Talk:Uncommon Dissent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Proposed deletion 2 Attention JBKramer 3 Noting the book's relation to the Wedge Strategy 4 Unexplained revert 5 Verifiability 6 Facts 7 Dispute tag 8 New dispute tag 9 New new dispute tag 10 Blogs 11 What parts of this article are under dispute? 12 Balance needed at end of Contributors section 13 Book reviews needed; and broken link 14 attributions to authors 15 Mediation request 16 Minor rewrite of criticisms of UD 17 Disputed tag 18 Grammar 19 Acknowledges vs. Says 20 Reverting my own edits 21 Seeking to destroy evolution?

[edit] Proposed deletion

Comment: I see that User:Arthur Rubin has proposed this article for deletion. However, not only the editor of the book, but virtually every one of its contributors, meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. Hence, the book is notable, and not just "marginally" as Rubin claims. I also see a (probably intentionally disparaging) remark to the effect that none of the contributors to this anthology is an evolutionary biologist; that makes no difference whatsoever, since the book addresses the validity of a theory which evolutionary biologists merely take for granted, and the occupations of the contributors all arguably relate to that level of discourse (with the exception of the contributor whose occupation is not listed). According to the applicable standard, the book certainly belongs in Wikipedia. Asmodeus 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I looked at this as a Wikipedia:walled garden, but the I'm afraid the book does meet WP:BK. My mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because the author(s) of a book are notable doesn't necessarily mean the book itself is notable. --Coppertwig 12:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention JBKramer

Attention JBKramer: please discuss your objections here rather than using the edit summary to falsely accuse other editors of "editing disruptively to make a point". The subject of the book is not simple biology, but the overall theoretical integrity of Darwinism. Modern biologists merely apply Darwinism while taking its validity almost completely for granted; in order to neutrally critique the theory - NPOV, remember? - a higher level of discourse is required. Biologists typically don't function on that level, and therefore would not be expected to write a book like this one. I'm therefore asking you to either stop invoking this red herring in order to paint the contributors in a bad light, which is obviously what you're trying to do, or allow for some balance. (Also, please stop following me around and specializing in my edits.) Asmodeus 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

On this point, I strongly disagree, in regard the actual content of the article. If (as you suggest above) the authors' occupations are relevant, the fact that none is a biolgist is also relevant, given the subject is (generally considered to be) biology. The current sentence, "Although at least three of the contributors work in biology-related fields, none is a professional biologist." seems a reasonable compromise. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with the present wording, although it still seems to me that "none is a biologist" has an inappropriately judgmental tone (given that professional biologists would be among the last people to write such a book, Darwinism being a canon of their discipline). However, I stand firm on my comments regarding JBKramer's misuse of the edit summary. Answering your request to improve the article hardly qualifies as "editing disruptively to make a point". Asmodeus 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about Darwinism being a canon of biology. I think biologists are generally thoughtful, intelligent scientists who apply scepticism to all parts of their science and who use the concepts of evolution the way mathematicians use "the derivative of x³ is 3x² " -- that is, they've thought it through, probably many times, they see how the formula is derived, they see that it makes sense and are convinced, by the logic of the situation, that it's correct, and they use it in a way that may look to someone else as if they're taking it for granted. They discuss minor variations on the theory because those can also make sense in the same way. They've thought through the derivation so many times that they either can't be bothered thinking it through one more time just to please someone else, or that they're able to think it through in an instant the way mathematicians can do for some proofs they're familiar with. Do biology textbooks state that Darwinism is a canon? --Coppertwig 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noting the book's relation to the Wedge Strategy

FeloniousMonk: You have insisted on presenting Uncommon Dissent as a "fulfillment" of the "Wedge Strategy" of the Discovery Institute, which implies a causal connection between the DI and the existence of the book. Yet, the DI per se did not write or publish the book. Accordingly, I requested citations substantiating your speculation (as opposed, for example, to ad hominem reliance on one of the editor's personal affiliations). Can you provide the requested citations? If you can, please do so immediately. Asmodeus 17:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does fulfillment inherently imply a causative relationship? Let us, playing in court of the Abrahamic religion tradition espoused by the IDists, assume that the prophecy of a Messiah was causative in the death of Jesus. Would we be correct in so assuming? •Jim62sch• 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you on this point. Although the comments FeloniousMonk made make it morally certain that it is part of DI's "Wedge Strategy", it is WP:OR to state it in Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you really need to find a new introductory phrase, because that one ain't worth much. •Jim62sch• 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk's observation that William Dembski is a senior fellow of the DI merely suggests that some people in the DI might see the book as "a fulfillment of the wedge strategy". As you observe, that's not good enough to satisfy NOR or NPOV. Happy Thanksgiving. Asmodeus 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a basic misunderstanding here, FeloniousMonk. [1],[2],[3] are short book reviews which do not mention the wedge strategy, establish a causal relationship between the wedge strategy and Uncommon Dissent, or even establish that the DI, as an organization, had anything to do with the book's publication. The kind of citation minimally required to support this speculation would be, for example, a verifiable statement along the lines of "I wrote/edited this book on a grant from the DI in fulfillment of stage n of the wedge strategy." Do you have one or more citations of this nature? If not, then your speculation is rooted in your own POV and should be removed. Asmodeus 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As you and I already know the sort of cites you seek do not exist because the Discovery Institute denies it follows the Wedge strategy. Luckily the Dover ruling found the institute to be doing just that, so that much is settled.

Just because the Discovery Institute is playing that game does not mean we have to as well, and since they try to publicly distance themselves from their own strategy, denying us a primary source, the most the article can present is to note the book and the DI's cited hyping of it are consistent with the Wedge, which the article now does. Once secondary sources are provided, their observation of the book's role in the Wedge Strategy will be added as attributed, sourced opinion. FeloniousMonk 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the DI is widely associated with the wedge strategy, I don't think you've established the relevance of this association to the book, or for that matter, the validity of ID critic Barbara Forrest's speculative thesis that "DI fellow Nancy R. Pearcey's writings in Uncommon Dissent [are] evidence of the religious foundations of the institute's Wedge strategy and of intelligent design." Nancy R. Pearcey is one of fifteen (15) contributors to UCD, and allegedly religious comments from 1/15 of the contributors is not a basis for categorizing the book or its purpose. Since Barbara Forrest is not a contributor, her personal opinion regarding the particular essay submitted by 1/15 of the contributors hardly fills the gap. Thus, you need to show why it belongs in the article. Can you do that? Asmodeus 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I, personally believe, that FM and SA are correct that this book is part of the wedge strategy, we need an independent, reliable source stating that. One reliable source stating that the book is A, B, and C, and another one stating that A, B, and C are examples of the wedge strategy, is not adequate under WP:OR. I think the present revision may qualify, although it might need to go into that particular author's article, instead of this article. (In other words, Asodeus, if you delete it from here without inserting it into that author's article, I would consider it intentional POV pushing, and request appropriate action.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnson in Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds wrote: "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." (pg. 91-92) A pro-ID book like Uncommon Dissent, put out by the founders of the Wedge, Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Pearcey, Denton, making all their same oft-repeated arguments will be another brick in the Wedge's pro-ID ediface by necessity.

