act itself, the courts use Congressional reports in interpreting statutes. Anyway, there is nothing to interpret here in the Act itself because the Act itself says nothing about evolution or criticisms of evolution. This whole thing is just a witch-hunt and a fishing expedition and is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia bio. Larry Fafarman 12:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's called Teaching the Controversy, and Teach the Controversy is another Discovery Institute ID campaign. BTW, your rebuttals Meyer et al are not notable enough for inclusion and constitute self-promotion. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"rebuttals Meyer et al"? Who said anything about Meyer? And what does notability have to do with a rebuttal? And how is rebuttal a "self-promotion"? And the fact that "teach the controversy" is promoted by the Discovery Institute does not mean that "teach the controversy" is only about ID.

I see that you have already deleted my entry. Leave it alone, you felonious dunghill. I didn't delete your stuff. You yourself are breaking the rules by using blogs as sources. If you can do it, then so can I.

Show me where the Wikipedia rules say anything about a "non-notable self-promotion by long-known internet crank."

Let's ask Cheri Yecke if she wants my stuff to stay. It should be her decision. Why don't we let her decide if it is OK if I exploit her bio for my own "self-promotion." After all, this is her bio -- not yours.Larry Fafarman 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Larry.

Show me where the Wikipedia rules say anything about a "non-notable self-promotion by long-known internet crank."

You might want to start by having a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You might also want to pole around some of the links in the welcome message at User talk:Larry Fafarman Guettarda 05:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are applying the "non-notability" and "no self-promotion" rules completely out of context and in ways in which they were never intended to be applied. "Notability" does not apply at all and by your standards, Elsberry's and Myers' entries are "self-promotions." Furthermore, the rules say that blogs are not supposed to be used as references, but Elsberry's and Myers' blogs are being used here as references. If they can do it, then so can I.

There are several hundred Wikipedia administrators (600?, 800?), but you both posted that welcome message and are one of only nine administrators listed in the Intelligent Design WikiProject. Coincidence? Larry Fafarman 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Elsberry and Myers and notable commentators. Elsberry plays a central role in this event. PZ is one of the most notable commentators. Neither of them added references themselves, hence "self promotion" isn't an issue here at all. You added references to yourself. You aren't a notable commentator, even if you are one of the sanest commentators at UD. Guettarda 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Elsberry and Myers and notable commentators." Notability is not a requirement for Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, your judgment of who is "notable" is arbitrary. Furthermore, you jerks called me a "long-known Internet crank" and that makes me "notable." And so what if Elsberry and Myers did not add their references themselves -- they just got others to add their references for them. That is really nitpicking.

This is a real switch -- usually contributors are condemned for hiding their identities, and here I am condemned for revealing mine! OK, I am re-posting my entry with my name and the name of my blog removed. You can't complain about my linking to my blog because this bio already has links to blogs and the rules say that using personal and group blogs as references is not allowed -- the Wikipedia verifiability rule says,

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

The only exception to this rule are newspaper "blogs" --

(footnote 4) "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. . . . .. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog.

If you continue to censor my entry, I will call Cheri Yecke and ask her to report to ReputationDefenders that you will not allow the posting of a rebuttal to an attack ad against her on her own bio. ReputationDefenders is well-connected -- articles about this outfit have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Post, and other major media outlets. If Wikipedia's reputation suffers as a result of your continued censorship of my entry here, you may find that you got more than you bargained for.Larry Fafarman 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

BTW, you still haven't shown me where the rules say anything about "long-known Internet cranks." Larry Fafarman 02:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, while were on the topic, articles are not controlled by their subjects. What Yecke would want is more or less irrelevant. JoshuaZ 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia bios are not supposed to be used for posting political attack ads against the subjects of the bios. And if political attack ads are allowed, then rebuttals should certainly be allowed also.Larry Fafarman 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's not political attack, there's coverage of a story related to Yecke that got national coverage. Guettarda 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

So something that gets national coverage cannot be a political attack? ROFLMAO. Also, show me a newspaper article outside Florida or Minnesota (2003) that covered this story. Larry Fafarman 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is relevant is its coverage. Now, Larry let's be very clear here: 1) Meyers and Elsberry are far more notable than you are. 2) There isn't a collective which you are dealing with, but different editors 3) even if you were a well-known internet crank (which again, one editor has said, not some groupmind), that wouldn't in general make your blog relevant 4) your threat to contact reputation defenders sounds very close to a threat to engage in deliberate disruption of this project and if you continue to make such comments you may be blocked. JoshuaZ 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"What is relevant is its coverage."

