I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Crazy Wickedpedia rules

A Wickedpedia rule says,

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

In other words, Wickedpedia bans the following reasoning as impermissible "original research":

(1) The American Library Association's definition of "banned book" includes books that have been banned from school curricula.

(2) Judge Jones banned the book "Of Pandas and People" from the curriculum of the Dover schools.

(3) "Of Pandas and People" is a banned book according to the ALA's definition.

You think I am kidding? A Wickedpedian control freak administrator said,

Nice piece of original research, which we do not allow here. Do you have some relibale non-partisan sources that state that the book is banned? -- Kim van der Linde

-- and then later,

Larry, your whole reasoning still is original research, how you want to twist it. Come up with that reliable non-partisan source that conforms that the book is banned and we talk further.

Also, the following rules are full of vague terms that the Wickedpedian control-freak administrators can use to "lawyer to death" those who disagree with them:

Self-published sources (online and paper)
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, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Wickedpedia sucks.
.

Labels:

59 Comments:

Blogger William Wallace said...

I saw your posts over at Florida Citizens against dissent from Darwinism

Keep going over there to disseminate the truth. They need it.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wherein Larry conclusively demonstrates why he was unable to work within Wikipedia community's guidelines...

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Vague" -- yes.

"Crazy" -- no.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 5:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU's last comment was censored because it contained gossip about my private affairs. I have warned ViU many times about this, but he just won't listen. Deleting the comment was just as well, because the remainder of the comment did not contain anything worthwhile.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:09:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said...
>>>>>> "Vague" -- yes.

"Crazy" -- no. <<<<<<

Some of the "vague" rules may seem reasonable at first sight but become crazy in the hands of the Wickedpedian control-freak administrators. The no-synthesis rule (Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C) is not vague but it is crazy -- it prohibits the simplest of inferences, such as the following:

(1) Reliable reference A says bears constantly shit

(2) Reliable reference B says that bears constantly live in the woods

(3) Concluding that bears shit in the woods is impermissible original research. A "reliable non-partisan source" that says that bears shit in the woods is needed.

This no-synthesis rule should be renamed the "bears-don't-shit-in-the-woods-unless-a-reliable-nonpartisan-source-says-so" rule.

If anyone is responsible for any confusion about whether "Of Pandas and People" was actually banned, it is that idiot Judge Jones. The plaintiffs' complaint expressly asked that the book be banned from the classrooms, but Judge Jones did not expressly ban the book from the classrooms but he banned the oral statement that mentioned the book, which is actually a bigger ban than banning the book itself. The name of the book was mentioned 75 times in the Dover opinion. And the oral statement was definitely part of the curriculum -- the Dover opinion refers to the oral statement as a "curriculum change" 48 times and uses the terms "Curriculum Committee" 24 times and "curriculum controversy" 9 times. It is hard to find a "reliable non-partisan source" that says that the book was banned because it so obvious.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Buzz Corey said...

> ViU's last comment was censored because it contained gossip about my private affairs. <

Larry is lying as usual. I saw the post and it said nothing that could be taken to be "personal" except the mention of his total failure in his legal cases which is, of course, public information.

His real reason, as always, was that he was unable to answer any of the points mentioned in ViW's post.

Larry continues to claim that others are censoring him yet fails to provide examples. At the same time, he appears to be the biggest practicioner of censorship. I wouldn't call it "arbitrary". There is always a reason. Either the deleted post asks questions Larry can't answer or points out his lies, but that can't be called arbitrary. In contrast, he has never been censored for either of these reasons as he is always losing the arguments when he is banned. People just tire of hearing his repeated insults.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Buzz Corey said...

ViW's post that scared Larry so much said something like this:

(1) Unreliable reference A says bears constantly do cartwheels.

(2) Reliable reference B says that bears constantly live in the woods.

(3) Concluding that bears do cartwheels in the woods is dependant on the unreliable reference.

Can Chuckles explain how that is "personal information"?

Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Lugo said...