The article as it stands now presents the viewpoint (which is notable) attributed to Barbara Forrest, who herself is notable for her writings on ID and her participation in the Dover trial where it was ruled ID is creationism, not science. Her citing of the book in her expert testimony [1] is perforce notable in relation to this topic, and as such it belongs here, not buried at her article.

To the long-term contributors to the ID articles there's am all-too-familiar pattern here emerging -- content that represents the scientific community's viewpoint is constantly being removed, first as being uncited, then when cites and attribution is provided it's claimed it is not relevent to the topic. This constitutes a pattern of POV bowdlerizing, and will not fly.

Also, any contributors here who have a personal stake in this topic are requested to comply with WP:COI and WP:AUTO and limit their participation to the article's talk page. FeloniousMonk 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV of the scientific community regarding evolution is one thing; the POV of well-known ID critic Barbara Forrest regarding the raison d'etre of the DI is quite another, as is establishing the relevance of that opinion to this particular book. Regarding COI, it applies to you as much as to anyone else. WP:COI exists solely for the sake of NPOV. To edit neutrally is to adhere to the letter of WP:COI; to edit from POV is to demonstrate COI in the form of an inordinate psychological investment in the topic. That's all we need in this particular case. Asmodeus 15:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Forrest is recogized by the courts as one of the foremost, if not the foremost, expert on ID, period. That's why she was an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and the ruling there that ID is religon not science affirmed her testimony while dismissing that of the ID expert witnesses. The Dover ruling specifically said of Forrest:

"Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism’s Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID’s religious, philosophical, and cultural content." [2] --Judge Jones, Kitzmiller v. Dover

I understand your need to continue to seek to remove these facts from this article, but they are now presented as a properly sourced attribution to a notable viewpoint. Anyone who argues that Forrest is not notable or relevent to this book and this article would have to explain away the evidence that she was found more than notable enough by Judge Jones for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial [3], and that her expert witness report made explicit the connections between those who call themselves the Wedge, 6 of the 15 authors, and this book.[4] FeloniousMonk 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Asmodeus' statement that the purpose of WP:COI is to support NPOV, but I disagree with the user's statement that "To edit neutrally is to adhere to the letter of WP:COI". No, the WP:COI guideline states "avoid editing articles related to...". It does not state "edit these articles neutrally"; it instructs users with certain relationships to the topic not to edit them at all. Users with conflicts of interest can present material on the talk page and if it's considered useful others users (who do not have conflicts of interest) can move the material into the article. --Coppertwig 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained revert

My recent edit, which cited the book's characterization of Darwinism, requested citation for a claim, corrected the figure of thirteen contributors to fifteen, and added relevant external links, was reverted without explanation. Please explain reverts, and do not revert uncontroversial changes, like the fix to the number of contributors. Since the revert was wholesale, I don't know which changes are actually controversial, and which were reversed blindly. Please give feedback so we can work together. Tim Smith 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What they are criticising is evolutionary biology, not Darwinism. There is a difference, [5]. Paul A. Newman 12:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What they are criticizing is something they call "Darwinism"; the book's title is Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. "Darwinism" is an ambiguous term: according to our article, it can refer to evolution by natural selection, or to evolution more broadly, or to other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin. We therefore need to say what the book means by "Darwinism". Accordingly, I cited its introduction, which characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity." It might help to explain in the article that the term is ambiguous. Tim Smith 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried a direct quote from the first sentence of our article on Darwinism, explaining that it is "a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection", but it was removed and replaced with the claim that the book's contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution. In fact, the introduction does not use "Darwinism" to mean evolution generally, but what Dembski calls "Darwinian evolution", and characterizes by the central claim I quoted in my post above. Furthermore, because the term "Darwinism" is ambiguous, the fifteen contributors might not all use it in the same sense. I therefore recommend restoring the quote from Darwinism, which covers multiple senses of the term. Tim Smith 05:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing they are creationalists and thus they would probably be using "Darwinism" as pejorative for "evolutionary biology" and any other things they feel spin to their target audience, whether it is related to Darwin or his works or not. You're probably going to be flogging a dead horse here to remove the wording "which they use to refer to ..." as that is how they use it. I'm happy their misunderstanding stays as in the end this booklet is simply proposing pseudoscience (i.e. intelligent design) in contrast to science and thus nothing need not actually make any sense between their use of terms or understanding and science. Ttiotsw 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need to explain how they use "Darwinism". But we cannot do so by "guessing" about how they would "probably" be using it; we need cites. I've already quoted the book's introduction, and I suggest we also use the sentence from Darwinism quoted above, which covers multiple senses of the term. Contrary to this edit summary, the book's title does not show that its contributors reject evolution; as noted, "Darwinism" is ambiguous. Please engage in discussion rather than dismissing citation requests or reverting to unsourced claims. Tim Smith 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything - I just agree it's a waste of time arguing on reverts for such a simple section in the text. I'm just thinking of some other way of incorporating how they use all of "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" and "Darwinians" and remove any reference to evolution because truthfully nothing would make sense given it's a book of many authors. All those three words are found in the one-page summary at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=Book%20-%20CSC&id=3605 Ttiotsw 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, to do so would be to promote a particular point of view - that of ID proponents, as your reliance on a Discovery Institute source proves. FeloniousMonk 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So we would thus have to add in text on how each of these terms is used or can we just wikilink the terms ? These people have invented how they use the terms; it is not an undue bias to simply repeat what they say. We can't "neutralise" the usage ourselves - that's WP:OR - it must come from someone else notable who comments on how these IDers use the terms. Personally I'd just have a one-liner saying that the terms are used for effect and as a pejorative and leave it at that without explaining subtle differences between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism etc. If a wiki reader has hit this intellectual tarpit of ID the wikilinks on the terms would act as sufficient safety chain for them to haul themselves out to another article. Ttiotsw 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ttiotsw—my last sentence applied to other editors, not to you. You're right to observe that it's a book of many authors, and they might not all use "Darwinism" in the same sense. So far I've quoted the book's introduction for its characterization of Darwinism, and I've quoted our article on Darwinism for a general description of the term. I'm also open to quoting notable outside commentary on what the book means by "Darwinism". What is not acceptable is for editors to repeatedly insert unsourced claims about what they think the book means by "Darwinism", repeatedly remove requests from other editors to supply sources for their claims, and do so without engaging in talk-page discussion, sometimes reverting without any explanation at all. Such behavior is disappointing and inappropriate. Tim Smith 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Earlier today I tried quoting the first sentence of our article on Darwinism for a general description of the term, while leaving untouched the claim that the contributors use it to refer to the theory of evolution, simply requesting a source for that claim and for another claim. The edit was reverted and the citation requests removed, this time with an edit summary beginning "rv per talk", by a user who has never edited the talk page.