Wrong. Guettarda said that it was national news and it was not.

"Now, Larry let's be very clear here"

I am being very clear here -- you are not.

"Meyers and Elsberry are far more notable than you are"

Agreed. But the Wikipedia verifiability rule against using personal blogs as sources has no exception for the personal blogs of "notable" people. Accordingly, I have deleted references to the personal blogs of these two. Poop or get off the can -- are you going to follow the Wikipedia rules or not?

"There isn't a collective which you are dealing with, but different editors"

It is not just a collective -- it is a conspiracy.

your threat to contact reputation defenders sounds very close to a threat to engage in deliberate disruption of this project

"Disruption of this project"? What project? Do you mean the Intelligent Design WikiProject? Why in the hell should Cheri Yecke, of all people, be part of that project? I can see including, say, Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Ken Miller -- but Cheri Yecke? Because of a few vague statements she made four years ago?

I'll do more than just threaten "to engage in deliberate disruption of this project" -- I am threatening to have you jerks kicked off of Wikipedia with extreme prejudice if you continue in your present course. Larry Fafarman 18:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "Guettarda said that it was national news and it was not." - no, I said national coverage...or are you trying to say that Pharyngula just has a local Minnesotan readership?
• "But the Wikipedia verifiability rule against using personal blogs as sources has no exception for the personal blogs of "notable" people." - actually you're wrong there. Blogging is just a medium. Pharyngula is part of a forum run by a national magazine. PZ's words are as noteworthy as any other syndicated op-ed columnist. Elsberry's blog is the focus of the story. It's verifiably his words, so regardless of notability it would be an appropriate source. (Of course, Elsberry is a notable commentator on the subject, but in this case all that's needed is some evidence that his blog is his blog...and there is enough evidence that Austringer is his blog).
• "What project?" - Wikipedia, a project to write a free online encyclopaedia.
• "I am threatening to have you jerks kicked off of Wikipedia with extreme prejudice if you continue in your present course" - I'm quivering in my boots. Shoes, to be honest (wearing shoes, not boots right now, but "quivering in my shoes" doesn't just doesn't have the same ring to it).
• "Do you mean the Intelligent Design WikiProject? Why in the hell should Cheri Yecke, of all people, be part of that project?" - because this is an article that catches the attention of editors interested in ID. It's a good way to attract eyeballs to an article, which is important to avoid things like, I dunno, people linking to their own blogs and otherwise disruptively editing the article. Guettarda 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I said national coverage...or are you trying to say that Pharyngula just has a local Minnesotan readership?

So you think that mere posting on a personal blog is national coverage? LOL. Normally national coverage means release by the Associated Press (symbol "AP"), Reuters, that sort of thing.

Blogging is just a medium. Pharyngula is part of a forum run by a national magazine. PZ's words are as noteworthy as any other syndicated op-ed columnist.

WHAT? Sleazy PZ is a "syndicated op-ed columnist"? You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears, dunghill. Sleazy PZ is just a BVD-clad independent blogger on Scienceblogs. The following disclaimer posted on Scienceblogs says that the blogs' content is "exclusively attributable to outside contributors":

The content contained in these blogs is exclusively attributable to 'outside contributors' and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of ScienceBlogs LLC.

And Ding Elsberry is of course also just a BVD-clad independent blogger.

I've got all the facts and all you've got is just bullshit.

I'm quivering in my boots

Laugh now while you still can, dunghill.

"Do you mean the Intelligent Design WikiProject? Why in the hell should Cheri Yecke, of all people, be part of that project?" - because this is an article that catches the attention of editors interested in ID. It's a good way to attract eyeballs to an article, which is important to avoid things like, I dunno, people linking to their own blogs and otherwise disruptively editing the article.

You "dunno" is right. This is all gibberish -- I can't understand what in the hell you are trying to say here. Larry Fafarman 22:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• "So you think that mere posting on a personal blog is national coverage?" - Is this in some way related to the issue at hand, or are you just asking my opinion about random? This is for discussing the article, not my opinion on random issues.
• "PZ is a "syndicated op-ed columnist"?" - Yep.
• "You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears, dunghill." - this is a violation of our policy on personal attacks. I have linked to the policy, please read it and abide by it.
• "The content contained in these blogs is exclusively attributable to 'outside contributors' and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of ScienceBlogs LLC." - Yep, and most newspapers have a similar relationship with other nationally syndicated columnists. How is this relevant?
• "Elsberry is of course also just [an] independent blogger" - I already explained this to you. Try reading what I wrote.
• "Laugh now while you still can, dunghill." - Please refrain from threats. Making threats against your fellow editors will not be tolerated.
• "I can't understand what in the hell you are trying to say here." - Obviously you don't understand most of what is being said here. If you don't understand the aim of the project, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to contribute. This is, after all, a project to write an encyclopaedia. Your behaviour strongly suggests that don't fully embrace the goals of the project. Perhaps you should try one of the other projects, like Conservapedia, or the ResearchID wiki. Guettarda 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"So you think that mere posting on a personal blog is national coverage?" - Is this in some way related to the issue at hand, or are you just asking my opinion about random?