As always, Fafarman posts information that defeats his own purpose. This material pretty much shows that Wikipedia was reasonable and consistent (at least as far as this exchange) while Fafarman never is.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Yes Larry is lying as usual. There was no personal information about Larry in the post he censored. He just knew that he had no answer and it exposed the fallacy of his logic. Of course that was unnecessary as it was obvious to everyone. Of course like many words, Larry has redefined "obvious" to use the definition given by Ambrose Bierce: "evident to one's self and nobody else".

He demonstrates it with the following:

"It is hard to find a "reliable non-partisan source" that says that the book was banned because it so obvious."

It can't be too obvious since it wasn't banned.

Find a new horse. This one is getting tired. Almost as tired as your hypocritical complaints about censorship as you seem to be the only one who practices it.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:53:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Buzz Corey driveled,
>>>>>>Larry is lying as usual. I saw the post and it said nothing that could be taken to be "personal" except the mention of his total failure in his legal cases which is, of course, public information.

His real reason, as always, was that he was unable to answer any of the points mentioned in ViW's post. <<<<<<

You are lying, dunghill. ViU's comment was up for just a few minutes, making it unlikely that you saw it, and you have utterly failed to repeat anything that was in it. Here is the part that did not contain gossip:

> In other words, Wickedpedia bans the following reasoning as impermissible "original research": <

No. The ban it because it is a. bad logic and b. irrelevant.

Let's try this

(1) The American Library Association's definition of "metals" includes things made out of peanut butter.

(2) Judge Jones determines that an item is made of peanut butter.

(3) Peanut butter should be included in Wikipedia's list of metals.

The Wikipedia administrator asked "Do you have some reliable non-partisan sources that state that the book is banned?<

Larry wants to back up what he says so he characteristicly repeats his original flawed argument.

To which the Wikipedia administrator again asks "Come up with that reliable non-partisan source that conforms that the book is banned and we talk further."

Larry runs for cover and declares victory.

> Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. <

Larry, an unmatched failure in the subject of law, claims to be a "legal genius" for example..

> For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Is this that difficult to understand?

> Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability; <

But Larry is not notable in any subject except possibly having the largest number of places on the net where he was banned for cause.

> it is not contentious; <

Larry's material is always contentious.

Another one of these sticks out:

> there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; <


Wickedpedia's "no-synthesis rule" -- the prohibition on logical conclusions drawn from information from reliable sources -- is of course utterly ridiculous. You dunghills are only making Wickedpedia look worse by your pathetic attempts to defend it. I stand by my new name for this rule: "bears-don't-shit-in-the-woods-unless-a-reliable-nonpartisan-source-that-says-that-bears-shit-in-the-woods-is-found" rule (slightly modified from my previous statement of the rule).

As for my contention that my smog impact fee lawsuits were federal cases: Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter and those other stupid federal judges looked completely ridiculous when a real expert -- a former top California air-quality official -- testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA.

"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> You are lying, dunghill. <

Larry is calling someone else a liar? That is rich.

> ViU's comment was up for just a few minutes, making it unlikely that you saw it, <

He says that he did. You say he didn't. He paraphrased one of the items and from your posting of what you say that ViW said, it looks like he was quite close. I would not have expected him to save a copy. We don't know who he is while you are someone with a net wide reputation for lies. Being reasonable, we have to believe that you are a lying scumbag as usual.

You don't continue after "there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it" therefore we must assume that is where you found "private" information. I suspect it is something to do with whether you are the real "Larry Fafarman" as there is a good deal of question as to whether you are. My guess is that you are someone intentionally trying to look like an asshole to discredit the creationists and you have picked the name of this poor soul at random.

> Wickedpedia's "no-synthesis rule" -- the prohibition on logical conclusions drawn from information from reliable sources <

This seems quite irrelevant here. Your conclusions were not based on information from reliable sources. You seem not to understand what they mean by "original research". Perhaps you have redefined those words into your lunatic lexicon.

> You dunghills are only making Wickedpedia look worse by your pathetic attempts to defend it. <

In your dreams. Your pathetic attempts to prove your point are making them look better all the time.