In fact, with the exception of the single sentence offered above by FeloniousMonk, the only talk contributions for the last two days have been mine and Ttiotsw's. Ttiotsw and I agree that to insert our own views about usage would be original research: hence the need for sources. I'd like the editors who insist on removing citation requests and reverting to unsourced claims to please review Wikipedia's verifiability policy:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Please abide by this policy. Tim Smith 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So I take it that you find the title of the book unconvincing? You changed the wording to "a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection". The use of the term "Darwinism" by Dembski et al. is well established in their writing - they use it as a term for the modern synthesis, not for "Darwin's ideas about evolution and natural selection. Since you are quoting policy

1. You can't use a Wikipedia article as a source
2. The way the "Darwinism" is used by creationists is well established. When you take their misuse of the term and replace it with a totally separate meaning you are at best engaging in original research, and at worst engaging in vandalism.

Granted, it's a common strategy for creationists to take long-discarded ideas in biology and use them to "debunk" evolutionary biology - while Wells has engaged in that nonsense, Dembski appears to have a tad more intellectual integrity. So your insistence that he has edited a book which focuses soley on outdated ideas in biology seems rather surprising. Are they really going around saying "oh, look, Darwinism is wrong because it uses ideas of blended inheritance, not genetics"? or maybe "Darwinism is wrong because it doesn't take into account genetic mutation"? Your assertion is not only ridiculous, it's also an insult to Dembski et al. - they may be wrong, but they aren't that stupid.

You have also added {{fact}} to the statement that "the book rejects^{[citation needed]} the broad acceptance of evolution within the scientific community". Have you read anything associated with the book - maybe the blurb at DI's website which promotes the book? Even if you can't be bothered to do that, at least you could read the second part of the title of the book "Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing".

As for my rv "per talk" - your case has been debunked here on talk before. One can read a page without actually posting to it. Guettarda 07:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim's objections have indeed been shown to be baseless time and again... Yet they still keep coming. His method of using 'fact' and 'citation needed' tags to discredit content is getting ridiculous and becoming transparent. It's clearly not meant to improve the article but to lessen or exclude a particular viewpoint while promoting the rhetoric and narrow message of the ID movement. I too wonder if he's actually read this book, his calls for sources indicates he hasn't. There's a limit to the baseless objections, constant reverts and instances of misused tags editors here have to endure. FeloniousMonk 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added sources for you Tim. Since we're all here is there anything else needing support? FeloniousMonk 08:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First, regardless of how the contributors use "Darwinism", a general description of the term provides valuable context here. Guettarda focuses above on "Darwin's ideas", but the quote actually says "the underlying theory in those ideas", and according to our article, the term can refer to evolution by natural selection, or to evolution more broadly, or even to other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin. To make that clear, it might help for us to use the second sentence of Darwinism as well as the first.

As to what the contributors mean, I've already quoted Dembski's introduction, which characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity". And again, they don't necessarily all use the term in the same way. James Barham even states that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution" (p. 177). He distinguishes empirical Darwinism ("the idea that the formation of new species is due to random changes in individual organisms that happen to be 'selected' by the environment") from metaphysical Darwinism (the claim that "the theory of natural selection has successfully reduced all teleological and normative phenomena to the interplay of chance and necessity, thus eliminating purpose and value from our picture of the world") (pp. 177–8).

The book's title says "Darwinism", not "evolution", and "find unconvincing", not "reject". The title indicates only this: that each contributor finds unpersuasive one or more aspects of what that contributor terms "Darwinism". In fact, their views are sometimes nuanced:

Robert C. Koons: "Of course, if evolution is defined broadly enough, there's little doubt that it has occurred." (p. 4)

Edward Sisson: "I use the phrase 'unintelligent' evolution to accommodate the possibility that an intelligent designer (or designers) theoretically might generate new designs (and thus produce the diversity of life) by causing preexisting species to undergo designed changes in DNA, and thus to undergo 'intelligent' evolution. (p. 75)

James Barham: "The real problem with the evolution debate is not empirical Darwinism. Rather, it is a sort of theory creep in which a bold but circumscribed scientific claim becomes conflated with a much more sweeping philosophical claim." (p. 178)

Christopher Michael Langan: "In this way, neo-Darwinist and design-theoretic (bottom-up and top-down) modes of causality become recognizable as complementary aspects of a single comprehensive evolutionary process." (p. 260)

Finally, please be civil and assume good faith. Tim Smith 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Regarding this revert, it is a fact that critics say Johnson, Dembski, and their associates use "Darwinism" to mean evolution. It is also a fact that contributor James Barham writes that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution", and that he distinguishes "empirical Darwinism" from "metaphysical Darwinism" (pp. 177–178). These facts help the reader to understand (1) what critics say the contributors mean by "Darwinism", and (2) what the contributors themselves say they mean by "Darwinism". Both (1) and (2) belong in the article. Regarding undue weight:

None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.

On a page specifically devoted to the book Uncommon Dissent, we can spell out in great detail what that book says, provided we do not represent it as the truth. Please, let's work constructively together to improve the article. Tim Smith 04:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tag

Unfortunately, I now feel it necessary to add a dispute tag to the article. At issue are two claims:

Claim 1: The book's contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution.

Claim 2: "the book rejects the broad acceptance of evolution within the scientific community."

The sources provided for Claim 1 predate the book, and the claim does not accurately characterize all of the contributors; James Barham, for example, writes that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution" (p. 177). Consequently, the claim needs explicit attribution or qualification, like so:

In a letter written in 2000, philosophy professor and intelligent-design critic Barbara Forrest states that "Johnson, Demsbki, and their associates" use "Darwinism" as a synonym for evolution.

I tried adding the preceding sentence, but it was removed. To continue to state Claim 1 without attribution or qualification is neither factual nor neutral.