Haven't you ever heard the term "rhetorical question"? No answer to the question was desired, because you had already answered "yes" to the question.

"You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears, dunghill." - this is a violation of our policy on personal attacks.

Under the rules, this is not an attack that is never acceptable. I will continue to make such attacks so long as you people act like jerks.

"PZ is a "syndicated op-ed columnist"?" - Yep.

Where is he syndicated? What newspapers, magazines, or broadcasters? PZ Myers' Wikipedia bio says nothing about him being a syndicated columnist. He is not listed in either Wikipedia's "syndicated columnist" article or Wikipedia's "columnist" article. Even if PZ were a professional journalist, his own independent personal blog would still not be an acceptable Wikipedia source because it is not subject to "full editorial control" of a newspaper or any other kind of media outlet --

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control; that is, when it isn't really a blog. (footnote 4 on Wikipedia:Verifiability (emphasis added)

The Wikipedia rule is no personal blogs, period, unless the blogger is writing about himself. Everything I have said above about Myers also applies to Elsberry.

"The content contained in these blogs is exclusively attributable to 'outside contributors' and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of ScienceBlogs LLC." - Yep, and most newspapers have a similar relationship with other nationally syndicated columnists. How is this relevant?

For starters, PZ Myers is not a "nationally syndicated columnist." Also, this statement applies to all approx. 60 ScienceBlogs bloggers -- so you are saying that they are all nationally syndicated columnists under contract to Scienceblogs?

"Laugh now while you still can, dunghill." - Please refrain from threats.

This is not an unacceptable threat under the rules. It obviously was a reference to my threat to have you kicked off the Wikipedia staff, which itself is not an unacceptable threat under the rules.

Perhaps you should try one of the other projects, like Conservapedia, or the ResearchID wiki.

Wikipedia is by far the most widely used online encyclopedia -- that's why I edit here. Larry Fafarman 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bio contains charges that are completely unverified. Here is an example: "Cheri Pierson Yecke, Ph.D. is a politician who is best known for her role in an attempt to teach creationism in science classes."[1] The reference for that statement, reference #1, says,

1. Yecke: "every local district should have the freedom to teach creationism if that is what they choose" Minnesota Public Radio, June 9, 2003.

No evidence is provided that Yecke ever made such a statement on public radio. And even if she did make such a statement on public radio, saying that she is "best known" for such a statement or view is just stating opinion and not fact. In fact, Yecke said the contrary of the above alleged radio statement -- as Wesley Elsberry quoted above, she said, ". . . creationism is off the table completely because of a 1987 supreme court ruling."

Also, her bio says, "The versions of the Minnesota Science Standards circulated by Yecke contained language used by the pro-intelligent design Teach The Controversy campaign which casts doubt on evolution while offering intelligent design as a competing theory.[4] The version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions."

No evidence is provided that "[t]he version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions." Furthermore, the "Teach the Controversy" campaign does not "[offer] intelligent design as a competing theory" -- ID is not the only scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticism of evolution.

Yecke's bio says,

"Readers of [Elsberry's Austringer] blog . . . provided links to archived recordings of Twin Cities Public Television broadcasts from 2003 showing Yecke saying that teaching intelligent design was a decision local school districts could undertake and teaching intelligent design is supported by the Santorum Amendment.[8] Elsberry says her statements in these broadcasts are consistent with the quote Yecke disputed and tried to remove in the newspaper article."

The disputed newspaper quote is that Yecke said that "schools could include the concept of 'intelligent design' in teaching how the world came to be." That statement implies that Yecke herself authorized the teaching of ID in the public schools, but she only said that local school districts could decide whether to teach ID -- as Elsberry quoted above, she said, ". . . .it is well understood now that this is a decision that would be made by local school boards and not the state."

