Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Creationism Portal This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 older entries 2 Activity 3 RfArb 4 Assessment 5 Wikipedia Day Awards 6 Carl Sagan FAR 7 Proposed merger 8 Requested move 9 New AfD 10 Templates 11 Input appreciated 12 Portal:Creationism up for deletion 13 Category for discussion: Category:Anti-creationism 14 Intelligent design FAR 15 Project scope 16 Redirect Disco to Discovery 17 Request for Comment: Rosalind Picard 18 A section on the controversy of introducing intelligent design to the education system 19 Assessment and improvement 20 Congratulations, Everybody! 21 List-Class for assessment 22 Propose reorganizing 23 POV issues 24 Selective reading 25 Fact tags being removed 26 Kdbuffalo 27 Writtenonsand: Introduction

[edit] older entries

I noticed we've gotten nowhere with this....might be time to start it up again, and make it current! •Jim62sch• 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Guettarda 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. This could be a good project if cleaned up and revived. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added articles, a few ideas, fixed grammar, etc. We need to flesh out the rest. I also noticed that there is no WikiProject for Creationism, and there probably should be. •Jim62sch• 13:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just joined this Wikiproject! So Hi! Caleb09 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Caleb, welcome. •Jim62sch• 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activity

We haven't really been doing much on the project pages per se, although we've been editing the articles... Should we revisit the to-do list? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as it isn't the one on the ID article talk page. •Jim62sch• 17:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb

User:Iantresman has started a request for arbitration members of this project may wish to comment on WP:RfArb#Pseudoscience__vs_Pseudoskepticism. --ScienceApologist 12:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Assessment is now up - see Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Assessment. Guettarda 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan FAR

Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

Considering that it has only minimal content and no recent activity other than a recent merger, I was wondering whether the members of this project would consider merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Origin of life and related debates into this project. Badbilltucker 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather leave that stillborn project alone. Guettarda 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think there would be any objections to a deletion, then? Badbilltucker 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very much against the merger, I object against "intelligent design", and if Wikipedia:WikiProject Origin of life and related debates is merged with "intelligent design", I'm going to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Christians against Pseudo-christian systemic lying. Rursus 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Guettarda. This proposal has been moribund since Jan, I'm taking down the notice. FeloniousMonk 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Of possible interest to members:

• Level of support for evolution → Endorsement and rejection of evolution —(Discuss) - According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), this article has a very poor title. Note that both "level" and "support" are quite ambiguous. Would you know from the current title that this article would be about polls and open letters regarding both the endorsement and rejection of evolution in the context of the creation-evolution controversy? A number of the other editors have proposed equally ambiguous titles, the alternative is the only one that has seemed to have had at least a moderate (if somewhat guarded) support. Another idea floated was Popularity of evolution or Popular support for evolution, but I believe those two titles to be more ambiguous than the proposed one here. Note that there are a lot of ways to write an imprecise title to this article, but precision is absolutely necessary because we need to make sure that people are not misled in, for example, a POV-pushing fashion. For example, the simple title "support for evolution" rightly redirects to evidence for evolution because evolution's support isn't verifiably tied to opinion polls and open letters but rather to the scientific evidence. --ScienceApologist 05:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the above post mischaracterizes the situation markedly.--Filll 06:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Here are the three templates related to the creation-evolution controversy. Any two of these may appear on the same page. I have used {{clear}}, which has poor text-friendliness, but points out the necessary information.

In short, these templates are not the same width, so they can't be put into a holding infobox together. If they aren't put into a holding box together, then the popular solution of putting one next to the TOC... breaks hideously simply by clicking the hide button on the TOC.

