Talk:British Centre for Science Education/Archive 1

Archive 1

BCSE Member Ian Lowe

There appears to be a member of the organisation in question who is editing the page to simply delete whole paragraphs which are critical of himself, and engaging in undiscussed reverts when asked not to. Editors are advised to keep any eye out.

Ian: you say that the first para is simply wrong. Is it wrong because you never said those words? Or are you not an IT consultant? Or are you not a Scottish atheist? Which bit is wrong? Please do not do any more wholesale deletions of entire paragraphs. The material is relevant. Please discuss what you think is wrong on the talk page. Spubert 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spubert, this information is incorrect and has been refuted several times by the BCSE.

If you are unable to provide evidence that these statements are correct (and the blog posts of a single individual with an axe to grind do not constitute proof), the information should not stand. (IanLowe 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Ian: please indicate how it is incorrect. Is the quote made up? Did you never say it? Are you not the convenor of the "Scottish Atheist Council"? Please explain. Spubert 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked more at the "BCSE Revealed" blog you mention, and it claims that this quote was on-line at http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BlackShadow/messages/1029 but has since been removed. Is he lying? Did he make the quote up? If the quote is accurate then it should stay on the page, as it is clearly very relevant. Spubert 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

spubert: The discussion in question took place on a Yahoo group called "blackshadow". It was not referring to the BCSE, but to general campaigning. This position was one of several suggested by various people, and was not accepted by a single member of the BCSE committee, past or present. It is not, and never has been BCSE policy and it's presence here is attempting to create a link between two seperate entities that are not related in that way.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by IanLowe (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 July 2007

Ian: please sign your edits. The date of the quote appears to be a couple of months before when you say the BCSE launched, yes? So it would be at the time when you were in the planning stages? The quote is clearly _your_ opinion, and the paragraph is about _you_ rather than about BCSE or the other group. I think frankly that the quote just makes you look bad and you want away with it for that reason. It's clearly relevant to a balanced article and should stay. Spubert 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spubert, please review the official WP policy contained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons at your earliest convenience. Granted, this article is not a biography, but it has biographical features and I feel you might be crossing the line into libel in a few places. Please reign yourself in accordingly.--Filll 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Filll. How could I be doing that? By the way, I think you're right about notability now - the mention in Nature is significant. You don't say what is libellous? Ian seems to be admitting that the quote is in fact his; he's just claiming it's not relevant. It seems very relevant to me, as almost every article on WP in the ID/creationism controversy discusses the possible religious motives of those involved.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spubert (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 July 2007

Try to sign your posts and follow proper wikiquette. You are taking comments from some forum (not a very reliable source, frankly), and at best these are out of context, and might not even be associated with Ian Lowe and/or the BCSE. --Filll 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll: Lowe, above, admits that the words are his. He just claims that the BCSE didn't adopt his suggestion as official policy. I've also added a link to show that Lowe signed the petition to outlaw religious education. 86.31.242.130 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

86.31.242.130: It's probably be helpful if you signed up for a username. I agree with you though. Spubert 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple attack article?

As one of the people mentioned in this "article", I can't help but find the discussion of notability to be neither here nor there. As an embryonic organisation, we have achieved a considerable amount, and clearly attracted an "anti fan base".

The article contains little more than a re-hash of the personal vitriol carried on a single individual's hate blog - hardly encyclopedia material, and certainly not something you could consider to be of academic standing.

unfamiliar of wikipedia protocols in this regards, (I have only added small amounts of information to articles in the past), I will attempt to "clean up" the article to remove the personal attacks. If this is not in line with policy, please explain why. I'm sure we can find a happy medium.

(IanLowe 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Welcome. I am sure that we want to avoid personal attacks as per WP policy.--Filll 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian, Welcome. Concerns noted. Please do not simply delete whole paragraphs of critical material. As a member of the org in question this is considered bad practise. There needs to be a proper discussion. I also see that your description of the change was highly misleading. Spubert 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - the key point here is that the majority of the "attack" content is based on the blog posts of a single individual. He has made the assertion that a Yahoo discussion group called "blackshadow" and the BCSE are one and the same. This is simply not true - the BCSE was a wholly new organisation formed by some of the former members of this group.