Claim 2 is unsourced, and has been unsourced since it was added to the article over three weeks ago. I requested a source the day after it was added; that request was reverted without explanation. I restored the cite tag; it was removed. I restored it again; it was removed again. I added it a fourth time; it was removed a fourth time. The fifth time took, but nearly three weeks later, the claim remains unsourced. With a source, it will need explicit attribution or qualification, as with Claim 1; pending that, it is neither factual nor neutral.

Additionally, this article is about a book, and would benefit from details of what that book actually says. The paragraph on Barham is a step in that direction.

A version of the article which addresses these issues can be found here. I hope we can resolve this dispute quickly and amicably. Tim Smith 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These issues have already been discussed with you and you simply refuse to accept all evidence and reason that you may be wrong on these points. That a source predates the book in no way means that it does not support the passage in question and if another passage is uncited then go find a source for it instead of slapping "totallydisputed" on the article. Use of the "totallydisputed" tag in this instance is unwarranted and strikes me as a ploy to gain the upper hand in a content dispute which you've been stubbornly pursuing. I feel it is completely unjustified, over the top, and needs to come down. FeloniousMonk 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the first statement, rejecting a source because it predates the book is incomprehensible. The "Dembskiite" position on "Darwinism" is well established. When they talk of Darwinism they mean evolution. They have used the term in that sense hundreds of times. Requiring a new source every time one of them utters the word is ridiculous.

With regards to the second statement - the modern synthesis (ie, evolution the scientific theory, as opposed to evolution the observed fact) underpins all of modern biology. By rejecting it, you reject "the broad acceptance of evolution within the scientific community". If, on the other hand, you say that they are not talking about evolution but rather just about Darwin's theory ("Darwinism") then they are just rejecting Darwin's theory (sans genetics and the last 150 years of research) in which case it's the most ridiculous of strawman attacks. And no, it isn't unsourced - it follows logically from the first. Guettarda 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. A few {{fact}} or {{cite}} tags still need to be resolved, but the {{totallydisputed}} tag is clearly wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Claim 1 is that the book's fifteen contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution. The sources provided for this claim are inadequate for several reasons. First, they say nothing about the book (in fact, they predate it), and mention only a few of the contributors, who are hardly carbon-copy "Dembskiites" with identical views. Second, we already know that the claim does not accurately characterize everyone—James Barham, for example, argues that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution" (p. 177). Third, the sources are not reliable—they are letters, not scholarly articles. Fourth, their authors are critics representing one side of a dispute; WP:NPOV tells us not to assert their views, but to present them. I am not "rejecting" the sources, but only requesting that their claims be explicitly attributed or qualified, as explained.

Claim 2 was added to the article by FeloniousMonk, who, incredibly, is now telling me to find a source for it. I advise him to press the "Page Up" key until he locates the helpful summary of WP:V posted earlier, where he will discover that "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor" and that "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it".

Even for contributors who use "Darwinism" to mean the modern synthesis, Claim 2 would not follow automatically. Claim 1 does not say that the contributors "reject" Darwinism; nor does the book's title. As noted earlier, the title indicates only that each contributor finds unconvincing one or more aspects of what that contributor terms "Darwinism". They may not fully accept it; that does not mean they reject it. Additionally, "the broad acceptance of evolution" is an ambiguous phrase which could just as well refer to evolution the observed fact as to the prevailing theory of evolution. Contributors can accept the observed fact ("if evolution is defined broadly enough, there's little doubt that it has occurred"—p. 4) without endorsing the prevailing theory. Claim 2 is both unsourced and unacceptably vague.

In disputed matters, it helps to stick closely to the sources, simply quoting what they say and letting readers draw their own conclusions. Shall we give that a try? Tim Smith 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New dispute tag

Do you care to explain what you consider to be in dispute now? There was consensus that your last use of a dispute tag was spurious? You said "please follow basic principles of Wikiquette and work constructively to help bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V" - it seems to me that you are the one who is moving the article away from NPOV and V. In addition, it isn't good "Wikiquette" to accuse people to failing to follow basic principles when you are in fact the person who is failing to follow basic principles of Wikipedia editing.

At the very least you could try discussing the problems here. Guettarda 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been discussing the problems here for the last month and a half. In that time I've edited the talk page more often than anyone else, and more often than Guettarda and FeloniousMonk combined. I've carefully explained my edits, suggested improvements, supplied relevant quotes from the book, and called for discussion and constructive engagement. In fact, prior to yesterday's edits, the last contribution on the talk page was mine; no one had responded to it after almost three weeks.

In contrast, other editors have reverted without discussion, removed citation requests, reverted to unsourced claims, reversed uncontroversial changes, failed to assume good faith, exhibited incivility, and are now removing dispute tags ([6] [7] [8]). It is with good reason that I requested adherence to basic principles of Wikiquette, like:

• Assume good faith.
• Be polite, please!
• Work toward agreement.
• Be civil.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
• Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible.

What I dispute now is what I've disputed all along: the neutrality, factuality, and sourcing of Claim 1 (that the fifteen contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to "the theory of evolution") and Claim 2 (that the book "rejects the broad acceptance of evolution within the scientific community"). I explained the problems in my last post; no one replied. When I tried to fix them, I was met with a wholesale revert which restored these unsourced or unreliably sourced claims in violation of WP:V. (Regarding the edit summary, what critics say comes after what the book says because the article is about the book. FeloniousMonk knows perfectly well that intelligent design takes the same approach.)

As I said at RfC/Tim Smith, one of the biggest obstacles to resolving this dispute is the resistance of other editors to presenting these claims, rather than asserting them in contravention of WP:NPOV:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

In fact, assertion of these claims also contravenes WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, which says that our task is to "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". The article does not represent the claims as views at all; it simply asserts them as facts.

Regarding dispute tags, it is a fact that there is a dispute. The outside users at RfC/Tim Smith agree that the addition of dispute tags when there is a clear dispute is not bias. My suggestion for a resolution also enjoys outside support. Please respect the tags and work with me to resolve the dispute. Tim Smith 01:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your preferred version:

"...Darwinism", characterized in the book's introduction by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity", but which critics say they use synonymously with evolution without knowing much about evolutionary biology.

creates a hierarchy of fact - the views of the ID proponents are "true" and "undisputed", whereas the view of the scientific community is "controversial", held by "critics" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that is both inaccurate and inappropriate, getting WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience exactly backward.

To follow the WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience policy the article needs to be very specific in describing the terms Darwinism and evolution. Which the current passage clearly does:

..."Darwinism", which they use to refer to the theory of evolution. The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity.

