I know it because I read multiple other independent reports on the case. The DI was the only source to put that spin on it. That’s why we ask for independent confirmation.
ETA: it is not my intent to derail the thread on Coppedge. Just to provide reasons for asking for independent confirmation of the claims made for Bechly. We can drop the Coppedge discussion.
Hi Ann: First, as I said, you will always have detractors and this is a relative free speech zone. I’m not one of them and I can assure you that you have misunderstood what’s happening here.
No one mistrusted you. And you obviously aren’t an expert with social media, even the technical aspects of it like Wikipedia species pages and even LinkedIn. No big deal, not everyone knows all about every topic. What happened here is actually that those of us who were conversing with you DID trust you. We simply tried to listen to what you had said and determine what had occurred.
When you said certain things, you used technical terms that mean certain things. When you said a page was wiped, that means that it either existed in complete form and the content was removed completely, or that the page was removed entirely.
In trying to determine exactly what you meant, and what really happened, we continued to ask questions. There was no mistrust… there was only some confusion over the details, like your concern over Patrick’s posting of your public LinkedIn page…
I cringe whenever people here attack. It’s happened in this thread and it’s entirely unnecessary… but your misunderstanding over how some of these sites work has added confusion. The rest of us are simply engaging in conversation hoping to learn what happened to Dr. Bechly’s pages.
It is relevant because it exemplifies how these sorts of things are dichotomized and amplified through the media. What independent sources?
Fair enough. I would also note, at this time, we have found independent confirmation, including the discussion page that shows the decision to delete his page.
@swamidass
Do you think that the editors responsible for the decision would have included evidence of bias? Unless a you have a particular knowledge of their honesty you can’t use what they wrote as evidence of the veracity of their account.
The actual court decision among other things. There were also dozens of reports on the case in news agencies all over the web. Not one supported the DI’s claim Coppedge was discriminated against and terminated solely because of his ID views. Not even Faux News. 
I don’t understand the objection. Can you help me understand? Their comments validate what you said. They have no reason to validate what you said. So I take that some very strong evidence that what you said is actually what happened.
I don’t question at all the page was deleted. I just see no evidence it was done as part of a world wide evil science conspiracy to underhandedly repress Intelligent Design and its proponents.
Give me a break @Timothy_Horton. You clearly can acknowledge that most of the scientific world despises ID proponents. It has been all out war, and is entirely possible that in specific instances ID proponents have been treated unfairly, because of overall bias against the whole movement. What is the harm in acknowledging when and if that happens?
When you have evidence it actually did happen, let us know. I don’t see it in this case. Perhaps if the DI didn’t cry 'WOLF!" every other week people would take them more seriously.
So, the fact that he had a page when he worked in Germany, right up until the point where he began to embrace ID, and then his profile page, despite his long list of achievements, was entirely wiped out, and this bit of circumstantial evidence isn’t enough to indicate to you that he was prejudiced against??
I don’t know @Michael_Callen about that part. It does not seem he was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, until the ID controversy broke out.
@Timothy_Horton`
The very people doing the reporting share in the same bias, and you can see it in their word choice. In the Dover case you could see it in the Judge’s behavior. He watched Inherit the Wind the night before the trial as background for the case. The trouble is, that is not an accurate account of that trial. It has stuff in it that would curl a modern person’s hair concerning religion.
I have not read the Coppedge case in question. All I know is what David said about the circumstances of his termination.
Did you see the web archive page that I posted at the top of this thread? It is, literally, his Wikipedia page that was deleted. It was significant enough to be created, and then it was updated to include his “conversion” to ID, and then it was deleted. You can see it here:
Maybe I’m misunderstanding? That could be the case.
I"m not sure your point with bias game. ID proponents have been extremely biased too. Everyone is biased.
The far rare thing is to find people working hard to overcome their bias and treat the other side fairly. ID as a whole (not talking about you specifically) does not have a good track record here.
Everyone agrees too that ID is despised by mainstream science. What exactly is the point you are making?
I disagree. The concept of ID is not despised by anyone in science I know of. What mainstream science despises are the underhanded attempts by ID proponents to bypass all standard scientific vetting and push their case directly to the lay public often using dishonest and misleading cherry picked data. HUGE difference.
Yes Pingry started in Elizabeth NJ in 1861. It has always been a fine prep school. And always secular, I might add teaching the value of diversity and tolerance.
Getting a fair hearing is next to impossible.
Someone, almost certainly an ID proponent, created a Wiki page for Bechly. When the Wiki editors reviewed it they determined Bechly wasn’t notable enough to warrant a Wiki page so it was deleted. That happens all the time. If someone really thinks Bechly deserves his own Wiki entry they can always make a case and appeal to the editors. In this case it seems the DI thought it had much more value to portray Bechly as another poor persecuted ID victim.
What do you define as a fair hearing? Seems to me the primary scientific literature is pretty fair. If your work can pass scientific muster it gets published. If not, it doesn’t. What’s unfair about that?