anyone considering whether the previous content of this article should be restored should think about one thing - whether a single verifiable source for this assertion exists beyond the blog post in question. If this assertion cannot be verified (and I am confident that this is the case, given that I am one of the founder members of the organisation, and was involved intimately in the setup process), then it clearly cannot be relied on as the basis for further statements. This was discussed fully in our forum: http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895

(IanLowe 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

Non-notable

This group appears to only be a small group of non-notable individuals who have put together a website and got themselves mentioned in passing by the NCSE and a couple of pro-ID blogs. To resolve this and establish that the group is notable, there needs to be some notable individuals who are behind this "British Centre for Science Education" group. Small mentions in passing in the odd blog or article elsewhere don't cut it. Is there anyone in this group who has a Wikipedia page about them, or who has produced something notable in the field of science education?

Spubert 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the European parliament? How about the UK parliament? This is a ludicrous snow job and you know it. It is as notable as the NCSE is.--Filll 22:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the list of motions in the UK parliament: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMList.aspx. Is everyone/everything mentioned on that list now notable? The "DENBIGHSHIRE COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP", "CANCELLATION OF PATHWAY PROJECT TO REBUILD LEICESTER HOSPITALS" and "CELEBRATION OF THE CENTENARY OF CROOKHILL PRIMARY SCHOOL", for example? You also appear to be confused - the council of Europe is a separate body to the European parliament. A passing mention in an aside in an internal discussion document is not notable. Why don't you just find out if this organisation has any notable science educators in it or not, to prove whether or not it is just a small group of nobodies who've put together a web-site? Spubert 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to adopt a civil tone in this discourse. Thank you.--Filll 23:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The blog mentioned in the "criticism" section has received 0 comments on recent entries, which is hardly indicative of a following, and hence of some sort of controversy. If some controversy about this organization exists, surely there must be more than one unpopular blogger writing entries about it. -71.82.111.111 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorised edits by Filll

Filll: As the author of this page, you are not authorised to remove the box you removed on your last edit. Please do not do so again. Spubert 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. These rules are complicated and I do not deal with speedies every day. --Filll 23:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dispute

the allegation that this organization is non-notable. It has been referred to in quite florid terms by several pro-intelligent design groups. It has been quoted as doing effective lobbying by a recent report to the Council of Europe. It has more than 60 google hits. It has been in existence for at least 4 years. It is alleged to have close connections to two important groups, the US National Center for Science Education and the British Humanist Association. It has links to 4 webpages here on WP so far. This organization and its substantial website give no evidence of being completely non-notable. For an editor with no edit history to suddenly appear for the sole reason of tagging this article with a speedy is highly suspicious, given the toxic environment that creationists have created here on WP. --Filll 22:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It actually has more than 700 ghits if you spell it right ;) ornis (t) 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Filll's Objections on Notability

• A couple of passing references in blog posts does not mean notability. This criteria would make just about anything at all in existence anywhere notable.

It depends on the blog, doesnt it? And I do not think that the Council of Europe report or the motions of MPs are blogs, are they? Is the journal Nature a blog? --Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Council of Europe report appears only to mention in passing a "British Council", but not a "British Centre". Report does not appear to contain any mention of effective lobbying. What's needed is the primary evidence of this lobbying, rather than secondary mentions of it.

If I am not mistaken, WP is not a secondary source, but a tertiary one. Sorry.--Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Also when I checked, it appears you seem to have missed the mention of it. It is a "British Center for Science Education", not a "British Centre for Science Education". Funny how just a little ignorance can trip you up, isnt it?--Filll 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Google links do not equal notability.

No but they give some indication of whether a subject is involved in an important and substantial way in the world or not. It is not just one thing alone that establishes notability. It is the cumulative weight of many things, I often find. If someone has a lot of google hits, it is likely that some of those will be notable references or cites, don't you think?--Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• "It is alleged..."; millions of things are alleged. So what? wikipedia should only deal with facts.

The fact of an allegation is itself a fact. You can be locked up for many years with no trial in the USA and many other countries based on an allegation. Doesnt seem so trivial to me, depending on what it is. --Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Who are the "science educators" who make this group notable? Without any names, it is apparently just a group of people who've set up a website - not notable.

If they got an MP to introduce a motion, they are notable, it would seem to me. Have you had an MP introduce a motion with your name on it? I daresay few have.--Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• My desk has been in existence for more than 4 years. Is it now notable?