What's the problem with this? FeloniousMonk 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it asserts as a fact that the fifteen contributors use "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution, rather than presenting that claim as a view, per WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, despite evidence that it does not accurately characterize everyone (James Barham, for example, writes that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution", distinguishing "empirical Darwinism" from "metaphysical Darwinism" [pp. 177–8]), and with inadequate sourcing, as explained. Regarding my version, you're drawing implications that are not in the text, which never says that the book's characterization is "true" or "undisputed", and is in fact careful to attribute the characterization to the book and to note that it is disputed. But this week's editing hopefully resolved the matter. Tim Smith 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New new dispute tag

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncommon_Dissent&diff=100823932&oldid=100600944 seems to require a new {{totallydisputed}} tag. It looks pretty bad to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs

FeloniousMonk has introduced into the article remarks made by John M. Lynch in a post to his blog Stranger Fruit, and with Guettarda, removed ([9] [10]) my attempts to note their origin. Blogs are self-published sources which lack editorial oversight and have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. Per WP:V and WP:RS, they are largely not acceptable as sources, and editors are to exercise caution about using them. If Lynch's remarks are to be included, we should present them cautiously, saying up front—not just in a footnote, but in the text—when and where they were made. We already follow this practice for Barbara Forrest:

In her expert witness report for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Barbara Forrest cited Nancy R. Pearcey's writings in Uncommon Dissent as evidence of the religious nature of intelligent design.

So I suggest:

In a 2004 post to his blog Stranger Fruit, evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch says of Uncommon Dissent that "[...]"

Tim Smith 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stranger Fruit at the time was hosted by Arizona State University, Tempe and was affiliated with ASU's Center for Biology and Society and History and Philosophy of Science Program. In your version John M. Lynch comes off as just some "blogger", not the Honors Faculty Fellow and Senior Lecturer at ASU's Barrett Honors College that he is, and doing so would appear to be poisoning the well. I hope this isn't another new "issue" like the last one. FeloniousMonk 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Providing basic context is not poisoning the well, especially in view of the cautions in WP:V and WP:RS about using self-published sources. Lynch makes very clear (in disclaimers here and at his previous (ASU) host) that his blog is self-published:

Everything on this site represents my own viewpoint and should in no way be taken to speak for Arizona State University, the State of Arizona, or anyone who knows me. Indeed, you shouldn't imagine that this is how I behave while teaching at ASU. This is me. Ranting and venting. Just me. No one else. Except the voices in my head.

If Lynch's remarks are to appear in our article, we should present them cautiously, saying up front when and where they were made so that readers are in no doubt that they are self-published. At the same time, we can identify Lynch. How about:

In a 2004 post to his blog Stranger Fruit, evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch, an Honors Faculty Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Arizona State University's Barrett Honors College, says of Uncommon Dissent that "[...]"

Tim Smith 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article, does not make the point clearer, and has the potential for well-poisoning. Guettarda 03:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've pointed this out several times already but it's like talking to a wall with this guy. FeloniousMonk 04:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It adds to the article the fact that Lynch's remarks were made in a post to his blog, a self-published source which lacks editorial oversight and has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. Currently, the reader is told only that Lynch made the remarks, and in a footnote, that he did so at "Stranger Fruit". Only by checking the note, and then visiting an external site, does the reader discover that Stranger Fruit is Lynch's blog. Putting that information in the text makes immediately clear that the remarks are self-published, context too important to leave to a footnote or external site. If readers exercise caution as a result, that's not because the well was poisoned, but because the context of the remarks invites such caution. Again, per WP:V and WP:RS, blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. If Lynch's "ranting and venting" (his description) is to appear here, we should exercise caution and identify its origin up front.

By the way, I made a suggestion above to address FeloniousMonk's objection about Lynch coming off as "just some blogger", and am trying to engage constructively. Please watch your civility. Tim Smith 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what is meant by "well-poisoning". Tim Smith's attribution and arguments for including such attribution look reasonable and NPOV to me. Here are some other variations that could be considered:

• In a 2004 blog, evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch says ...
• In a 2004 self-published comment, evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch says...
• Evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch said ... on his website in 2004.
• Evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch says in a post on his website that...(This one is a little problematic as it implies the post is still on the website, which it might or might not be now or in the future. Now I see why the year has to be mentioned.)
• Evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch says ... in a 2004 blog on his website.
• In a website post, evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch comments that ...

I agree that mentioning that it's a blog (or other, less informal word for a website perhaps) is a good idea. I don't see the need to mention the name of the website in the text -- I think that does fine in the citation. Maybe mentioning the name of the website adds a little vivacity to the article, but if some editors see that as well-poisoning, I don't at the moment see any need to mention the name "stranger fruit" in the article; only the fact that it was a blog or website or self-published comment. --Coppertwig 01:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found a definition of well-poisoning at Poisoning the well. Part of the definition is " with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.". If we assume good faith about other Wikipedian editors we can assume that this is not happening. It also says "In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result." I don't think provision of accurate information such as that the quote comes from a website would reasonably be considered to fit this definition -- unless all information on all Wikipedia pages does, because someone somewhere might read it and afterwards think some biassed thoughts. However, moving the information that it's from a website to the end, rather than the beginning, of the sentence may help remove qualms about any possible well-poisoning. --Coppertwig 02:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(ri) The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact, and is an assumption that is only extended so far as the editor in question actually merits the assumption. Tim Smith does not merit the extension of an assumption of good-faith (see his RfC), hence "poisoning the well" was used appropriately in referring to his "contributions". •Jim62sch• 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following version:

• Evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch says ... (in a 2004 post on his website.)

--Coppertwig 01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Coppertwig! I prefer "blog" to "website": a blog is a particular kind of Web site, so "blog" is more informative. Given the cautions in WP:V and WP:RS about using self-published sources, as well as Lynch's own disclaimer ("Indeed, you shouldn't imagine that this is how I behave while teaching at ASU. This is me. Ranting and venting."), I think the venue of the remarks is too important to leave as an afterthought. I don't mind omitting the name of the blog. How about:

• In a 2004 post to his blog, evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch, an Honors Faculty Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Arizona State University's Barrett Honors College, says of Uncommon Dissent that "[...]"

Tim Smith 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence is OK with me, but I was trying to address the concerns of others by moving some information to the end of the sentence where it would not affect the reader's state of mind while encountering the quote for the first time. However, I have not been able to come up with a sentence that moves the information to the end and doesn't sound awkward. --Coppertwig 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What parts of this article are under dispute?

Before I make any edits, I'd like to know the situation on this page.

Obviously, the wording of the sentence with the quote from "Stranger Fruit" is currently under discussion. Is the whole article under dispute, or which parts?

It's my understanding that Wikipedia custom is that no editing be done on the disputed parts until consensus has been reached on the talk page. An editor can present a proposed edit on the talk page, wait a reasonable length of time to allow other editors to comment, then proceed with the edit if no objection has been raised to it. On parts of the article not under dispute, an editor can simply be bold and go ahead and change something, though presenting it on the talk page first is a good idea. I'll assume only the one sentence is under dispute unless I'm advised otherwise. --Coppertwig 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I now dispute only the presentation of Lynch's remarks. The current dispute tag was actually added by Arthur Rubin, who made this comment but has not since edited the article or talk page. Tim Smith 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith The article is accurate and well-supported as it stands. FeloniousMonk 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding in light of the above comments that only the sentence about Lynch's remarks is under dispute, and that editors can be bold and make changes on other parts without necessarily presenting them on the talk page first. This situation can rapidly change, of course, if other disputes arise. Any reverting of edits should of course be explained and discussed on the talk page. --Coppertwig 14:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since that time, some other parts have been disputed. (See "attributions to authors" section below.) --Coppertwig 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance needed at end of Contributors section

At the end of the Contributors section, it says "this book has been described as ..." and gives a quote from an institution favouring the same side of the debate as this book. I think it would improve the article to follow this with a quote about the book from a mainstream science perspective. (If no such quotes can be found, I question the book's notability.) I did an internet search for book reviews and didn't find anything suitable, at least not available online. Does anyone have any book reviews of this book, specifically book reviews by people not leaning towards the same side of the debate as this book? Could someone provide an appropriate quote? --Coppertwig 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book reviews needed; and broken link

The link to the review by Lynch doesn't seem to work -- could someone fix it?

Thanks, FeloniousMonk, for finding just the sort of quote I was looking for to balance the end of the Contributors section.

Could anyone find any reviews of this book in regular publications such as newspapers, magazines or scientific journals, or other books writing about this book, written from either a neutral or scientific point of view? They don't have to be available online. Now that FeloniousMonk has added a balancing quote to the end of the Contributors section it's not as urgent, but it would still be good to have them as sources for this article. If no such reviews can be found, again, I question the book's notability.

I shortened the quote to make it fit more smoothly into an encyclopedia article and to be more sure of complying with fair use; I hope it's OK with other editors; feel free to discuss or to make additional edits to the quote. --Coppertwig 13:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attributions to authors

I reverted back to Tim Smith's version. User 151.151.21.101 had apparently reverted Tim Smith's edits with no explanation. Explanations should always be provided except when reverting vandalism. I prefer Tim Smith's version because it shows who said what. I prefer the present tense ("points out") to past tense ("pointed"); I think there may be something somewhere in a Wikipedia style guide about tenses. --Coppertwig 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when is an explanation for each edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings", this raises some questions about your method. You are not an admin and clearly not up to speed on policy either. I suggest you stop taking action against other editors and focus on contributing to the article. FeloniousMonk 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User Joshua: I apologize: I just now understood your comment in the edit summary, "exact locations of comments aren't necessary." I think you mean it's not necessary to mention that certain quotes come from websites, etc. I agree with Tim that it's useful to mention these. The fact that it's a website rather than a book review in a newspaper gives important context. (It would be better if we could find quotes from conventional published book reviews.) This is a complex situation because you aren't actually the one who reverted those comments. Anyway, feel free to discuss here. --Coppertwig 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In general, many of the items seem to be the equivalent of press releases and such. It isn't clear to me why it matters whether a press release was physical or not nor in what medium a relevant expert commented (for example, if the expert wrote a letter to an editor, would we note that it was a letter to an editor? I would think unless we have some overarching reason to, the answer would be no). JoshuaZ 00:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted my last edit only because after I realized what Joshua's edit summary meant, I figured maybe I shouldn't have reverted because those edits are now being disputed. I still prefer Tim's version.

We could note that something is in a letter to an editor; why not? The issue here is the level of formality of the publications. These are mere posts to websites. They may not have been expecting a large audience to read them. They weren't subject to editorial review, as even a published letter to an editor is (for selection if not for editing). They're less formal than book reviews in newspapers and magazines. What is your reason for not wanting to include this information? --Coppertwig 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree in that a) the DI wants everyone to read their stuff. That's why each one is treated as a press release. B) People don't write on blogs without intending people to have people read them. JoshuaZ 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are self-published sources which lack editorial oversight and have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. WP:RS distinguishes three levels of oversight:

Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).

Blogs, which occupy the lowest level of oversight, are largely not acceptable as sources, and per WP:V and WP:RS, editors should exercise caution about using them. When we introduce Lynch's and Rosenhouse's remarks as having been made by academics, we need to clarify that the remarks did not appear in peer-reviewed academic journals or published news media, but were self-published. By exercising caution up front, we ensure that the reader is not misled about the level of oversight the remarks received. Tim Smith 05:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have slight issues with this in regard to certain details, (especially in regard to the matter that WP:RS isn't what's relevant here since we are talking about self-verifying sources of what someoen'e opinions are), however, there is enough of an argument here that I will concede the point while I think it over. There's something wrong here, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. JoshuaZ 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you're temporarily conceding the point, I reverted back to Tim Smith's version again. To delete the information, I think you would need to state an actual reason to delete it; "not necessary", if established, might indicate a lack of reason to keep the information, not a positive reason to delete it. Not everything in an encyclopedia is "necessary" -- there's more than one good way to write an article. Other editors have presented reason to keep the information. --Coppertwig 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert someone's edits without providing an explanation, preferably here on the talk page. I support maintaining the version of 22:22, 13 February 2007 (Arthur Rubin), which is identical to the version of 05:49, 12 February 2007 (Tim Smith). The reasons are: (1) Maybe I'm slow, but in the discussion above I don't see any stated reason for deleting the information -- only arguments against the reasons for keeping it, arguments which don't convince me. (2) Reverts have been done with no explanation given; for example I see an edit summary "reverting per talk" but I don't see any corresponding entry on the talk page; (3) As Tim said, we're supposed to use caution when using self-published sources, and (4) I find the article more interesting and informative with the information included about where the quotes were made.