If anything, her support for teaching ID was modest and restrained, considering the following statement in the House-Senate conference report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act (this statement is a modification of the Santorum Amendment, which passed the Senate by 91-8 but was not included in the final joint House-Senate bill) --

"The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society." [2]

The courts use legislative histories -- including Congressional reports -- in interpreting statutes, though here there is nothing to interpret in the statute (No Child Left Behind Act) because the statute does not address the controversy over evolution. This statement in the report is just advisory.Larry Fafarman 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to say your suggestions strike me as requiring a number of leaps of logic and faith. For your points to be valid they require every source and fact to be viewed through a particular lens and while favoring a certain rhetoric that has been historically used by ID proponents in order to deliver a particular outcome, Larry. Better to just present all the relevant particulars and their sources and let the readers decide, I say. Odd nature 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

". . .requiring a number of leaps of logic and faith"? LOL. I pointed out that the bio has unverified claims of fact. I said, "No evidence is provided that Yecke ever made such a statement on public radio," and "No evidence is provided that "[t]he version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions." Believing those unverified claims is what requires "leaps of logic and faith."

All you did was just give your stock answer, without regard to the present context. Larry Fafarman 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You say there's no evidence. The sources cited in the article say that there are. Do you have a reliable source which shows that these claims are false? If so, please do share. Guettarda 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the disputed events happened. The sources cited in the article present no proof that the disputed events happened.Larry Fafarman 06:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

We have a reliable source which says they did. See WP:RS. That's what matters. JoshuaZ 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, we have half a dozen reliable sources which says they did if you want to be persnickety. Odd nature 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Watch this video of Yecke endorsing the Santorum Amendment then explain how it is you can claim there's no evidence of her doing so and how you're not misrepresenting sources, Larry. Yecke on TPT’s "Almanac" show, air date September 12, 2003 Odd nature 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Watch this video of Yecke endorsing the Santorum Amendment then explain how it is you can claim there's no evidence of her doing so and how you're not misrepresenting sources, Larry. Yecke on TPT’s "Almanac" show, air date September 12, 2003"

I'm not misrepresenting sources -- you are. That program aired Sept. 12. I want the source of the following quote in the bio, supposedly from a radio show that aired on June 9 --

1. ^ Yecke: "every local district should have the freedom to teach creationism if that is what they choose" Minnesota Public Radio, June 9, 2003. (from reference section)

I also want to know the source of the following statement in the bio --

"The versions of the Minnesota Science Standards circulated by Yecke contained language used by the pro-intelligent design Teach The Controversy campaign which casts doubt on evolution while offering intelligent design as a competing theory.[4] The version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions."

I asked these questions before and I have still not gotten any answers. Larry Fafarman 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Larry has shot his wad here. I'm tired of reading his POV pushing, because this is boring. And it's a long time since I've seen the word persnickety!!! Orangemarlin 18:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Larry Fafarman (talk · contribs) announced at his blog today that he's conducting an "edit war" here at this article: "Now they have plumb run out of excuses -- they can't even dream up any more phony reasons for canceling my edits. Right now I am planning a late-night editing raid." [3]

This constitutes willful Disruptive Editing. Larry needs to read that guideline and our policy about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. And we need to apply them if he refuses to stop disrupting this article and using his blog to fan the flames. If he continues as he has I suggest regular editors follow the steps at WP:DE to seek a topic or full site ban. FeloniousMonk 05:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Edit wars and late-night editing raids are not prohibited.

You say my blog is "not notable," then say that it has the power to "fan the flames." You can't have it both ways.

Here are the issues --

(1) The rule against using personal blogs as sources is being violated. I am willing to accept this violation if links to my own blog are accepted, but since links to my own blog are not being accepted, I am demanding that the rule against using personal blogs as sources be enforced.

(2) There are no sources for the following two items:

1. ^ Yecke: "every local district should have the freedom to teach creationism if that is what they choose" Minnesota Public Radio, June 9, 2003. (from reference section)

"The versions of the Minnesota Science Standards circulated by Yecke contained language used by the pro-intelligent design Teach The Controversy campaign which casts doubt on evolution while offering intelligent design as a competing theory. The version that was circulated among the public did not include these revisions."

Larry Fafarman 11:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

MPR is a valid source by itself. As to your comment about the science standard, it might have some minimal validity; I'm looking into it. Your attitude about the blogs still holds no water as repeatedly explained, and I strongly suggest you stop agitating about it. JoshuaZ 14:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

"MPR is a valid source by itself."

That is not the issue. The issue is that no evidence has been presented showing that Yecke ever made that statement on public radio.