A group that has the opposing groups nervous is notable if it has been around for more than a few months. The very fact that they are edgy about it and sniping at it says something to me. After a few years, this group starts to have heft. It did not vanish in the first 3 months, after all. And it is starting to get noticed.--Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I might note that if your desk was 100 years old, it might be more notable than if it was 4 years old. And if it was 400 years old, it might be more notable still. If it was 4000 years old, it probably would be notable. It all depends on what the item under investigation is, doesnt it? And the preponderance of evidence, in addition.--Filll 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The "4 webpages here on WP so far" ought to be edited to have mentions removed, unless we establish notability by finding out who the notable scientists in this centre for s.e. are.

I did not introduce all those. Two of them existed before my creation of this article, and were made by others here on WP. So obviously they were somehow involved with the world, or no one would have made a redlink for them, correct?--Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mention of creationism is poisoning the well. Either this organisation is notable because it has some notable science educators in it, or not. Don't cloud the issue. Just because the "British Centre..." is against creationism does not give it a fre epass to becoming notable.

I did not say that. It just explains your own outrageous behavior and your appearance out of thin air, doesnt it?--Filll 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Spubert 22:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE HANGON NOTIFICATION. THIS IS UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR

Thank you.--Filll 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The hangon shouldn't be there, as the article is up for regular deletion, not speedy. But have it your way! Spubert 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at the moment, apparently.-Filll 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

TAGGING

First of all, the speedy tag was obviously incorrect--the article merely has to assert notability under WP:CSD, and that was clearly met. Second, the speedy tag should not have been removed by the same person who wrote the article--placing the hangon tag is enough. I doubt a reasonable admin would have deleted the article under speedy,and if one inadvertently did, it would surely have been restored on request--and if not, Deletion Review would have done so. Third, if it is consider non-notable, then afd would have been the right course from the start and it remains the right course now. At the start, the article was weekly sourced, though it would probably be arguable that the Nature source alone was sufficient. But with the additional sources, my advice is that AfD is unlikely to delete it. But nobody has to follow my advice.

One other thing. Do not call people trolls. If they are acting unreasonably, their behavior says it clearly enough to anyone who sees, and it wont reform them. DGG (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have included those other sources when I was writing it originally, and that was my fault. This editor who appeared out of thin air and was extremely aggresive rattled me and I apologize.--Filll 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for spubert's edits

Gain consensus here first. And since this is dealing with a living person, these kinds of allegations are particularly sensitive.--Filll 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll: Lowe has, if you look in the conversation above, admitted that the words are his. Therefore, quoting them cannot be libelling him. They are clearly relevant, as the issue of motives in evolution/ID/creation is discussed a great deal on WP. There's also a link added to show that he did sign the petition. Hence, that can't be libellous either. Spubert 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well how do I know that user IanLowe is Ian Lowe? I did not see him admit it under oath in front of a court officer. Did you? I did not see him publish it in a peer-reviewed journal under his own name, or any other reliable source. It seems to me that internet forums are a singularly unreliable source to use here to quote anything as fact, particularly anything controversial or contentious. I might write about this episode to cast the anti-BCSE forces in a very negative light, showing what lengths they are willing to go to smear Ian Lowe. However, I would not write it as factual since it is bordering on libel. --Filll 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll: In fact http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895 is at the official BCSE site and has Ian Lowe admitting it. SO whoever the "IanLowe" on WP is, the real Ian Lowe confesses they are his own words. Hence quoting them can't be libel. Unless you're arguing that the BCSE's own forum is a fake, it seems that the accuracy of the quote is well established now? Spubert 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is tenuous in the extreme to suggest that this is relevant. Even if this quote was correct, what relevance do the views of a single member (or even, for that matter, a single member of a committee) have to bear on the position of the organisation as a whole? Put to one side that this quote is lifted from a discussion that predates the BCSE and was not adopted (in fact, it was rejected outright) by the organisation. This is no more relevant than whether one of BCSE's members enjoys fishing. (IanLowe 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