> As for my contention that my smog impact fee lawsuits were federal cases: Judge TJ "Mad" Hatter and those other stupid federal judges looked completely ridiculous... <

This seems to be a new issue and totally out of place here but the bottom line is that you lost that case, you lost every case, you will always lose every case, because you are irrational and a poor debater as can be seen on this blog.

They are always kicking your butt. That's why you don't like them.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

P.S. I just noticed that Buzz Corey also mentioned the missing post containing information about your failed pathetic law career. How would he have known that was in there since it had not been mentioned on this thread at the time?

How do you explain that, Fake Larry?

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again Larry shows he's still smarting from getting Wikipedia's equivalent of the bum rush for trying to use his own blog as a 'reliable' and 'notable' source, which of course it is neither, in the course of campaigning on behalf of an ID proponent being considered for an appointment. His defense strategy was priceless.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

The "long-known Internet crank" said "Darwinism must really be on its last legs if it is necessary for you Darwinists to resort to that kind of censorship." then he censors. This is a subtle way of discrediting the creationists by its obvious hypocrisy and lunacy.

We are always kicking Larry's ass. That's why he doesn't like us.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Vi[UW] said...

{ ViW's post } { ViW said }

Encroaching civilization? Disappearing open space? Luddite protest? ;-)

{ (1) The American Library Association's definition of "metals" includes things made out of peanut butter. }

If this is the "Best Butter" there might be something to it. If it's really "Bear Shit" it would be questionable.

Of course the Luddites say that (polar) bears really shit on melting icebergs.

{ Darwinism must really be on its last legs }

These would presumably be the most recently evolved, hence the most efficient.

QpQED. (Dog Latin phrase -- "Quid pro quod erat demonstrandum.")

Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:11:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Hector expectorated,
>>>>> Your conclusions were not based on information from reliable sources. <<<<<<

Dunghill, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. My sources were beyond reliable -- they were the horse's mouth: the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion and the website of the American Library Association.

>>>>> You seem not to understand what they mean by "original research". <<<<<<

You are the one who doesn't understand, dunghill. Wickedpedia calls it "original research" even if the premises leading to a logical conclusion come from reliable sources.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

The fatheaded dunghill belched:

>>>>> Your conclusions were not based on information from reliable sources. <<<<<<

> My sources were beyond reliable <

That is the problem; they were beyond reliable. The definition that the American Library Association uses is somewhat activist and not really in sync with the common definition. If the ALA wants to include Three Billy Goats Gruff of the Los Angeles Times (which according to you is written by extraterrestrials), they are free to do so. Wikipedia has chosen to limit their list to books that were actually banned.

>>>>> You seem not to understand what they mean by "original research". <<<<<<

> Wickedpedia calls it "original research" even if the premises leading to a logical conclusion come from reliable sources. <

You have proven my point.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

All right. Let's have a poll. How many think this "Larry Fafarman" is for real and how many think he is a product of some Darwinist who is just trying to discredit creationists?

I think that he is a fake. Nobody could be as stupid as he pretends to be. I became more suspicious recently when he started posting material that tends to support those in complete opposition to his claimed beliefs.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:02:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

More gossip.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:39:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViU driveled,
>>>>> The definition that the American Library Association uses is somewhat activist and not really in sync with the common definition. <<<<<<

Sheeesh, I have already been over this so many times.

What is the "common definition" of "banned book"? Are you going to come up with another arbitrary exception to the definition, like saying that the term "banned books" includes books that are banned in libraries but not books that are banned in bookstores?

I suspect that most books that are banned by name are books that are banned in school curricula. There are a lot of X-rated books that are banned in libraries and bookstores but there are so many of these books that they are usually not banned by name.

The ALA list of banned books includes books that have actually been banned and books that have only been challenged. The ALA list does not distinguish between banned books and challenged books. The ALA does not generally know which of the books have actually been banned. The Wikipedia article title could have been changed to "banned and challenged books" and books known to have been banned or only challenged could have been so noted. Also, it is stupid to exclude a book that has been challenged a thousand times while including a book that was challenged once and banned once in some hicktown.

Anyway, even if "Of Pandas and People" is not a banned book according to the "common definition," that does not excuse the Wickedpedia rule against drawing logical conclusions from facts from reliable sources. Note that my opening post said that "Of Pandas and People" is a banned book "according to the ALA's definition." The Wickedpedian control freaks did not even concede that much. You are wasting my time by trying to excuse the inexcusable.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

I will step in while I am here even though you don't believe that I exist and cringe in terror over my posts.

> Sheeesh, I have already been over this so many times.<

And you still haven't gotten it straight.

> The ALA list of banned books includes books that have actually been banned and books that have only been challenged. <

And therefore not banned. At least you admit that the ALA has books on their list that don't belong there. So what is your point?

> The ALA list does not distinguish between banned books and challenged books. <

They why do they call them banned? Why not "banned or challenged" books?

> The ALA does not generally know which of the books have actually been banned. <

So they certainly can't be taken to be experts.

> The Wikipedia article title could have been changed to "banned and challenged books" <

But it wasn't so they should limit their list to books that are actually banned.

> and books known to have been banned or only challenged could have been so noted. <

And cats should be included in lists of dogs?

> Also, it is stupid to exclude a book that has been challenged a thousand times while including a book that was challenged once and banned once in some hicktown. <

Why? One was banned and the other was not.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Bill Carter moaned,

>>>>>> At least you admit that the ALA has books on their list that don't belong there. <<<<<

I erred in calling the ALA list a "banned book" list. The ALA calls its list "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000".

Since the ALA list does not distinguish between books that have actually been banned and books that have only been challenged, the obvious solution was to change the name of the Wikipedia list to "banned and challenged books" and annotating ALA-listed books that were known to be banned and ALA-listed books that were known to be only challenged. Creating a new "banned books" list excluding ALA-listed books not known to be banned was just plain wrong because some of those ALA-listed books were probably actually banned. There could be a separate list for books known to have been actually banned.

>>>>>> The ALA does not generally know which of the books have actually been banned. <

So they certainly can't be taken to be experts. <<<<<<

Can you find a better list?

>>>>>> The ALA list does not distinguish between banned books and challenged books. <

They why do they call them banned? Why not "banned or challenged" books? <<<<<<<

Why does Wikipedia use the article title "banned books"? Why not "banned and challenged books"?

As I noted above, the ALA calls the books in the list "challenged." As for "Banned Books Week," the ALA website says,

Each year, the American Library Association (ALA) is asked why the week is called “Banned Books Week” instead of “Challenged Books Week,” since the majority of the books featured during the week are not banned, but “merely” challenged. There are two reasons. One, ALA does not “own” the name Banned Books Week, but is just one of several cosponsors of BBW; therefore, ALA cannot change the name without all the cosponsors agreeing to a change. Two, none want to do so, primarily because a challenge is an attempt to ban or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A successful challenge would result in materials being banned or restricted.

Although they were the targets of attempted bannings, most of the books featured during BBW were not banned, thanks to the efforts of librarians to maintain them in their collections. (See also Censorship and Challenges and Notable First Amendment Cases.) Imagine how many more books might be challenged—and possibly banned or restricted—if librarians, teachers, and booksellers across the country did not use Banned Books Week each year to teach the importance of our First Amendment rights and the power of literature, and to draw attention to the danger that exists when restraints are imposed on the availability of information in a free society.
(emphasis added)

Here is the list of cosponsoring organizations that do not have a problem with the name "Banned Books Week," even though most of the books featured during the week have not actually been banned:

Banned Books Week Sponsors

American Booksellers Association
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Library Association
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Association of American Publishers
National Association of College Stores
Endorsed by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress


So if you want to argue with someone about the use of the term "banned books," here are some organizations that you can argue with.

Anyway, this distinction between "challenged book" and "banned book" is irrelevant in regard to "Of Pandas and People" because this book was actually banned. The Dover plaintiffs' official complaint asked that the book be banned from the Dover classrooms. The judge did not deny any part of the complaint. Therefore the book was banned. End of story.

Friday, March 21, 2008 1:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Gossip said...

Anyone realize how many electrons have been spilled here in defense of one of the greatest works in the canon of scientific literature (if not the greatest)?

Friday, March 21, 2008 1:35:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I disagree -- IMO "Of Pandas and People" is not that good.

Friday, March 21, 2008 1:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, I see that Chuckles has censored your post again as expected. He also deleted the post of another (ViW was it) that pointed out the obvious reason that he is so afraid of you. Since Chuckles will continue to censor on this "non-censoring" blog, let's continue this interesting discussion of his maladies on the other blog.

Friday, March 21, 2008 6:51:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Bill, I see that Chuckles has censored your post again as expected. <<<<<<

Dunghill, Bill's comment contained gossip about my private life. I have made it clear many times that I do not allow that here. If you keep commenting on this subject, I am going to censor you too.

Friday, March 21, 2008 6:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I erred in calling the ALA list a "banned book" list. <

Then the case should be closed.

> Since the ALA list does not distinguish between books that have actually been banned and books that have only been challenged, the obvious solution was to change the name of the Wikipedia list to "banned and challenged books" <

Since the ALA list of fruit does not distinguish between apples and oranges, you believe that the Wikipedia article on Apples should be changed to "apples and oranges"? How long do you intend to beat this dead horse?

> There could be a separate list for books known to have been actually banned. <

There is. It appeared in the Wikipedia article.

> Can you find a better list? <

Yes. In the Wikipedia article. It contains only banned books.

> Why does Wikipedia use the article title "banned books"? Why not "banned and challenged books"? <

Duh! Perhaps because it is about banned books and not challenged books.

> So if you want to argue with someone about the use of the term "banned books," here are some organizations that you can argue with. <

No argument. Their point is whether challenged books can be included in their program, not whether they should appear inappropriately on a list of banned books.

At last you admit that the ALA list is not a list of banned books only. End of story.

Now I suggest that you campaign to include the rhinocerous in the Wikipedia list of horses.

Friday, March 21, 2008 7:04:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

BTW, I should add that the real "original research" was changing the American Library Association's definition of "banned book."

Anyway, the strength of the arguments of myself and others who wanted the book to be listed never mattered, because the Wickedpedian control freaks were determined from the beginnning to exclude the book.

Friday, March 21, 2008 7:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

Well it looks like this one is winding down. Larry has admitted that the ALA list included books that were not banned and now wants to solve that by changing the name of the article to fit his inappropriate items.

Pathetic isn't it?

We keep kicking his ass. That's why he doesn't like us.

By the way, have you disbanded the Association of Censoring Blowhards?

Friday, March 21, 2008 7:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Buzz Corey said...

> Bill's comment contained gossip about my private life. <

The post that you keep deleting here doen't seem to be gossip. Mentioning that you are insane is not private information. As long as you continue to rant here it is evident to all.

> If you keep commenting on this subject, I am going to censor you too. <

Commenting on what subject? Your insanity? Or is it your disasterous law career? You can't hide these things.

Friday, March 21, 2008 9:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you disbanded the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers? I would suggest that rather than dropping it, you hand it over to Ed Brayton since, unlike you, he doesn't censor arbitrarily.

Friday, March 21, 2008 9:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, March 21, 2008 10:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, March 21, 2008 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice in the Urbanness driveled,
>>>>>> Well it looks like this one is winding down. Larry has admitted that the ALA list included books that were not banned and now wants to solve that by changing the name of the article to fit his inappropriate items. <<<<<<<

Dunghill, I pointed out that the distinction between "banned book" and "challenged book" is irrelevant here because "Pandas" was actually BANNED. You stupid Darwinists brag that you got everything you wanted in the Kitzmiller case and then you say that you did not succeed in getting "Pandas" banned from the Dover classrooms. You can't have it both ways.