As to your comment about the science standard, it might have some minimal validity;

"Minimal validity"? The only reference that was cited in support of the bio's statement about the science standard, More than 80 to work on new science, history lesson plans, Norman Draper, Star Tribune, July 18, 2003, said only the following about the subject --

There will be no debate about whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution. When a newly minted committee meets to figure out what Minnesota students should learn about science, that will already be decided, according to Minnesota Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke . . .

. . . she said she will instruct the science committee to avoid any clashes over the teaching of evolution. She will cite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits the teaching of strict creationism in the classroom and a section of the new federal No Child Left Behind Act that strongly advises school districts to teach evolution in a way that "helps the student to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

"My purpose is that we don't need to enter that debate," Yecke said. "And that these decisions lay with the local school boards."

Compare that to the above statement in the bio.

Your attitude about the blogs still holds no water as repeatedly explained, and I strongly suggest you stop agitating about it.

No, I will not stop agitating about it. The only defense that was made for using those blogs as sources is the claim that Myers and Elsberry are "nationally syndicated op-ed columnists" or something like that. However --

(1) The Wikipedia bios of Myers and Elsberry do not state that they are "nationally syndicated op-ed columnists" or anything of the kind.

(2) Myers and Elsberry are not in the Wikipedia lists of syndicated columnists or columnists.

(3) As I pointed out above, the Wikipedia rules say that the blogs of news media professionals may be used as sources only when those blogs are under the "full editorial control" of a "newspaper" -- I presume that means any media company. Myers' blog is affiliated with Scienceblogs and Scienceblogs made a statement disclaiming responsibility for the content of their blogs. Elsberry's blog is not affiliated with any media company.

Poop or get off the can -- are you going to follow the Wikipedia rules or not?

Personally, I think that the rule against personal blogs is stupid. Citation of a personal blog does not indicate Wikipedia endorsement of that citation. The blogs often contain their own citations of reliable sources. Links are just a convenient way of avoiding cluttering up text with details that are contained in the linked sources. That is the way the Internet is supposed to operate. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with citations of personal opinions or unreliable sources so long as it is clear that Wikipedia does not endorse the citations.

This Yecke bio is just an uncontrolled witch-hunt and I demand that you cease and desist forthwith.

If this were my bio, I would have sicced ReputationDefender on your hides a long time ago. I wonder why Cheri Yecke has apparently not done so yet -- or if she is doing something about this, she hasn't informed me. ReputationDefender already has a fair amount of clout, having been written up in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc.. As you know, there have already been news articles about ReputationDefender's defense of Yecke. I presume that ReputationDefender would like nothing better than to advertise itself by discrediting a big outfit like Wikipedia.

Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for unreliability and you are playing with fire. Even if you can get away with these shenanigans now, this stuff will be sitting here waiting for any muckraker who wants to use it. Larry Fafarman 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The sources are fine, the blog clause only applies to crappy personal blogs, not reputable ones run by large publications like Seed or Salon. Which also explains why your blog is not an acceptable source. Odd nature 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The sources are fine, the blog clause only applies to crappy personal blogs, not reputable ones run by large publications like Seed or Salon.

Who in the hell decides which personal blogs are "crappy" and which ones are "reputable" -- you? The Wikipedia rules say no personal blogs, period, whether "crappy" or "reputable," unless the blogger is writing about himself. Furthermore, Myers' and Elsberry's blogs are not "run by large publications like Seed or Salon." Myers' blog, as a Scienceblogs blog, is affiliated with Seed, but Seed has disclaimed any responsibility for the contents of his blog. Elsberry's blog is not even affiliated with -- let alone "run" by -- any publication, large or small. Larry Fafarman 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

FM, WP:DE seems like an awfully burdensome process for dealing with someone who has a history of being banned from every site he visits. If his history is any indicator, a ban is going to be inevitable. We're now at step 4-5 at WP:DE. Can't we just skip to step 6? Odd nature 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead, break some more Wikipedia rules. Make my day. Larry Fafarman 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah? Here's one that says we can do just that: WP:IAR Odd nature 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are misinterpreting the rules again. Here is what Wikipedia: What "Ignore all rules" means says --

Ignore all rules is one of Wikipedia's core policies. What it means is what it says. In particular, it means ignore this page. You should not feel you need to read this, nor any other rule, before contributing to Wikipedia . . . (emphasis added)

1. You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. (emphasis added)

So the "Ignore all rules" rule was intended to apply to contributors and not administrators. You get skunked once again. Larry Fafarman 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply