This is disingenuous and more than a little hypocritical. You introduced Turner’s article as the product of “an important member of the NAS” making the organisational affiliation very relevant. I can understand you being upset that said affiliation detracted from the credibility of the article - rather than enhancing it as you intended. But you were the one who made it an issu.
As for there being a pattern, looking back over the last year the only similar example I could see was about Koonin’s book. There again, you started by trying to present Koonin as credible.
There was no such pattern in the Cladistics discussion General Discussion on the Nature and Methods of Cladistics for instance.
In this thread you tried to impugn Wikipedia as a source due to alleged bias - so why should your sources be immune when you make their credibility an issue at the very start?
If you are fed up with justifiable disagreements on the credibility of your sources, perhaps you should not make it an issue in the first place. Or at least cease to choose such questionable sources.