In response to Joshua's point that people who write blogs intend people to read them: Generally speaking, people writing websites want lots of people to read them, but that doesn't mean they spend the time and effort on every page to bring it up to the professional editing standards of a book review in a newspaper. --Coppertwig 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit: 23:17, 16 February 2007 by 151.151.21.103, back to the version of Tim Smith and Arthur Rubin again. Reasons: The edit was a revert which was done with no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page; the edit was a change to parts of the article which were clearly under dispute and under discussion on the talk page, and there was no consensus on the talk page supporting that edit -- in fact it looks to me to be a temporary consensus supporting the other version. By the way, the IP address is very similar, but not identical, to an IP address whose edit I had to revert for very similar reasons, described at the beginning of this section. I've put a message on the user's talk page asking for explanations when doing reverts other than obvious vandalism. --Coppertwig 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just restored this content: "in a 2004 review on his blog " which has been under dispute here and I think also in the Blogs section above. I do not see consensus for deleting this material; in fact, it looks to me to be a temporary consensus here supporting the other version. --Coppertwig 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention of the venue of Lynch's criticism, his blog, is neither necessary nor neutral; the view is already attributed to Lynch and where he says it is incidental, not material to the view. Mentioning that he says this on his blog, and where no others have the venue of their opinions mentioned, is clearly a not-so-subtle attempt to discount his view. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute about whether to include the following information: "in a 2004 review on his blog", "philosophy professor and intelligent-design critic", and "an Honors Faculty Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Arizona State University's Barrett Honors College". There was already a dispute about this information before you removed it. Please avoid editing disputed parts of the article until consensus is reached here. I see nothing non-neutral about mentioning the type of publication. Some other quotes have been specifically attibuted in the article to the book. A reason for mentioning the type of publication has been given above and has not been refuted. --Coppertwig 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The venue of his opinion shouldn't be mentioned unless it is material to his view, which it isn't; there's no legitmate dispute here, period. And he's already properly identified in the article as a "evolutionary and historical researcher"; the listing of his other titles is not necessary and outside of convention of this article and wikipedia in general.

You've shown yourself to have a shaky grasp of policy time and again and are not an admin, so please do not continue to issue "warnings" like the one above and those at my talk page. FeloniousMonk 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: seems Coppertick needs to come down off of his imaginary white steed, to stop issuing edicts and fiats of questionable authority and relevance, and to disengage from the pretense that he is merely trying to improve the article. It is clear from his edits that he seeks to insert a very specific POV straight out of a neo-creationist play-book. •Jim62sch• 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What is your reason for saying that "[t]he venue of his opinion shouldn't be mentioned unless it is material to his view", FeloniousMonk? I think it's a good idea to mention the venue if it's material to the style of writing; that is, readers will not do a double-take at an academic writing in an informal style if they realize it's a web post rather than something out of a textbook or something. --Coppertwig 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We now have three sets of self-published remarks not identified as such (Rosenhouse, Lynch, Edis), all multi-sentence quotes. For other commentary on the book, the venue is identified up front:

• In a 2004 review on its Web site, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture describes Uncommon Dissent as "[...]"

• In her expert witness report Forrest presented Nancy R. Pearcey's section in Uncommon Dissent as [...]

In contrast, the venues for Rosenhouse, Lynch, and Edis go unmentioned except in footnotes (and even there the remarks are not identified as self-published):

• Mathematics professor and intelligent-design critic Jason Rosenhouse points out [where?] that [...]

• Evolutionary and historical researcher John M. Lynch describes Uncommon Dissent [where?]: [...]

• Of Uncommon Dissent computational physicist and an assistant professor of physics Taner Edis writes [where?]: [...]

The venues of these remarks, in addition to providing basic context, are material to the question of what level of oversight the remarks received. As it stands, the article introduces the authors as academics, but neglects to mention that their remarks did not appear in peer-reviewed academic journals or published news media with editorial oversight, but were self-published and not subject to any form of independent fact-checking. Only by visiting external sites linked from footnotes does the reader discover that the remarks were self-published. By providing basic context and identifying the venues up front, we ensure that the reader is not misled as to the level of oversight the remarks received. Tim Smith 22:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12 Uncommon Dissent; we can't really force them to discuss. Once you get them talking to you, we can mediate. If you can't do that, I will have to close this case. --Ideogram 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't dispute the current version of the article. Does anyone else? Tim Smith 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please strike your mischaracterisation of my actions. You can't complain about my inaction when no one bothered to inform me off this case. This is offensive. Guettarda 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This notice has been sitting here for four days. I am not characterizing your actions or complaining. I am noting that heated discussion continued between parties who mostly ignored this notice.

You have lost nothing by my closing the case. I can reopen it if you wish. Mediation is purely voluntary.

I do wish to note that if you are offended this easily, informal mediation is unlikely to help you. --Ideogram 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see...so when someone points out that your accusations are offensive, you escalate to insults. Good job! Guettarda 07:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to post the same thing twice, here and on my talk page. --Ideogram 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be interested in the mediation, I am closing the case. --Ideogram 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in mediation, particularly to help us resolve the dispute about identifying self-published remarks as such. Is anyone else interested? Tim Smith 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really had any interest, why did you do this in secret? If you had any interest in "mediation" you would have informed us. Given that you made no attempt to do so, I see no evidence that this was serious. Guettarda 06:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that no mediator has yet volunteered. Typically you would be notified of the mediation when a mediator takes the case. In this case it seemed from the comments of the requestor that no discussion was happening, e.g. "reverted without discussion". If at this time you are willing to participate in mediation I can reopen the case. You will still have to wait for a mediator to volunteer, of course. --Ideogram 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that per WP:MEDCAB, "The cabalist looking into your request will contact the other parties involved [...], working with all people concerned in order to resolve the dispute." That was my expectation when I filed the request. I'm serious about mediation, and remain interested in trying it to resolve our dispute. Is anyone else interested? Tim Smith 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry Tim, but it really would have been helpful to let me (and FM, presumably) know about this. Which makes Ideogram's comments even worse, since s/he was presumably aware that we were unaware of the request. Guettarda 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#Instructions re informing the other parties about changing the instructions to avoid situations like this from arising again in other disputes. --Coppertwig 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor rewrite of criticisms of UD

I've gone through and moved criticisms of UD into a proper "reception by the scientific community" section and consolidated sources and cites while removing the use of ID rhetoric and straw men. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

Though far from perfect, I don't see any reason for the tag at this time. It should come down. FeloniousMonk 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, and despite opposition from multiple editors, the lengthy critical quotes in this article from self-published sources are not identified as self-published. The venues from which these quotes were taken, and the level of editorial oversight they received, is important contextual information. Also, it is non-neutral to include one item of basic context which speaks favorably to the reliability of the sources (that the remarks were made by academics), while omitting another item of basic context (the venues in which the remarks were made) which reveals that they were self-published and lacked editorial oversight. By noting both items up front, we provide important context, conform to WP:NPOV, and ensure that the reader is not misled.