The link at http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895 which "IanLowe" posted is to the official site of the BCSE, and has the real Ian Lowe saying that they are his words. Are you Ian Lowe? You're now writing about yourself in the third person... this is really bizarre! The section of the article is about the individuals involved in the BCSE, so clearly their individual views are very relevant to that section. Other articles on ID/creationism/etc on WP do this routinely. Clearly your (or Ian Lowe's, whoever you are!) suggestions as to what to campaign for, a few weeks before the BCSE launched, are very relevant to what Ian Lowe thinks. Why would you deny it? Are you (whoever you are!) ashamed of the statement??? This is weird... Spubert 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The quote that is causing the disruption

Hi there! I've popped in here after responding to a helpme request from a user involved in this discussion, and notice that the main issue involves the insertion of a quote that purports to be from Ian Lowe. Whether or not the quote is accurate is not particularly germane in this case, as it does not appear to have a strong enough verifiable source. For a quote such as that, which is potentially libellous, to be included, it would not only need to be integral to the article (which it doesn't seem to be) but also reported by a tertiary source that other editors could verify. A self published source (ie a blog) isn't strong enough. I think that the editors here have shown enough skill to be able to examine the conflict that this organization is involved in without including the quote--can I challenge you to do that? Happy editing, and if I can be of any service please don't hesitate to drop by my talk page.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Xanu: As noted above, the real Ian Lowe, on the official BCSE website, at http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895, admits that the words are his. Therefore, the "libel" problem does not exist, and it is not just a "blog" which is claiming them as his. The quote should be re-added..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spubert (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 July 2007

So what if they're his words? Unless you can provide a reliable, non-partisan source that indicates that this has any bearing whatsoever on BSCE policy, then you're just pissing into the wind. ornis (t) 22:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So what if they're his words? Well, apparently, he suggested them as a possible BCSE policy a few weeks before the BCSE went public. Obviously, that has some bearing on what he hopes to get out of the BCSE. He's apparently the founder of the Scottish Atheist Council. Articles throughout WP discuss the motives of those involved in creation/ID organisations. On all this grounds, this is very relevant. I can see why Mr. Lowe would want this quote kept quiet though! :-) Spubert 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this official BCSE policy? An official BCSE stance? Do you have proof? A tertiary reliable source, say?--Filll 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect, Spubert. From the forum post you keep linking to: "Firstly, the conversation did not take place in the context of the BCSE. It was a discussion on the Black Shadow mailing list, and not about BCSE.". Clearly, the quoted text does NOT apply to the BCSE - please provide proof or a reference to support your assertion that this quote was in regards to BCSE policy making. (IanLowe 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

IanLowe: Can you confirm if you are the "real" Ian Lowe? And if so, that the words are indeed yours? The BCSE website says that the BCSE originated out of the BlackShadow group (http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/MoreAboutTheBCSE). Hence, a discussion on the BlackShadow group, a few weeks before the BCSE launched, is the most relevant thing there could be. What else could it apply to? BlackShadow apparently shut down at the same time as the BCSE launched. But in any case, the point in the paragraph was not about official BCSE policy, but about Ian Lowe, the individual member, and his personal take on what kind of things he would suggest to do. Hence, it is completely relevant. Spubert 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In my view

• I do not know who Ian Lowe is, although there was one letter purportedly from Ian Lowe published in the British Press.

For someone who doesn't know him, you're very keen to defend him! :-)

I am here to defend WP policy. As I have noted repeatedly.--Filll 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Someone with a name similar to IanLowe is here on WP, although I have no way of knowing that it is Ian Lowe or not.

This issue is now irrelevant, because on the _official_ BCSE website, the real Ian Lowe owns the words as his own. http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895

As the admin noted, this is not a suitable WP:V source.--Filll 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• A forum poster claiming to be Ian Lowe has stated he made some remarks in some non-BCSE context which the BCSE, and the other members of the BCSE did not agree with.

The forum is the official BCSE forum, of which Ian Lowe is a moderator. It even has a picture of him next to it! It's him!!!! http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895

How do you know that picture is of Ian Lowe? How do you know that is his post? How do you know that someone named Ian Lowe even exists?--Filll 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Forums and blogs are not verifiable sources, according to WP:V, except in very unusual circumstances which clearly do not hold here.

It's the official BCSE website!! If that's not verifiable, then there is no basis for this entire article, and it should all be deleted.

