Talk:Stephen C. Meyer/Archive 2

Faculty position

Meyer does not seem to be a current faculty member at Whitworth University, based on a search of their faculty directory. He may have formerly been a faculty member (which needs a citation and I will dig for in a bit), but he's at least not currently employed there.

Also, saying someone is a "philosopher of science" is kinda nonsense. I'm a philosopher of science, 'cause I've read a book on it and thought about it. It's not a job title, though "professor of philosophy of science" is. Need citation and context. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Found and cited. Now, I'm wondering why the external links were replaced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If he previously taught philosophy, I think it's fair to describe him as a "philosopher". "Scholar" is fine too, although I think it's vaguer and thus less preferable. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dropping the Prejudice:

The "pseudoscientific creationism" quote is prejudicial and inaccurate. If you read the book, "Signature in the Cell" you should see that Intelligent Design theory he promotes is not "pseudoscientific creationism." He does not cite the Bible or any other religious book to further his arguments. The theory of evolution and Intelligent Design both can impact one's view of religion, but the author of the article is drawing a conclusion that Meyer stops short of advocating as a part of the theory. It may be an easy slam to invoke these prejudicial comments, but in my opinion, this is simply a cheap shot that doesn't add to the quality of the article.

It would seem prudent to let the quality of the argument Meyer advocates speak for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.202.116 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. Intelligent design is quite clearly pseudoscience. It's nothing more than creationism that has co-opted molecular biology to once again shoehorn fundamentalist protestantism into America's schools. Oh, and we have citations [1], [2], [3]. Have you ever wondered why creationism and intelligent design never got anywhere in courts? It's because when pressed to present evidence, and counter-evidence, both show up as little more than a bible wrapped in bleeding rags of scientific theory that has been tortured until it's no longer science. "Pseudoscientific creationism" is accurate, and Meyer's avoidance of the bible is strategic because if they're too obvious about it, the courts kick them out even faster. And his book is not published by university press (the location of real scholarship), it's HarperCollins, a popular publisher. Oh, and it's classified as creationism by amazon. Meyer's argument is compelling only to people who have already presupposed god in the sloppy, cruel, wasteful process of evolution - no scientist is convinced by it. Intelligent design is creationism, creationism is bad theology and worse science. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Response:

I am not sure - WLU - are you the editor of Stephen Meyer's biographical content or someone who is just commenting on it? Your bias certainly comes through loud and clear. Let me restate what I understand your position to be and some observations:

I've edited as well, based on reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Intelligent Design has co-opted molecular biology to further it's Protestant/Bible intentions and the bleeding rags stuff: Molecular biology is being co-opted by Meyers? Are you saying that he has taken facts from molecolar biology discoveries and drawn conclusions different from what mainstream science accepts or that what he is saying about molecular biology is untrue? Are you challenging his assertions about the role DNA plays in the reproductive process, the complexity and specified nature of the information necessary to create functional proteins or ??? If his conclusions are based on bad science or errors in logic that is one thing. If scientists are uncomfortable with the ultimate conclusion to which molecular biology facts and logic lead, then that is quite another issue.

I'm saying it's well documented that Meyers has taken the findings of molecular biology and said "God did it" then walked away. "God did it" is not a scientific conclusion, and works about as well as me saying "my dad did it because he's really handy with tools but doesn't like to take too much credit". There is robust evidence that genes for molecules evolved like everything else evolved - through co-option, with lots of death, suffering and competition. I'm not bothering to challenge it, but am able to easily and amply document that others have challenged the approach and found it lacking. ID is not science. Easily verified and easily the conclusion of the scientific community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

2. You said you had citations. I looked them up.

One is from a Harvard student writing for the undergraduate publication, the Harvard Science Review. In "Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science" David Mu equates Intelligent Design with the argument of design/teleology. His focus is on irreducible complexity and reads, to me, like a paper written on the subject. Nothing about the issue of the origin of complex, specified, specific and functional information that are at the heart of Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell. David tackles black holes, unseen dimensions and Brane theory in another article.

So, you are putting forth the arbiter of pseudoscience is an undergrad at Harvard who writes about science for the Harvard Review?

Another is from Arlene Judith Klatzko, a bioethicist and lawyer who has a passion for unrestricted use of stem cells. In an article "Cynical Science and Stem Cells" she makes on side comment about creationism: "So powerful has the language of science become that it has in effect been hijacked by those who seek to discredit or even derail it. Two cases in point: Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudo-science of “intelligent design theory."