We need to make combined templates, or standardise the width. Which is preferable? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the Biology series on

Evolution

Mechanisms and processes

Adaptation Genetic drift Gene flow Mutation Natural selection Speciation

Research and history

Evidence Evolutionary history of life History Modern synthesis Social effect / Objections

Evolutionary biology fields

Cladistics Ecological genetics Evolutionary development Human evolution Molecular evolution Phylogenetics Population genetics

Biology Portal · v • d • e

Part of a series of articles on
Intelligent design
Concepts
Irreducible complexity Specified complexity Fine-tuned universe Intelligent designer Theistic realism Creationism
Intelligent design movement
Timeline Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Wedge strategy Critical Analysis of Evolution Teach the Controversy Intelligent design in politics Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Reactions
Jewish · Roman Catholic Scientific organizations
Creationism Portal
v • d • e

Part of a series on

Creationism

History of creationism Neo-creationism

Types of creationism

Young Earth creationism Old Earth creationism Day-Age creationism Progressive creationism Gap creationism Theistic evolution Intelligent design

Other religious views

Hindu · Islamic · Jewish Deist · Pandeist

Creation theology

Creation in Genesis Genesis as an allegory Framework interpretation Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology Flood geology Intelligent design

Controversy

Politics of creationism Public education History Teach the Controversy Associated articles

Creationism Portal ·  v • d • e

[edit] Input appreciated

I would greatly appreciate input in discussions surrounding content of Jewish reactions to intelligent design. My interference appears to have gotten this and Jewish opposition to evolution blocked. I apologise. But I think both articles need serious attention less they waltz into OR and essay gray areas.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Creationism up for deletion

I'm not sure whether the members of this project would want to keep the portal above active or not. However, it is currently being considered for deletion here. If the members of this group would like to keep the portal active, and would be willing to do so, please indicate as much on the page linked to above. Thank you John Carter 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for discussion: Category:Anti-creationism

Hi. I have asked that discussion be brought about Category:Anti-creationism. CFD ENTRY.

I would appreciate input as to how best to define or deal with this category.--ZayZayEM 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ignore that suggestion.16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design FAR

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project scope

It seems to me that the Category:Creationism contains several more, generally directly related, articles than Category:Intelligent design does. Right now, the articles within the latter category have all gotten the project banner and been placed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Articles list. Would the members of this project like to expand the project's scope a little to include the Creationism category as well? John Carter 20:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Disco to Discovery

Somebody tries to mock the name. Please comment for speedy deletion[1]. Thanks.--יודל 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Rosalind Picard

She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.

There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A section on the controversy of introducing intelligent design to the education system

Would it be permissible to add a section regarding the controversy of introducing intelligent design to the education system, including but not limited to science curricula? It can be tied to arguments on pseudo-science, and maybe a have a section for people who have tried to introduce intelligent design into school systems. Karl23 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Over a century ago, Darwin himself wrote in a letter to Asa Gray saying that one's "imagination must fill up the very wide blanks" in his theory of evolution. The modern education system seems to encourage creative imagination more than scientific methodology these days, so a well-structured and logical article on the difference between imagination and science would be very helpful in Wikipedia!

Darwin lent his imagination to typological categorization of taxonomic orders, theorizing a random sequential history to modern taxonomic orders based on his suggestion of "survival of the fittest". It makes a nice imaginative story for little kids to wonder about, but it's not science. If you can clearly differentiate between Darwin's historical imagination and current scientific knowledge of complex biochemical processes and anatomical distinctions, I encourage you to create such an article in Wikipedia. If you just want to report that lots of people are shouting at each other these days about "Evolution vs Design", have you considered submitting something to the Wikipedia Signpost? --64.181.91.209 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment and improvement

The project currently has two Top-importance articles that are only B-class:

• Discovery Institute
• Irreducible complexity

...as well as seven articles that are High-importance and only Start-class:

• Darwin on Trial
• Icons of Evolution
• Michael Behe
• Phillip E. Johnson
• Santorum Amendment
• Specified complexity
• The Design Inference

(There are also 6 Mid-importance articles that are only stubs)

Would it be worth while creating a task to take a closer look at them to:

• reassess them for quality & importance; and/or
• improve them?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be no. One of the purposes of the importance assessment is to indicate to the interested parties the relative importance of the articles, in the hope that the articles which are of greatest importance receive more attention. It might not be a bad idea to try to hold some sort of improvement drive for these specific articles, though. But I honestly don't think that there are quite enough articles involved to create a separate task force. John Carter 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I was not suggesting creating a "task force", merely inclusion in Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design#Tasks (which already has an, apparently out-of-date, "task" listed for only three articles, far fewer than the number above). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So I screwed up. Big surprise, there, huh? ;) Certainly, adding some sort of statement to the task list regarding improving the most importance articles to the highest level possible makes sense. Sorry for stupidly misunderstanding there. John Carter 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, Everybody!