I remain interested in mediation to try to resolve this dispute. I'm also open to other forms of dispute resolution. Is anyone else interested? Does anyone have any suggestions for moving forward? Tim Smith 22:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

The most recent edit changed a sentence to "The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism as "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity".^[1]". This sentence now lacks proper grammar, having two main verbs. The previous version was grammatically correct, with "by the central claim that" instead of "as". I suggest this sentence be changed back to the way it was. --Coppertwig 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, if it is ungrammatical now it was just as ungrammatical previously; my edit did not change the phrasing of the paragraph, but merely moved it: [11] If you are not happy with its phrasing, rewrite the paragraph. FeloniousMonk 18:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig is right: you changed the phrasing, replacing "by the central claim that" with "as". Additionally, the claim in question is not the only one Dembski attributes to Darwinism, which is why the text said "central claim" (his phrase). It might help to put "central claim" in quotes, to make clear that it's his designation. Tim Smith 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And what purpose would that serve? (Other than repeating once again repeating ID proponent's discredited rhetoric to the detriment of NPOV and undue weight, I mean.) The point of Dembski and crew in the book is amply covered in the article already. It certainly doesn't add any clarity to the article. FeloniousMonk 02:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Took a stab at fixing it. Guettarda 04:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It now says that the introduction characterizes Darwinism as an "unguided physical process [that] can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity". It does not; it characterizes Darwinism by the "central claim" that such a process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity. And again, that is not the only claim it attributes to Darwinism, but just the "central" one. The original wording takes into account these distinctions. Tim Smith 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That's even worse than the ungrammatical version. It's claiming that Darwinism is a physical process. It is no such thing: Darwinism is something that happens in people's minds or in the realm of ideas. It's a theory or an ideology or something like that. It's not a physical process in the world that scientists study. Darwinism talks about physical processes; it isn't one itself. I prefer the original wording. --Coppertwig 06:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledges vs. Says

The sentence was: "Robert C. Koons acknowledges in Uncommon Dissent that "if evolution is defined broadly enough, there's little doubt that it has occurred."" It has just been changed to "says". I prefer "acknowledges" because it's more colourful and makes the article less boring and easier to read. Either one is accurate, but "acknowledges" helps raise the article above an apparently random collection of quotes. --Coppertwig 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

'Says' is both more grammatically correct and encyclopedic. The use of 'acknowledges' in that instance leaves the question of what it is he is acknowledging dangling. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the grammar of "acknowledges that". What he is acknowledging is precisely what is contained in the quote -- it's right there for the reader to see. Why do you say "says" is more encyclopedic? I see "acknowledges" as more encyclopedic because it makes the article more meaningful than just a list of quotes. By the way, I think your rearrangement of the material is interesting and maybe an improvement -- separating the two sides of the debate; although the quotes from the book that you moved up into an earlier section flow more naturally as responses to some of the scientific-community points.

I would also like to change "writes" to "adds" for the Rosenhouse quote in the Contributors section. --Coppertwig 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So he is acknowledging precisely what he is quoted as saying? Amazing. So it's not grammatically incorrect, but logically. No, 'says' remains both more encyclopedic and correct. FeloniousMonk 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As a linguist, I will note that the use of "acknowledges" without an antecedent claim is incorrect. Additionally, as FM points out the usage of "acknowledges" is specious insofar as logic is concerned. •Jim62sch• 22:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist but I'm inclined to agree with Jim and FM. Both for logic and grammar reasons "says" makes more sense. JoshuaZ 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely Robert C. Koons was not the first person to state that "[evolution] has occurred". Other people have claimed that, and that is the antecedent claim. I see nothing illogical about a statement that Koons "acknowledged" that claim -- could you explain why it seems illogical to you? --Coppertwig 06:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I now think "says" is better than "acknowledges". I realized that "acknowledges" not only implies that there was an antecedent claim, but it also implies that that claim is true -- perhaps too POV in this context. It's also ambiguous, with the quoted text representing either his speech act of acknowledging, or the antecedent claim that he is acknowledging, or both -- though that doesn't seem to be a problem to me since the two are more-or-less the same thing. --Coppertwig 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Drive-by comment here, I'm actually simply taking a look at the article/disputes due to some activity on my talk page today, but thought I'd comment on this: "states" is generally considered acceptable, and avoids the inaccurate use of "says" (verbal communication) when referring to statemetns made in written or printed media. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting my own edits

Just now I attempted to revert my last 3 edits to this article to the version of 18:21, 17 February 2007 FeloniousMonk. Maybe I pressed the wrong key or ran into an edit conflict, but it doesn't seem to have taken. I was reverting my own edits only because I just noticed I may have been doing too many reverts to this page recently. Now that another edit has been done after mine, reverting may be redundant or impossible. --Coppertwig 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking to destroy evolution?

Re this bit: "...with critics such as Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross saying that design proponents seek to destroy evolution..." -- Here it sounds as if it's talking about "destroying evolution" i.e. going out into the world and stopping all those plants and animals from continuing to evolve. I don't think those people said that. In the quote in the footnote one of the two said something about destroying some things in quotation marks; I think that was meant in the sense of destroying the ideas i.e. stopping people from thinking those things, not in the sense of stopping plants and animals from evolving. Evolution is a physical process, not a theory. The theory of evolution is a theory. In the quote in the footnote the person may have been using "evolution" as a shorthand for "theory of evolution". Maybe this sentence could be fixed by inserting "the theory of" just before "evolution" -- or by quoting these people's exact words. --Coppertwig 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "evolution" is both the fact and the theory. That's the way it has always been used. Guettarda 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right about that. "Teaching evolution" gets more Google hits than "Teaching the theory of evolution". "Destroying evolution" still sounds wrong to me, though. "Teaching evolution" doesn't sound wrong. Maybe because destroying a theory doesn't sound right, either. Theories are in some platonic sphere where they can't be destroyed any more than mathematical objects can be destroyed -- they can only be disproven or hidden, etc. Anyway, in the quote in the footnote it does not say "destroy evolution". The quote in the footnote doesn't sound too odd to me, but "destroy evolution" does. --Coppertwig 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, someone hasn't read the Wedge strategy. It is well established by the words of the very ID proponents who contributed to Uncommon Dissent that ID is a tool for their religous agenda. An agenda which seeks to replace the way science currently performed with a one that is consistent with their theistic notions and that in order to do that naturalism and evolution must go. There is no shortage of sources that support this that can be added. FeloniousMonk 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you find any relevant quotes that say "destroy evolution"? If not, perhaps it can be reworded so it doesn't sound odd to me. (I'm not the only one -- I quoted it to someone else, who laughed, imagining something like I did. It sounds like someone going out there and shouting to all the plants and animals, "Stop it! Stop evolving! Stop!"  :-) --Coppertwig 14:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)