Also, changing the American Library Association's definition of "banned book" to exclude books that are only banned from school curricula is "original research," which is not allowed on Wikipedia. See? I am finally learning how to play the Wikipedia game.

Also, I have already given good reasons why the Wikipedia title "banned books" should have been changed to "banned and challenged books."

Friday, March 21, 2008 11:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, March 21, 2008 12:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> I am finally learning how to play the Wikipedia game.<

Then why are you losing.

> Also, I have already given good reasons why the Wikipedia title "banned books" should have been changed to "banned and challenged books." <

No. You have only give bad reasons.

Friday, March 21, 2008 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, March 21, 2008 1:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, March 21, 2008 1:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, March 21, 2008 1:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure Of Pandas and People is a challenged book because, while prohibited from being used in a science class, it was shown not to be a science book. If I try to use Huckleberry Finn in a science class, it is correctly rejected because it is not a science book. If I wanted to use Pandas in a course on comparative creationist mythologies (as per the course proposed by the religious studies professor at U Kansas), it would be allowed (even by Jones's ruling) since it would not be presented as a science book. Hard to see how it's a banned book by this standard.

Saturday, March 22, 2008 5:10:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,
>>>>> I'm not sure Of Pandas and People is a challenged book because, while prohibited from being used in a science class, it was shown not to be a science book. If I try to use Huckleberry Finn in a science class, it is correctly rejected because it is not a science book. <<<<<<

You're "not sure" is exactly right. That statement is "original research" and a "POV" ("point of view"), which are not allowed in Wikipedia.

The American Library Association is a reliable non-partisan source of information on banned books. The ALA definition of "banned book" includes books that have been banned from school curricula. The Dover plaintiffs asked a court to ban "Pandas" from the Dover science curriculum and they were successful, as you yourself concede. "Pandas" is therefore a "banned book" according to the definition from a reliable non-partisan source.

Also, regardless of the Wikipedia rules, your reasoning is completely wrong. A judge cannot ban a book from science classes on the grounds that it is not a science book, because there is no constitutional separation of non-science and state. Also, I thought that teachers are supposed to show students that ID is unscientific, and how can that be done without discussing ID? Anyway, judges have no business micromanaging school curricula. For example, many people regard the book "Huckleberry Finn" as social commentary, so should this book be banned from social studies classes on the grounds that it is literary fiction and hence does not belong in a social studies class?

Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:51:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

William Wallace said...
>>>>> I saw your posts over at Florida Citizens against dissent from Darwinism

Keep going over there to disseminate the truth. They need it. <<<<<

Yes, I have added more comments to that blog.

Saturday, March 22, 2008 6:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry spit: "Pandas" is therefore a "banned book" according to the definition from a reliable non-partisan source.

Then why isn't it listed among their banned or challenged books? A search of their website found zero (0) mentions of the book. I wonder if that's why wikipedia considers it new ressearch....

Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I researched the question some more: the ALA does not and has never considered Pandas to be a banned book because it was always (and still is) available in the Dover school library. It was apparently challenged someplace back in 1993 in minor incident that may or may not have been resolved. Since it is not on the ALA list any argument that it is a banned book is new research because it reaches conclusions that make sense only to the coocoophany running this blog.

If Huck Finn were removed from or were it prohibited to be used in Social Studies courses, it would not be a banned book per se, since it is 1) merely an administrative decision regarding its use and 2) still be available for all to read in the school library.

I would have to go over the ruling, but if Pandas were used in classrooms to show what isn't science, I would think that that would be permissible.

Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:56:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled:
>>>>> Larry spit: "Pandas" is therefore a "banned book" according to the definition from a reliable non-partisan source.

Then why isn't it listed among their banned or challenged books? <<<<<<

Whose is "their" -- Wikipedia's or the American Library Association's?

So far as I know, "Pandas" was challenged on only two occasions -- in 1993 and in 2004 (Dover). I don't know if it was actually banned in 1993.