Just wanted to ensure that everybody knows that the Intelligent design article is the featured article on the Main Page today. Congratulations and thanks to everybody who worked to get the article there! John Carter 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List-Class for assessment

Could anybody tell me if there is any reason why, unlike some other projects, "List" isn't treated as a valid classification within WikiProject intelligent design's assessment scheme (articles tagged as such are classified as "Unassessed"). I've scanned through what documentation is around, but have seen nothing to as to how this class was turned off, or how it might be turned on. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. --Filll (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose reorganizing

Now that Hrafn has started to evaluate our articles for importance and rate them, which I applaud, it might not be a bad idea for us to organize our articles listed on the front page here a bit better. I also think the list is missing quite a few of the articles we have written, actually. If we were a bit more organized, we could see what we are missing, and what we should be working on to improve. --Filll (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got too many articles to easily manage them all in the front page, and should use the ID categories to manage the ones in those categories (hmmm -- is it possible to transclude category-contents into project pages?) & only attempt to explicitly list the ones that fall outside those categories (and possibly decide if we want additional categories to cover some of them). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

This is just my 2 cents here, but I think we have some systemic POV issues in this project. Almost every ID page I go to, there's an immediate push to show that ID is discredited, unscientific, creationism, etc. in the first paragraph. Look at Irreducible complexity, teach the controversy, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In the opening paragraphs, we're saying ID IS creationism (even though this is disputed by proponents of ID), we're citing a court case, and making appeals to the consensus of the scientific community. Is this appropriate for the opening paragraph of multiple articles? GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Irreducible complexity got its day in court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, so I see no reason why the outcome of this case for IC shouldn't be in the lead section (in the second paragraph) -- the quote from the KvD decision seems very relevant.
• Whether or not there is a legitimate scientific "controversy" is likewise highly relevant to the legitimacy of the Discovery Institute's campaign to "Teach the controversy".
• The credibility of ID is directly relevant to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed -- as there is considerable difference between academics' careers suffering for promotion of a baseless canard, versus for a legitimate alternate hypothesis. I am not sure if KvD itself is directly relevant -- I would favour wording closer to the lead of Teach the controversy, which has KvD as only one thread in the overall rejection of ID, rather than dwelling on the trial.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not saying it isn't supported by sources, nor am I saying it doesn't belong in the article. Even a mention in the opening is fine. But I think the tone of many of the ID articles seems like its really trying to grind an axe. It almost seems like we have this disclaimer that we put into any article that talks about ID: "warning, ID is a bunch of horseshit, the scientists and the courts agree". GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's step back here and think about this. Now, there are a bunch of principles in WP that are relevant: WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT etc. ID purports to be a science, right? Its supporters claim that ID is a science. However, this is a minority position in science; in the relevant fields, it is a fraction of 1% or even 0.1% or 0.001% (see level of support for evolution). NO ONE credible believes it is a science or that it has anything to say in the relevant fields. Get it? It is a fringe belief, like people who believe in the Easter Bunny or Space Aliens. No one believes it, except for a few cranks. Nobody. Therefore, if we talk about irreducible complexity, and it is part of ID, and it is supposed to be a scientific principle, we have to examine it in that light and state what science says of irreducible complexity as a scientific principle as part of the science of intelligent design. When we start these articles, we often do not have much more than just plain statements about intelligent design. For example, we state that it is not widely supported by scientists or many scientists think it is a type of creationism. Invariably, people such as yourself come and complain and want citations and more and more and more information. So we have to armor ourselves with citations and references. We have to beat the living $#%^&* out of the concept, because otherwise people like you complain. So if you do not like it, I am sorry, but that is why these articles are written that way. People who support intelligent design challenge every statement, even though it is obvious. They challenge that it is not supported by scientists. They challenge that it was ruled to be creationism or that it is thought to be creationism. They challenge that it is a religious idea. THey challenge that it is not part of science. So, in reasponse, we are forced, over and over and over and OVER, to answer people like you, to put a huge amount of material in every article. And if you look, with time, the articles get more and more of this stuff. Exactly because of people like you. Because you cannot leave well enough alone and want to pick fights. So we have to protect ourselves and defend the truth. Ok? So if you dont like how they are written, blame yourself and people with your kind of attitude, because that is why they are written this way.--Filll (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to get nasty, but I get tired of this. I personally have had to do this very thing you are complaining about over and over and over, dozens of times. I was doing it today; overkill on the citations and references on the footnotes. Today it was someone who would not accept the statement that most of those in Abrahamic religions were in faiths that accept evolution. This should be obvious to anyone who did not just fall off a turnip truck, but instead, I had to add a long paragraph in a footnote with about another 10 links to material to "prove" this to someone who just wants to be difficult. So it looks like overkill, and it is, but this is what you get by fighting with us over obvious facts.--Filll (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are both refuting an argument that I'm not making. I'm not saying that we need more citations. I'm not saying that ID deserves to be treated as a scientific theory with wide support, and I'm not saying anything at all about the strength of the evidence for ID, or the consensus of the scientific community. Stop. Drop everything. Please assume good faith, and listen to exactly what I'm saying... Are we adding an inappropriate "disclaimer" to ID articles, and are we trying to merely describe the movement, or are we trying to make sure that people who read wikipedia know that it's pseudoscience? GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We are applying the principles and rules of WP. If you want to change those rules, you are free to argue the changes at policy pages. Otherwise, you are on the wrong page.--Filll (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave several examples of how policies of wikipedia are not being followed. Please respond. GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have given no specific examples of how specific policies have been violated. You have merely complained about the fact that information demolishing ID's legitimacy have been (legitimately to my mind) featured prominently in articles where that lack of legitimacy is crucial to understanding their topics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. What exact policy did we violate, and how? I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In any article dealing with a component of ID-as-science (eg. core models irreducible complexity; and campaigns teach the controversy) scientific and judicial criticism of ID-is-not-science is completely warranted. In non-core topics that are merely related to ID without presenting it as valid scientific/education model (such as describing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, other media releases, and specific DI fellows) - criticism and dissection of claims should be specifically directed towards claims presented/popularised by the article topic.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the question "is ID legitimate?" is irrelevant to the question "are pro-ID academics being persecuted?" that is presented in Expelled? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, there is no precedent on any other controversial film to evaluate the content of the film in the opening paragraph. There could be references to controversy about the movie, such as: "Scientist X says that this films depicts a pseudoscientific theory as fact", but not references that have nothing to do with the movie. GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, the film makes claims such as:

• evolution is faulty
• evolution is bad science
• intelligent design is good science
• scientists who are promoting intelligent design are being discriminated against by other scientists who claim intelligent desing is not science
• there is a big conspiracy by Big Science to keep this valid science of intelligent design out of the laboratories and classrooms and journals
• evolution caused the Holocaust

And your claim is, the question of whether intelligent design is or is not science and the position of the science and legal communities on this issue are irrelevant? Even though these charges of unfairness are often legal questions? And the opinion of the experts in the science community and court decisions are not germane to this? Cannot even be mentioned? That the validity of this argument about the Holocaust cannot be exhibited with both sides presented, in fact with several times as much on the creationist side as on the scientist and historical side? These materials you want to exclude cannot even get a footnote? That is your claim?

I am afraid I do not find your arguments very convincing or very compelling. Sorry.

I will note that we have not examined the claims about Newton and Galileo and Darwin and Einstein, which are all pure lies and misrepresentations. We are only presenting a tiny amount of material; a couple of sentences and a phrase or two to get the other side in. That is all. For balance. For WP:NPOV. We are not rebutting all the nonsense in the film, or the trailers or on the website. We are just helping the readers understand what the actual situation is; the courts and the science community have a certain position that is at odds with the claims of the film. Now, it could be because of a huge conspiracy. That is the claim of the film. We present both sides, and let the readers decide.--Filll (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with evaluating the content of the film. But that should be in a separate section of the article, not the opening. Certainly not a lengthy attempt at refuting the claims of the film in the opening. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and WP:LEAD, and for that matter NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. Just because partisans think that reality is unfairly biased against ID, that doesn't mean that we give their claims a free run then tack a "criticisms" bit on at the end. .. dave souza, talk 11:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it? That's precisely the question I'm asking. I don't think most articles on wikipedia about theories or ideas that are generally considered dubious take such a harsh tone from the outset. If we're describing someone's ideas, we should spend most of our time time describing those ideas, not refuting them. This in an encyclopedia; we need to describe ideas and controversies, not try to refute ideas, even ideas that may be pseudoscience. See phrenology, maybe the most notable example of pseudoscience. There's only one mention in the opening that shows it is pseudoscience; mostly the article is descriptive of phrenology, not the refutation of it. This article seems to do precisely what you're claiming is unacceptable: give the claims a free run, then tack on "criticism". GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I am afraid you are quite confused. "Phrenology" is an awful article. It is rated as a "start" class article, so it almost the lowest ranked type of article on Wikipedia. If you want a highly ranked article, look at intelligent design which is FA rated. Intelligent design is rated 4 levels higher than "phrenology". Phrenology has all of 5 references. It is uncited. Unreviewed. It is a piece of crud. No one has worked on it. No one cares. It is abandoned, for all intents and purposes, and should not be held up as a good example of anything. It should be used as an example of what to avoid on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See also alchemy, a pseudoscience, which has no mention of it being a pseudoscience until one paragraph at the end. Please address the point instead of criticizing the article used to make the point. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You are still confused. This violates WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and several other WP policies. Template:Criticism-section indicates that criticism sections are frowned upon, according to the principles of Wikipedia. This even is reflected in statements of Jimbo. So if you want that to change the principles under which Wikipedia operates, you should go to one of the policy pages and endeavor to change the policy there. This is not the place to do it if that is your goal. You are on the wrong page if that is the case.--Filll (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop making ridiculous straw man arguments. No one proposed changing the policies of wikipedia, and no one is confused; Jimbo was talking about articles about living people. Having the majority of an articles opening devoted to court cases and statements of consensus regarding things other than the articles subject is ridiculous and biased. Having a nearly standard disclaimer at the start of ID articles is ridiculous, and does not happen on other controversial subjects. It seems like the whole aim of the intelligent design project is to discredit ID in every way possible, and make sure no one believes in the silly creationists. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a review a few months ago of alchemy was extremely negative and it was delisted: [2]. Also "please address the point instead of trotting out articles to make the point." What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?--Filll (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't make any point to respond to. You just said phrenology was a bad article. GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and An Inconvenient Truth. These were all controversial movies, and all of their openings stay on the topic of the movies; there is no outside material cited to refute the content of the films. GusChiggins21 (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Gus, but you are simply mistaken about what you claim are POV issues with the ID article and its subarticles. I suggest you read and better understand how WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 apply to ID articles, there's a subtle interplay of the three there, before continuing or re-raising these objections. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You continue to defend these ridiculous biased disclaimers at the start of articles, which are unprecedented on wikipedia (I've given 6 examples to illustrate my point), and continue to link to policies that no one is disagreeing with, and which don't support your position. I never said ID needs to be portrayed as strongly supported, nor have I ever said that objections to ID shouldn't be in articles, but you guys continue to argue as if I am. I think the fact that you guys are ignoring an argument that this project is biased is probably the best proof that it is biased. I guess I need to ask for outside opinions. GusChiggins21 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are only two ways to write the article:

1. Emphasize that ID is a discredited, pseudoscientific attempt to dress up Creationism - presumably so it can be sneaked into American classrooms ("Creationism in a cheap tuxedo"); or,
2. Let the article be entirely neutral, by identifying each disputed aspect and describing it so that advocates and opponents alike will agree that the aspect is treated fairly.

Last time I checked, the article was trying harder to do #1 than #2. Unless NPOV forbids it, I'd prefer us to start putting more effort into #2. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(i) #1 appears more in line with giving WP:DUE to the overwhelming scientific and legal analysis of the subject. (ii) Given that, I don't see how #2 is even possible -- as IDers would object to the inclusion of this analysis and pro-Sciencers would object to its omission. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A reason ID opponents frequently give for their opposition is that "intelligent design" implies the existence of an Intelligent Designer. I wonder if the ID article provides this point with enough emphasis.