So, you are citing a bioethicist writing about her pet passion who makes a side comment as the arbiter of what constitutes "real" science? The fact that she wrote this in 2001 didn't cause you any concern as to the currency of the debate and the quality of her background in being cited as this judge?

Then you cite a news bulletin from the National Science Teachers Association. "It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom," said NSTA President Mike Padilla. "Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world."

These are the best sources you have to prove Intelligent Design as presented by Stephen Meyer is "pseudoscience?"

Lovely, poisoning the well. Don't forget to mention Klatzko kills babies. Yeah, ID hasn't changed much since Paley, when it was called "Natural Theology". ID isn't science, it's a fringe theory, so parity sources can be used. It's easily established that ID is not science, read Kitzmiller v. Dover if you're really interested. Or, you could look at this book from Rutgers University Press, or skepdic, or creationism's trojan horse, or this from the NCSE, and be sure to check out their many links on intelligent design, such as the statements from scientific, religious, educational or civil liberties organizations. There's a reason they're all against ID - it's bad science. It's not even science. It's creationism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, are you really comfortable with courts deciding what is scientific and what is not? Courts have ruled both ways.

Finally, who publishes the book and Amazon.com are the final nails in the ID coffin? "No scientist is convinced by it?" (Is it because anybody who would be convinced can no longer be considered a scientist, regardless of how many PhD's, peer-reviewed articles, university tenure or books written and printed on university presses the scientist may have?)

Amazon doesn't publish books, Amazon sells books. Publishers publish books, and university press books are the most reliable types of books. ID advocates like Meyer don't publish on university press, they go straight to religious, vanity or popular press. The best books on ID are from university press, and are uniformly critical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if ID proponents are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, then you would agree to recind this prejudicial reference? Or if a book on ID is published by a university press, then you would recind your prejudicial reference? Tongue in cheek: If a graduate student writes a favorable comment or somebody, say like Thomas Nagle, says the book is a worthwhile read, concluding "Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem" - then you would back off from your prejudice?

Problem. ID proponents haven't published anything in peer reviewed journals on intelligent design. Nothing. Zip. I've wasted a portion of my life reading Behe's worthless books, books even I, not even close to a specialist could see horrible holes in. I'm unlikely to waste further time on known pseudoscience, irrespective of who recommends it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Come on - let the ID argument stand or fall on the merit of its ability to marshall facts and logic to prove its case. Anything that causes the level of hysteria in mainstream science that Intelligent Design seems to be raising deserves thoughtful investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.202.116 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The ID argument has already fallen - see Kitzmiller v. Dover. It lost. There are no facts or logic that support it in any honest way. ID only scores rhetorical points through quote mining, ignoring evidence and handwaving, not scientific points or truth points. What you are seeing is not hysteria, it's disgust and fear. Disgust that people at the Discovery Institute would so willingly, blatantly lie to the uneducated, and fear that if students learn this nonsense, they'll end up stupid and uncurious. Scientists are afraid of what would happen if IDers got their way, not because the "atheist empire" of academia would crumble, but because "god did it" shuts down creativity, makes people lazy, undercuts the ability to raise a new generation of researchers, and destroys the ability to compete in an increasingly scientific and technical world. If Meyer got his way, in a generation America would be a nation of used car salesmen and fast food workers. There would be zero advancement since the evidence underwriting common descent is critical not just to biology, but to a multitude of other disciplines. Go read the index to creationist claims. You'll see what nonsense and lies are propagated on people. Go google "intelligent design pseudoscience" and read what comes up. If you scratch the surface, even a little, you'll see how intelligent design crumbles.

Or, just keep asking for "fairness" without knowing what you're actually advocating for. It is rare that there is an unambiguously right and a wrong side in the world. This is one case where there is. Want to know why I'm so confident? Go read something by Michael Shermer, or Barbara Forrest, or Eugenie Scott, or Ronald Numbers or Robert T. Pennock. Watch youtube videos, such as the excellent series by Thunderf00t on why people laugh at creationists or this lecture by Pennock. You'll find out why, on your own, people laugh at intelligent design. Seriously, if you are actually advocating for intelligent design having a meaningful message, you don't know anything but what you've been spoon-fed by liars. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a genuine and coherent case can be made that ID creationism is, in fact, pseudoscience. However, the jury is still out about the scientific merits of Meyer's system of thought. The simple fact that there is even a controversy about this shows how hotly contested the issue is, with both sides claiming that the matter is "solved" in their favor.

I would advocate a midpoint. After introducing him and his credentials, put in a sentence something to the effect of, "Many have criticized Meyers work as pseudoscientific, citing (insert criticism 'A') and claiming that he (insert criticism 'B')." Then add an appropriate citation. Tominator93 (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Very dumb comment, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Removing the word "pseudoscientific." Anyone that replaces is not only POV pushing, but being a downright bully. 98.199.212.25 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because I'm the one who doesn't know that intelligent design is creationism? Really? Pseudoscience is an accurate description of intelligent design since it attempts to adopt the trappings of science, without adopting the core of science - a rigorous methodology aimed at parsimonious, replicable explanation. Can you find any sources on intelligent design that actually indicates it is science, used as a theory for scientific research, has produced a testable hypothesis and then actually tested it? I doubt it. But there's lots of sources calling it pseudoscience and pointing out it's nothing but creationism with an extra layer of lies plastered on top to dodge the separation of church and state. Doesn't it bother you that they're lying to reigious people with claims that evolution is a "theory in crisis" - which it isn't - and it inevitably leads to immorality? And are you OK with them lying to everyone else by saying it's not religion? Intelligent design is not science, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

no, because you are merely following the talking points you have been told to follow, instead of doing the research yourself. You cannot refute Behe or the others, so you just SAY you can. You are afraid that your POV cannot stand, so you just want to blackball anyone that disagrees. Very cowardly, but it is not working. ID is gaining more and more acceptance every day. Just follow the evidence. The issue here is neutrality, though., The word "pseudo scientific does not belong. You are POV pushing. Again, very cowardly. People like you are why WP has no credibility. 98.199.212.25 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow the proof? You wan't something put inside WP? YOU provide the source/evidence. Until now, ID can only and will only be known as pseudoscientific creationism. Maxime Rouiller (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How does speaking in absolutes (i.e. "If Meyer got his way, in a generation America would be a nation of used car salesmen and fast food workers") furthers anyone's argument or answers the question at hand? Faulty comments like that betray an emotional bias to the issue. As for the question -- here are my two cents, albeit longwinded. Coming from an engineering background (a field concerned with the practical application of observable science), I typically don't have to deal with the question of 'how did we get here?' or 'Where did everything come from?' However, it seems to me (in my severely limited experience) that the majority of researchers in general science fields exploring origins have to form conclusions based in metaphysics/naturalism philosophy (since no one has observed "the big bang", the same can be said for "the creation"). So criticism that ID is pseudoscience because it is based on a non-observable conclusion for the metaphysical questions (which evolution by its nature must also answer), seems a moot point -- since the evolutionist must a some point, make a philosophical claim as well. So instead of running in emotional POV circles, how about a variation on Tominator93's suggestion? Something to the effect of: "The majority of the scientific community regard Meyer's work as 'pseudo-science'" with appropriate citations.VectorH (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm not a big fan of Meyer, in-fact I think that ID in general is completely wrong. Nonetheless, referring to Intelligent Design as being necessarily "psuedoscientific" is flagrantly biased. Appealing to the fact that many scientists regard ID as psuedoscientific is simply irrelevant and a fallacious appeal to authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.89.12 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I despise creationism, and I agree with the criticisms posted on this article. But an encyclopedia is not a place for it. Wikipedia's policy is that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." - this article is not only very biased, it has an almost polemical tone. Please improve the quality of this article by changing these remarks about "pseudoscientific creationism". I'm not going to make changes myself, because I can see the danger of an edit war. D. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.118.89 (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether ID is a pseudoscience or not is irrelevant. That biased bunny-trail is in the first paragraph of a page that is all about Stephen C. Meyer, not about ID. Somebody needs to move it immediately so the article stays on subject. That's why "Intelligent Design" is hyperlinked, so that if people don't know about it they can click it and read all about it. Even if it said something good or neutral, it still seems unnecessary, especially in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.59.64 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on "pseudo-scientific creationist"

This is in one sense a continuation of the previous thread.