The ALA list is a list of the "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000," and ALA knows of only one challenge to "Pandas" in that period and so "Pandas" did not make the list. The Wikipedia "List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S." says, "The List of most commonly challenged books in the United States does not list every book that has been challenged since 1900, only the most commonly challenged books," and "Pandas" was challenged only twice in this period (so far as we know) and so did not make that list. "Pandas" is not in the Wikipedia "banned book" list because the Wickedpedian control freaks would not accept the reasoning that I previously described.

>>>>>> I researched the question some more: the ALA does not and has never considered Pandas to be a banned book because it was always (and still is) available in the Dover school library. <<<<<<<

Can you find a reliable non-partisan source for that statement? That statement contradicts the ALA's own website, which says that the ALA definition of "banned book" includes books that were banned only in school curricula and not in libraries.

>>>>> If Huck Finn were removed from or were it prohibited to be used in Social Studies courses, it would not be a banned book per se, <<<<<

If Huck Finn were banned by a judge, as "Pandas" was, then Huck Finn would be a banned book per se.

I am really getting sick and tired of these "do-bears-shit-in-the-woods?" type of debates.

Sunday, March 23, 2008 1:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wrote: >>>>>> I researched the question some more: the ALA does not and has never considered Pandas to be a banned book because it was always (and still is) available in the Dover school library. <<<<<<<

Larry asked: Can you find a reliable non-partisan source for that statement?

Here's an unbiased statement from the blog, the questionable authority (http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/the_banning_of_pandas_-_a_fina.php)

>>>>>To see whether the book should be on the list, I spoke with Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. She was familiar with the Kitzmiller case, and graciously agreed to answer my questions about it. I asked her if she felt that the Kitzmiller ruling would qualify Of Pandas and People as a "banned" book. She told me, "we wouldn't consider it that way." The Kitzmiller case, "wasn't a challenge to the book itself," she told me, pointing out the fact that the book remains in the school library, "it was a challenge to the school board policy."

She also told me that she would object to the removal of the book from a school library, and that people do have a right to read the book for themselves. However, after checking their database, she was able to tell me that they have only one record of any challenge to the book, and that involved an incident in 1993 when someone asked that the book be removed on the grounds of "inaccuracy." The book was not removed, and the incident is classified as a "challenge," not a "banning."

There you have it: a representative from the ALA does not consider the book to be banned or challenged. Of course, Larry will misintrepret this in how many ways? Five, four, three...

Sunday, March 23, 2008 2:30:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I was aware of that source, but it is not reliable and not non-partisan. Also, this source violates the Wikipedia rules of "no personal blogs" and "no original research." Furthermore, Caldwell-Stone's statements contradict the ALA's own website, which says that the definition of "banned book" includes books that have been banned only from curricula and not from libraries.

Furthermore, she admitted that the book was "challenged" in 1993, so if Wikipedia had properly changed the title of the "banned books" article to "banned and challenged books" (since it is often not known when a book has actually been banned and when it has only been challenged -- in particular, the ALA list does not distinguish between the two), then "Pandas" would have been eligible for listing solely on the basis of the 1993 challenge. As I said, the Wikipedian control freaks completely rewrote the whole banned books article just to avoid listing "Pandas."

Two more points:

Saying that the book was not banned is saying that the Dover plaintiffs did not get everything they wanted.

The idiot Judge Jones is solely to blame for any misunderstandings as to whether, where, and how he banned the book.

Like those White Owl cigar ads said, you just know I'm gonna getcha.

Sunday, March 23, 2008 4:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry, my response was not whether wikipedia should have listed the book as banned, but that it is not a banned (or challenged) book. It is not. It was, once, back in 1993. It is not so anymore (though of course it may be in the future).

Going back to wikipedia, in order for your wish to have it included on a list of banned or challenged books fulfilled, you need original research that contradicts the statement of an official of the ALA (the organization that defines books as banned or challenged). Why don't you contact them yourself and find out why it isn't among the books listed? Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

Sunday, March 23, 2008 6:30:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,
>>>>>Larry, my response was not whether wikipedia should have listed the book as banned, but that it is not a banned (or challenged) book. <<<<<<<

The Wikipedia NPOV ("Neutral Point of View") rule says that all views held by significant numbers of people must be presented. A Wikipedian control freak opposed to listing the book conceded that there was a "blog war" over the issue. Wikipedia also says that views held by prominent people must be presented -- William Dembski and the Discovery Institute staff hold that "Pandas" is a banned book -- the DI even nominated it for the "banned book of the year." And what reason is there to believe that your view is the "correct" one, or even the majority one?