I have not seen this reason "frequently give[n] for their opposition". That design entails a designer is self-evident, and IDers' attempts to obfuscate the issue are frequently viewed with derision. This does not however amount to a 'reason for opposition to ID'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you talk more about how Wikipedia contributors who have strong feelings one way or another about ID might object to a more neutral treatment of the subject? Who do you think might "object to the inclusion of this analysis"? I thought our neutrality policy "contemplated inclusion of all points of view". Am I misremembering something? Misinterpreting it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "might", it's a "do" -- virtually every discussion of NPOV on ID articles involves a demand that we reduce/remove analysis that debunks ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ed, last time I checked, weren't you banned by ArbCom from ID articles? Whether or no, please stop fishing and wasting Hrafn's time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what the issue is. It appears to me that Ed is advocating that Wikipedia abandon WP:NPOV in this case, which is unlikely. Also, my impression is that most scientists who oppose intelligent design do so on the basis that it is a failed scientific theory, which is unsupported by any evidence at this point, not by some

"prior commitment" to materialism or atheism or some similar nonsense.--Filll (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Selective reading

This template is meant for articles with Criticism, Controversy or similar sections that segregate all the negatives into one place and leave the other sections overly positive. Although present in many articles, and sometimes appropriate, this style of writing is in some cases not recommended. In such cases, it should be considered a temporary solution until the article can be structured more neutrally. This does not imply that criticism should be completely removed from the article; only that the current organization of content on the page results in an unbalanced presentation.

The fact that you want to selectively read policy means you really have discredited yourself. I am afraid the arguments you are making are not very convincing or compelling, at least to me and many others. And you have to have consensus to do anything here. And it does not appear to me that you do. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear he does not understand how WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 apply to ID articles and is not interested in learning but rather bowdlerizing the articles or failing that, discrediting them. If this turns into a pattern of disruptive editing, I suggest following the appropriate guideline to minimize the disruption. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a violation of good faith. I honestly don't even think you understand what I'm arguing. Can you repeat back to me what you think my problem is with this project? GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can do that. My impression is you do not believe negative material should be in the LEAD, or possibly at all in articles, in violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. You believe that if negative material appears in an article, it should be segregated in an "Criticism" section, again in violation of WP policy. Correct?--Filll (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with negative material in the lead. Criticism of ID is appropriate in the opening of the main article Intelligent Design. I also don't have a problem with negative material appearing throughout the article. The problem I have is negative material not directly related to the subject of the article appearing in the lead, as occurs with general criticism of ID appearing in the openings of irreducible complexity, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and it's especially bad in Michael Behe, where there is a claim that the scientific community considers his views wrong, with a ref to articles only about ID in general, not Behe. Negative material is fine throughout the article, but it needs to be related to the subject. I think general criticism of related ideas belong in a separate section, if they even belong at all in the articles. A segregated section on controversy over ID in these articles would be much more appropriate than including criticism of something that isn't the subject of the article. I think Specified complexity is a good opening, because it offers criticism which is directly related to the subject. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to be nice and to help him understand so he could be productive in the future. --Filll (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to me that FM is correct. GC is only interested in being disruptive, unfortunately.--Filll (talk)

[edit] Fact tags being removed

I've had several ^{[citation needed]} tags simply reverted, because the editors believed I was somehow violating policy by asking for citations. See Objections to Evolution and Michael Behe. This is quite disruptive to achieving verifiability. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be that many of your {{fact}}-tags are spurious, and that your insertion of them is itself disruptive to improvement of the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Spurious? How is asking for verification spurious? And whose consensus is this? GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kdbuffalo

I recieved an email recently claiming that Kdbuffalo, sockpuppeteer extrodinare, is the same person as http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative Raul654 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is well known. If you want, I can email you supporting information. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writtenonsand: Introduction

Hi. I've just joined the project. I believe that evolution is an accurate theory of life and that Intelligent Design is not. However, I want to make very clear that my intention is not to troll or make trouble. I will uphold the stated goals of the project as well as normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I may make edits or engage in discussions, and I may disagree with other project members, but I will always strive to maintain NPOV and high quality of articles. I hope that everyone is comfortable with that. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)