You seem to be fairly upset about it. I wonder why that is? Does it violate your POV?--Filll 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• The tenditious nature of the material that is trying to be inserted into the article gives me strong pause about allowing it, particularly when someone who might be Ian Lowe is objecting to it, and it is not directly related to this BCSE issue, and might reflect negatively on Ian Lowe, given its contentious nature. It is obviously clear that the creationist elements want to exploit this "opportunity", and I have no problem with noting that. This is a standard overly-aggressive tactic used by this creationist community. However, stating it as a factual example of the official position of Ian Lowe and/or the BCSE is a bit much, especially when it appears to be a rumor, or at most some offhand comment about another topic on an internet forum is a bit much. People post all kinds of things on forums. Should they be held to all things attributed to them or even all things they post on all issues, their entire lives? Sounds like a bad idea to me.--Filll 22:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll, "motive-mongering" should not be indulged in by me or by you. The quote is real (according to Ian Lowe on the BCSE website!), is relevant, and should be included. Spubert 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a WP:V reliable quote, as the admin pointed out. It would not fly on WP, or in a court of law, or in many other contexts.--Filll 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

Can I suggest you try a Request for comment on the matter? There will be no harm in waiting for greater community consensus on this matter, and it will reflect well on everyone in regards to conflict resolutionn.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be quite interesting and I think we would all gain a lot of insight from this approach.--Filll 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think would be necessary. This is just the trolling of a single editor whose sole contributions to date, have been to try and have this article deleted, then trying to insert libellous material when that failed. ornis (t) 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ConfuciousOrnis: Please note above that I now think that this org is notable, because of the mention in "Nature". Please stop calling the quote "libellous" and suggesting it is invented., as the real Ian Lowe admits they are his own words: http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895 Spubert 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it was invented. Trying to draw a connection between a comment made by one member on an unrelated issue, and BSCE policy, borders on libel. And since you are so keen to bring up the motives and affiliations of other editors, I'd be very curious to know about yours, specifially why it is you've not made any contributions to wikipedia ( apart from your first edit ) other than to attack this organisation? ornis (t) 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ConfuciusOrnis: I think we're past suggesting that this is the BCSE's official policy. That's not the issue. The issue is to provide some data on Ian Lowe's involvement, as part of providing data on the whole org, as he seems to be an official spokesmen (letter in a newspaper). Requests have already been made to stop the motive-mongering; it's a diversion from the issue. Spubert 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I also am curious. Why was spubert fighting so seemingly desperately to remove this article about an organization with multiple mentions in the press, and in Hansard and in the Council of Europe report? And why now is spubert trying to impugne the organization by digging up any dirt he can on one putative member of the BCSE? What is spubert's agenda? --Filll 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll: I've answered that question a few times. I was wrong about the notability. As far as I could see, this org had just got a couple of newspaper letters printed. But when it was dug up in Nature, I agreed it was notable. So we have consensus. Now, can you PLEASE stop diverting the issue away from the quote? I think that one user already asked you to stop insulting me. Spubert 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't answered, why is it you feel so compelled to attack this organisation in any way you can? ornis (t) 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I recommend getting back to discussion about content rather than editors, please.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments: quote concerning Ian Lowe's motives

One user added a paragraph to the section detailing the individual members of the BCSE. This paragraph concerned Ian Lowe. A quote from a few weeks before the BCSE launched contained this suggestion from Lowe: "“That’s where we need to be - that being a fundamentalist christianis as [sic] socially as acceptable as being a paedophile.”". The paragraph also detailed that Lowe had campaigned for the UK government to outlaw religious education from parents to their own children, and was the founder of the "Scottish Atheist Council". This paragraph was deleted by a WP editor, "IanLowe", and there were reverts back and forth.

Some editors have questioned:

• Whether "IanLowe" is the same as the real "Ian Lowe". "IanLowe" has not confirmed one way or the other.
• Whether the quotation is relevant, as it is claimed by the "IanLowe" (WP editor) that the quote was made within a different context, and was not adopted as official policy. The response to this is that the paragraph was not detailing with BCSE official policy, but examining individual members, and the quote is relevant to Ian Lowe as an indivudal member.
• Whether the quotation is reliable, because its source was apparently a blog. It seems that a quote on the official BCSE website has been discovered in which the real Ian Lowe, a BCSE forum admin, confirms the words as his http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=3895#3895.
• Whether issue of individuals' views needs to be looked at at all. However, as very little seems to be known about the BCSE and they only seem to exist as a website, looking at their individual views seems to be the only way to get any kind of critical view of them - otherwise all that can be repeated is their official position from their website. WP articles on the creation/ID/evolution issue routinely discuss the religious motives of those involved in the organisations. The question is whether this article should be a special exception.