>>>>> It was, once, back in 1993. It is not so anymore <<<<<<<

You idiot -- the "reasons" given in the Wikipedia banned books list make it obvious that many of the listed books are not currently banned. And it is ridiculous to insist that a "challenged" book must be under current challenge in order to be listed in a list of challenged books. What an idiot.

>>>>> Going back to wikipedia, in order for your wish to have it included on a list of banned or challenged books fulfilled, you need original research that contradicts the statement of an official of the ALA. <<<<<<

The Wikipedia rules do not allow "original research."

The ALA official's statement that the ALA does not consider "Pandas" to be banned because it is still in the Dover high school library is contradicted by the ALA website, where the ALA definition of "banned book" includes books that have only been banned from curricula and not from libraries (I have been over this many times before and this is an example of where you are forcing me to repeat myself, and then you accuse me of being repetitive). This is all explained here.

>>>>>> (the organization that defines books as banned or challenged). <<<<<<

The American Library Association is not the only authority on "banned books." Here are the other sponsors of Banned Books Week -- why not get their opinions on whether "Pandas" should be considered a "banned book"?


Banned Books Week Sponsors

American Booksellers Association
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Library Association
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Association of American Publishers
National Association of College Stores
Endorsed by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress


>>>>>>Why don't you contact them yourself and find out why it isn't among the books listed? <<<<<<

The ALA list is a list of the 100 most frequently challenged books in 1990-2000. "Pandas" absence from the list does not mean that "Pandas" was never banned or challenged.

I did contact the ALA official who said that the ALA did not consider "Pandas" to be a banned book [1][2], but she obviously realized that she made a big boo-boo and so she tried to cover her ass by sticking to her guns.

Monday, March 24, 2008 1:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry,

You keep repeating evidence that the ALA does not consider the book being banned (despite your consistent or obsessive quoting of their definition). Give it up; they have spoken and have decided that it was not a banned book. For this reason, any attempt by you or others to have the book listed as banned constitutes new research, something prohibited by wikipedia rules. The first link you posted reinforces this interpretation -- nothing in the response of the ALA supports what you say -- they deny your interpretation of the rules and give their own defintion (further noting that its challenge was overturned in the same process). The second link, by the way, does not work.

Monday, March 24, 2008 3:37:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Give it up <<<<<

You give it up. You have completely ignored everything I said. You have lost this argument. Dry up and blow away.

>>>>> The second link, by the way, does not work. <<<<<<

Here it is again.

Monday, March 24, 2008 4:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

< she obviously realized that she made a big boo-boo and so she tried to cover her ass by sticking to her guns. >

Having a hard time visualizing this. Perhaps an alternative version of the story will help? LOL! :-)

Monday, March 24, 2008 5:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The person who is ignoring everything that one said is you ignoring me. Everything you have pointed out shows that Pandas is not considered a banned book -- you keep showing more evidence to the contrary. See your second link, for example, where you began an unsuccessful campaign for the ALA to consider the book a banned book. Why do you present evidence to the contrary and then argue that it is support for your claim? Is that why you've been banned from numerous blogs? I wonder why the uncommonly dense people don't ban you...perhaps because they need the numbers.

Monday, March 24, 2008 5:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As I said, you already lost the argument, dunghill. I am not going to waste my time by repeating my arguments.

Monday, March 24, 2008 5:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In another post Larry wrote: You Darwinist devils forget that you lost a big one: the Dover plaintiffs failed to get "Of Pandas and People" banned, despite the fact that the book was mentioned 75 times in the Dover opinion.

So now you admit that the book isn't banned? You do need therapy.

Friday, March 28, 2008 3:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home