The question of whether intelligent design is pseudoscience strikes me as irrelevant. The more important question is whether such a judgment belongs in an encyclopedic article. I would say it doesn't. Anyone is more than welcome to quote experts on the subject, but I believe having the article itself take a position concerning that issue is inappropriate. The label of "creationism" is its own issue. My personal stance is that intelligent design cannot fall under the category of creationism, as it makes no claims about the age of the earth, the process of natural selection acting upon mutation, or even common descent. Simply look at a definition of intelligent design and then a definition of creationism. They are two entirely different - if not contradictory - views. For these reasons, I find the labels used in this article to be simply unfounded. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, which I pointed to on August 10th.

See WP:UNDUE - Meyer's beliefs about evolution, intelligent design and creationism are incorrect, per the scientific consensus. That's what the sources in the lead were for, to represent the scientific consensus. The fact that intelligent design is clearly considered synonymous with creationism and a pseudoscientific concept to boot is relevant. That's not prejudice, that's an accurate description of the scientific consensus and that is clearly relevant. Meyer isn't casually advocating for a new nuance in the theory of evolution, he's advocating for a religious idea under the pretence that it is scientific - and further is doing so because it allows him to circumvent the proscription against the separation of church and state. If someone is notable for advocating for a concept, and that concept is clearly, clearly incorrect, this should be noted prominently and immediately - see Peter Duesberg's beliefs about AIDS aer dealt with both on his page and on AIDS denialism.

See WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, which calls for the scientific consensus and pseudoscientific view to be clearly described as such.

None of the comments ever address the issue that Meyer's ideas are substantially considered pseudoscience and worthless by the academic, scholarly, judicial and even theological community. This is clearly verifiable through the extensive citations found in reference 1 in this version of the page. Actually review the quotes found in the first citation of the previous version. There are four sources that state, explicitly, that intelligent design is creationism and pseudoscience. What is actually happening is that editors do not like the page clearly stating Meyer's ideas are nonsense. However, per WP:UNDUE, editor opinion is irrelevant, it is the opinion found in reliable sources that matter. Reliable sources clearly and unambiguously state that Meyer's ideas, and intelligent design in general, are not taken seriously by anyone but the Discovery Institute and religious fundamentalists. Scientists, biologists, scholars, scientific associations, all consider intelligent design to be nonsense parading as science. None of these are "value judgments" as you state in this and this edit summary. None are my opinion. They are the opinion of reliable sources.

Also note several other issues with your edits:

• In this edit you remove two sources claiming "unsupported information". This link associates the Discovery Institute with CS Lewis. This citation states it explicitly.
• These citations are not "empty", they are sourced to citation 10 in this version, the error message is because you deleted the citation template for "<ref name = Guide/> in this version.

In short, the version I have been reverting to is in fact in compliance with NPOV, the failing is yours in not being aware of the contents, meaning and implications of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and the guideline WP:FRINGE. "Neutral" does not mean "uncritical", it means giving appropriate weight to the scientific consensus over pseudoscience.

Editorial opinion is irrelevant, what is important is the opinion of reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you think. Can you verify your opinion using reliable sources? Can you do so in a way that gives due weight to the scholarly majority opinion? Are there any reliable sources that claim intelligent design is science? What do you say about the numerous sources that explicitly state intelligent design is creationist pseudoscience? What is your justification for removing those numerous reliable sources? Are you aware of the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we are finally getting into a discussion about this. I assure you I have read all of the information you have posted here regarding the editing rules established by Wikipedia, even before this discussion began.

Let me begin by saying that I never stated that they were "your" opinion. I merely said that they were "opinion." This is an important distinction. I don't deny that there are many prominent experts who use these labels in reference to intelligent design. What I am saying is that the prominence of these views does not justify expressing them in the voice of the article. Scientific consensus is itself just a collective value judgment of the subject. I agree that the scientific consensus on a topic should be prominently displayed, but it should not be affirmed outright without qualification. That is, if you want this article to be encyclopedia quality. Again, this has nothing to do with whether these judgments are correct or not. This is entirely a question of how that issue should be communicated in the article.