23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spubert (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 July 2007

The problem I have is with ascribing some pretty outrageous statements of one putative member of the BCSE to the BCSE itself and its official position, based on non-WP:V sources. We cannot use this kind of source. And no, you are incorrect to state that the religious backgrounds and motives of all in this controversy are highlighted to an extreme degree. For example, WP does NOT refer to Jonathon Wells as a moonie at every mention of his name, which we easily could. And there is much much worse we could do. But we do not. We strive to be a NPOV resource.--Filll 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Filll: We're not suggesting making Lowe's statement a description of the BCSE's official position. We're suggesting making Lowe's statement an example of something that Lowe suggested as a possibly policy. It's clearly a very striking statement. We're not suggesting using the word "atheist" every time Lowe is mentioned; we're just suggesting mentioning his other affiliations (e.g. he founded the Scottish Atheist Council). As he apparently isn't a scientist or educator, just why he would be running a centre for science education is a very relevant question, and quotes like the one given are very relevant to the answer. Spubert 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is we? .. dave souza, talk 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes who is we? 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is an accurate characterization of the previous situation. I have not seen any evidence that someone named "Ian Lowe" is "running" something called the BCSE. If you have verifiable reliable evidence of this, then present it. --Filll

• Has a consensus been reached on the subject of this Request for Comment? If so, please delete the template above. Enuja 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for deleting it! Enuja 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed, particularly re. BLP

What is very weird is that a body known for lies and misinformation about the relationship between secular science and atheism is being uncritically cited making misleading allegations about this lobbying organisation. These assertions need to be set into the context of where they're coming from, and of BCSE's public statements which note support from several sections of opinion, religious as well as agnostic and atheist to pick up that particular attempt at smearing. Care in relation to WP:A and WP:BLP is needed, and since most <if not all!> of the critical assertions come from unreliable sources it's doubtful if they should appear at all unless shown on a reliable source. What an individual member thinks is only relevant if a good secondary source has shown how and why one opinion should be picked out of the various opinions of supporters of this organisation. The DI and its spinoffs cannot be considered a reliable source for anything but itself. .. dave souza, talk 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC) <clarification> .. dave souza, talk 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Dave Souza: Ian Lowe himself admits making the quote, on the official BCSE website, so the question of reliability is not relevant. I also provided a link to the official UK government website showing that Lowe had signed a petition to outlaw religious education of children by their own parents. So this is hardly dependent upon dubious sources. The only mentions of the DI in the article are to note that they didn't welcome the BCSE's arrival; which means it is being "a reliable source... for itself". Spubert 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to a blog discussing allegations being made using a quote out of context to attack this body. Find a reliable secondary source picking up this story, or you're either promoting this unreliable attack or committing original research. Your personal interest seems evident, but your contributions here have to comply fully with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. .. dave souza, talk 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the article for a hour to permit me to examine it. I suggest everyone to read both WP:3RR and WP:BLP. I also remind everyone that partisan blogs are not acceptable sources for negative information on individuals. Further, attacks on the sponsors of an organisation cannot usually be justified in discussing the organisation. DGG (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

protection is about to expire

I have removed material that seems to be attack material and changes of dishonesty supported only by blogs. I have left the references to he fact that the blogs attack the organization, with a link to the attacks. I have removed mention of Lowe altogether, not finding anything in the sources which says he contributed more than web programming. If there is objective information saying he has a leadership role, it can be added.

since each party undoubtedly claims to have been removing the other party's vandalism, I have decided not to block for 3RR violation. I will block for any further violation. I will also block for any insertion of BLP-violating material with respect to an individual; I will also take account of potentially libelous material about the organization not directly supported by a clear quotation from a RS.

I urge everyone concerned to try to come to an objective discussion of what the organisation does and what criticism has been made. The place to debate ID is not here. DGG (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

good recent edits

SheffieldSteel, I think you did a good job here. DGG (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These are the kind of edits we need, not the unproductive kind.--Filll 12:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)