Yes, it does. That's what WP:UNDUE means. We don't use our opinion, we use the opinions of reliable sources. It is encyclopedic to accurately state that intelligent design is a form of creationism, is considered pseudoscience because that is the clear, unequivocal scientific consensus. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, is not used in any research paradigm, and is nothing but an updated form of creationism. The scientific consensus should be affirmed outright without qualification, because intelligent design represents the tiny minority opinion and is further little more than a political strategy established by creationists and promoted by the Discovery Institute as a means of avoiding the proscription against creation science after Edwards v. Aguillard. That was the explicit finding in Kitzmiller v. Dover, as explained in the Decision by Jones. ID = creationism = pseudoscience is the obvious consensus of the following sources, which you removed from the article. If you read UNDUE and actually understand it, then you will understand that we represent opinions proportionate to their expression in reliable sources, particularly the most reliable sources, of which the following are representative. I could add literally dozens more, but the only purpose that serves is to clutter the page. In the meantime, is there any source independent of the Discovery Institute and its fellows that proclaims ID to be anything but nonsense? There is not, it is not taken seriously by any society that is not primarily religiously motivated. You don't have to refute my opinion - to maintain your version you have to justify why the following sources do not adequately represent the clear, unambiguous scientific opinion.

• National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush" (Press release). National Science Teachers Association. August 3, 2005. We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom.
• David Mu. Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design [PDF]. Harvard Science Review. Fall 2005;19(1). "For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience"."
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. Professional Ethics Report [PDF]; 2001. "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory."
• Evolution critics seek role for unseen hand in education. Nature. 2002;416(6878):250. doi:10.1038/416250a. PMID 11907537. "But many scientists regard ‘intelligent design’ as pseudoscience, and say that it is being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce the teaching of creationism into schools"

There is no reason to ignore or discount any of these sources, and no need to supplement them with further sources saying the same thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

As for the issue of the organization being "founded" on the apologetics of C.S. Lewis, I stand by my statement that such a conclusion is not supported by the sources given. The first link does not "associate" the DI with Lewis. It is merely a page referencing articles related to C.S. Lewis. This does not in any way support the conclusion that the whole organization was founded upon him. As for the second link, yes it states that outright, but no information is given about the basis for such a claim. In any case, if we are going to put information about the motivations and/or inspiration of a group of people, it strikes me that we should cite references to something they themselves have said, not a passing statement in a popular science volume.

Why is Young & Largent, 2007, by the Greenwood Publishing Group, a reliable publisher of educational and reference works, not reliable in your opinion? The source doesn't have to convince you - that's once again you assuming your opinion takes precedence over a reliable source. It does not. Your opinion is worthless, but the source's statement is. Greenwood Press is not a "popular science volume", it is a highly reliable source from a publisher that specializes in issues like this and doesn't need to show it's work to convince you. Further, even if it were a popular science volume, it would still be adequate to source this information because it's not controversial. It only needs to verify the text. If the book is reliable, and accurately summarized, and there are no neutrality issues (the answers to these questions are "yes, yes and there are none") then there is no reason to remove the source except personal preference with a thick layer of misunderstanding of the relevant policies. The Discovery Institute citation, which also references Lewis' work, can be removed, but there is no reason to remove Young & Largent. On top of that, this is basic information found on the Discovery Institute page and is not controversial, unless one wants to conceal the religious agenda of the Discovery Institute. And all of that is irrelevant as again, Young & Largent is easily sufficient to verify this basic, basic information. Further, this source is also explicit in linking the three, as is this one and this one. There are easily enough sources to verify that Meyer is a co-founder of the Discovery Institute, which was founded on the basis of Lewis' apologetics. The worst that could be said is that there should be a separate citation for Meyer co-founding the religious institution, which I will replace once I have dealt with this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

As for those citations, I am perfectly aware that they are "empty" because I had previously deleted their source.

That moves your actions from ignorant to borderline malicious. Why did you remove them merely because you had deleted the citation previously? Even if you were correct in removing the initial citation, which you weren't, you should have moved the citation to the next appearance of the source. And why did you remove the adequately sourced information that Meyer ceased teaching to devote himself full-time to the promotion of intelligent design? That's accurate, sourced, uncontroversial, and I can see no reason to remove it bar you don't like it. And that's not a reason to remove the citation. The points I am making are fundamental and basic to wikipedia, easily sourced to the policies and guidelines, and if you are genuinely committed to writing an encyclopedia rather than pushing a religious agenda, you should immediately revert your changes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

In conclusion, I agree that ID should not be given undue weight, but in my opinion that does not translate into outright labeling it as pseudoscience. You're right. It does not matter what I think. But on this particular issue, it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks, regardless of their prevalence. Yes, you should state clearly and unambiguously that the scientific community has collectively condemned intelligent design as pseudoscience. But, as I say, that does not mean the article itself should voice condemnation. That would be, by definition, not neutral.

Thank you for responding. I await your further comments. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is incorrect as it is clearly demonstrable that the relevant experts - biologists, sociologists of science, philosophers of science historians, political scientists, major scientific organizations, a court ruling by an American judge, numerous reliable sources including books, journal articles and commentators on the culture wars and intelligent design creationism - agree that ID is creationism and creationism has long been recognized as pseudoscience. So if you agree it doesn't matter what you think, then you should immediately acknowledge what the relevant experts think and revert your edits. On this issue, what the scientific community thinks is relevant and important, and noting the consensus opinion is appropriate to give it due weight and avoid giving appearance that an obviously fringe idea has any credibility. The article isn't voicing condemnation, it is accurately stating the scientific consensus on an ostensibly scientific idea - like the medical community noting that AIDS denialism is in fact pseudoscience, as is Flat Earthism and astrology. Your idea that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is wrong. It very, very clearly matters what the actual scientific consensus is, and on the issue of intelligent design, it is clear what that consensus is. Your definition of neutral is not correct on wikipedia, as "neutral" here means "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." ID is not a significant view; it has a proportionately tiny impact on biology (in actuality it has none - it merely acts as a political strategy to force religion into the educational system); and it is without bias to describe it accurately. It's not pejorative if it's true, and in this case it is clearly true that the scientific community resoundingly rejects ID and considers it nonsense. Your edits on the page are based on a misinformed view of what "neutral" actually means; neutral doesn't mean "noncritical" it means "representing the relevant expert view". As a scientific issue, evolution falls within the domain of biology, and the biological community is unarguably, obviously, blatantly critical. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note this opinion on this very page, and the lead of intelligent design which states:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank—believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Proponents argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory. In so doing, they seek to fundamentally redefine science to include supernatural explanations.

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science, and indeed is pseudoscience.

— 

So tell me, why does your opinion matter more than the convergence of sources that support the points I am making? What policy basis do you have to support your edits? Do you see why I have been irritated by this whole process? Anyone who gives any credibility to intelligent design has zero understanding of the issues, and is often pushing a pseudoscientific, creationist agenda. The most irritating ones are not the liars, they're the ones who genuinely believe there is something to the DI's bullshit and PR spin, because five minutes in a search engine would turn up the incredibly obvious information that ID is bullshit. So you may be "glad we're getting into a discussion". I'm not. I'm irritated that I have to refute this point again with someone who didn't do their homework, either with sources, or with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You may also be interested to read the intelligent design FAQ. In fact, I encourage it strongly. Please revert all of your edits to the neutral version. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to focus on this statement which you made: "Your edits on the page are based on a misinformed view of what 'neutral' actually means; neutral doesn't mean 'noncritical' it means 'representing the relevant expert view'." Now, in all honesty, I have never encountered such a definition of neutral. Ever. I actually consulted several dictionaries after reading what you typed here, and none of them have that definition listed. All of them are variations on "not taking a side." Now, you have been editing Wikipedia longer than I have, and maybe you're right that this is how Wikipedia defines the term. That was not the understanding I came away with when I read the relevant policies, but I suppose I could have missed something. If so, please feel free to revert my edits and I'll be sure never to use Wikipedia as a source for reliable information again. For under such a definition of neutral, in which the majority is counted as not only the arbiter of truth, but also of what is "neutral," I can never trust this site to give me a properly nuanced account of the facts. If that is the idea of "neutral" you think Wikipedia is geared toward, then have at it, and I'll gracefully back out of this dispute.

Oh, listen to me. Now I'm getting irritated. On a more methodological note, perhaps we should move the Lewis discussion to a separate thread. It isn't really relevant to the main topic. In any case, your responses are interesting as always, W. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous and circadian definitions of neutral don't matter. What matters is what NPOV means here. Dictionaries don't matter, what matters is WP:NPOV. Re-read NPOV. In situations of actual scholarly debate, such as whether the theory of punctuated equilibrium represents actual evolutionary change better than steady-state theories, it is viable and proper to discuss both theories and list the support for both. But there is no debate over intelligent design - the scientific community considers it religious nonsense, strategically developed as a political and legal fiction to circumvent bans on teaching religion in public schools. It has no serious credibility, no actual publications, no supporters in the scientific world. It's not a matter of "simple majority", it's a matter of "what the experts think" and if you believe "simple majority" is what 'wins' here, you've again misunderstood and should re-read the policy. What matters is what the experts think. Meyer isn't an expert, he is a religiously motivated zealot who uses popular appeals and - similar to your own understanding of "neutral" - misconceptions of the public to convince them that there is merit to the deceitful braying of Discovery Institute employees.

If you don't know this about intelligent design - one of the most basic facts regarding the topic that has had thousands of books and articles written about it - you shouldn't be editing any topic related to it. You obviously misunderstood, or didn't read any of the many sources provided about intelligent design because they are all quite clear on this point. Intelligent design is not science, and if you have even a modicum of understanding of the topic and the background of the religion/evolution debate, you would understand that it's simply an update of Paley's flawed watchmaker analogy.

Based on your comment, I will revert your edits.

Regarding the C.S. Lewis point, again you appear not to have understood. There is a reliable source verifying the point, so there is no debate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't stop you, but let me end by saying that your definition of neutrality is clearly absurd, and your interpretation of the NPOV policy is no better. Couple that with the fact that you are in no position to poll the complete range of expert opinion (to which your only apparent appeal has been to Google), and this article represents a clear bias. A bias in favor of the majority of experts, yes, but a bias none the less. It has become useless for anyone actually interested in understanding the topics discussed, from both sides, and should go on a list as fodder for people who complain about Wikipedia. Good day, Sir. Gregorius the Brown (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to try to change the consensus on WT:NPOV to reflect your concerns because the current NPOV page clearly supports my interpretation. It may be absurd by your standard, but I ask you to reflect on how the scientific consensus could be represented by any means other than picking the most reliable sources and summarizing them in a way that represents them in proportion to their standing and frequency. If you think there are reliable sources out there that support intelligent design, you appear to have internet access and can also "appeal to google" (what I would call "research") for the sources required to substantiate what you believe to be true about intelligent design. The problem may be they don't exist, if you've looked. I have substantiated my edits through reference to a multitude of sources. You have asserted your opinion with nothing to independently verify it. So, why does your opinion get to override multiple sources? Put another way, why should a nonsense religious idea with no mainstream support that has been called "pseudoscience" repeatedly and criticized for being little more than creationism with a gloss sufficient to skate around previous rulings about teaching creation science in public schools, be portrayed as anything but pseudoscientific creationism? Not all opinions are equal, and in the case of intelligent design, it's actively duplicitous. The Discovery Institute is lying to you. If anyone wants to understand intelligent design as it really is (rather than the press-release DI version) they can go to intelligent design. If someone wants to know what Meyer has been doing with his time and its relevance to the world, they can come here where his activism for a religious belief masquerading as science is clearly described. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But that's just it, W. I think your interpretation of NPOV is, in this instance, completely unfounded. "Neutral point-of-view" means "neutral point-of-view," not "the point of view of the scientific consensus," or "the point of view of a large group of teachers," or anything else. As I said, in accordance with the section on pseudoscience and other fringe views, you should make it clear how the scientific community views a particular concept, but that should be put in the voice of the scientific community, not the voice of the article. And yes, I think the consensus of editors is entirely with me on this issue, as demonstrated by the content of the policy itself, and the fact that you have had to reverse countless edits by multiple editors who clearly interpret this policy differently from you. Of course, despite this, you continue with frustrating consistency to babysit this article to make sure it remains in its current sloppy and blatantly opinionated form. I am not sure what gave you the idea that I am a supporter of the Discovery Institute or that I accept whatever they say without any discernment, but neither of these are correct. I am merely attempting to articulate the obvious: this article is not neutral. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy, and see if it supports your interpretation, or mine. I don't care what you think, I care what the policy is. I really can't emphasize how much you need to read the policy and base your interpretation on it. You should actually read the policy instead of trying for an incorrect exegesis of what you think it means. If you haven't read the policy your interpretation will not be based on the community standard. Every time you make a claim without reading the policy you are wasting my time. Have you read the policy? You should read the policy.

Until you can demonstrate that the policy and sources are being misinterpreted, there's not much point in talking. A series of anonymous editors removing sourced contributions (not giving attribution, which is required for a minority viewpoint - which ID = pseudoscience is not) is not part of the community consensus, it's a POV-pushing douchebag who doesn't understand the sources, policies, scientific consensus or issue overall. They certainly aren't interpreting the policy, or even familiar with it - they're simply trying to whitewash the DI's religious agenda. Is it babysitting a page to ensure that the quality is not diminished by individuals misconstruing the topic at hand, giving undue weight to a religious minority attempting to give a political spin to a blatantly nonscientific idea? The DI isn't a reliable source, so we shouldn't give their comments any weight, particularly when the scientific, legal and theological consensus is so clearly against them.

Complete revert to the page - anonymous account or named, the POV push is inappropriate and based on nothing other than a preference to believe what a fake religious authority wants their PR to say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First, what makes you think that I have not read the policy? I have. As a matter of fact, I have already stated at least a couple of times that I have read all of the policies which you have cited. Did you not believe me the first time?

Second, I will address this statement: "Until you can demonstrate that the policy and sources are being misinterpreted, there's not much point in talking." But let's be reasonable, W, you have not demonstrated that my interpretation is misguided either. And as mine falls in line with both the common sense and dictionary definitions of "neutral," I would say that burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

Third, "is not part of the community consensus, it's a POV-pushing douchebag who doesn't understand the sources, policies, scientific consensus or issue overall" is a completely unfounded characterization of your critics. That is merely how you like to think of them, so your countless undiscussed reversals of their edits seem more like community service than the bullying which, with all due respect, it actually is. And I am not simply referring to the unsigned edits. I am also referring to the numerous signed edits. Not to mention the several people who have weighed in against you on this very talk page.

Fourth, this has nothing to do with the "due and undue weight" policy. You don't have to place a label on something every single time it is even mentioned in order to avoid giving it "undue weight." Not putting "pseudoscience" right before the word "intelligent design" does not imply that this concept is legitimate. It implies nothing. It makes no judgment about the value of that idea. Passing no judgment whatsoever, regardless of the support for that opinion, is always preferable in an encyclopedia. And what is more, on Wikipedia, it is non-negotiable. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First, because the policy says things like:

• "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"
• "Achieving what Wikipedia understands as "neutrality" often means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, and then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately"
• "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice"
• "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views"
• "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view"
• "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public"
• "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship"
• "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources"
• "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other"

So, the reason why it looks like you haven't read the policy is because NPOV clearly states how to portray majority, minority and fringe views, and how to determine what applies - yet you insist on "common sense" rather than the citation of reliable sources. If you have read the policies, it is not reflected in any discussion I have yet seen.

Second, I'm not the one misrepresenting policies. I'm quoting them, and providing the reliable sources needed to back up my assertions. You keep falling back on your opinion and "common sense" which is inappropriate given the policy, and sorely lacking unless you are a religious believer who thinks that ID has merit (which it doesn't).

Third, the POV-pushing douchebags are the anonymous editors who keep removing valid, sourced criticisms of intelligent design without engaging in talk page discussions or edit summaries - they just eliminate words they don't like without reason. That's a POV-pushing douchebag, and a founded criticism. Anyone who knows anything about the intelligent design debate knows that the scientific consensus is that it is worthless. Believing otherwise means drinking the DI kool-aid and not understanding science. Am I bullying? I don't care. My edits and reverts are supported by policy and sources, so frankly, fuck anyone who wants to remove words because they don't like them. Those opinions don't matter, they are worthless, religiously-motivated nonsense that plays exactly into the DI spin and PR by getting people who are too stupid to understand they are being manipulated to do the DI's dirty work - politically and in the public sphere.

Fourth, bullshit. This has everything to do with undue weight. Any emphasis on ID having any merit is undue weight. ID is creationism, and creationism is highlighted as textbook pseudoscience. Putting "pseudoscience in front of "intelligent design" accurately contextualizes it as what it is - a religious topic masquerading as science for political reasons. End of story. There is no scientific merit, and this is clearly stated in numerous sources.

So again, read the policy. Read it closely, understanding that whenever pseudoscience and the minority viewpoint are mentioned, they are talking about intelligent design - which Meyer has spent his career advocating for. Then tell me why we shouldn't honestly, bluntly and simply characterize ID as pseudoscientific creationism, which the scientific community clearly has. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1) The problem with your interpretation of the policy is simply this: you are taking sections of the policy which are clearly meant to apply to things like how much space something is allowed to take up, who's opinion should be presented as most prevalent in sections related to scholarly discussion of the topic, etc. etc. and interpreting them to mean that the article itself is supposed to advocate for the majority view by criticizing the subject. And that is clearly stated to be improper. Wikipedia does not advocate for or criticize anyone. Period. The nuances which you cite do not override that, or even speak to that.

2) As far as falling back on "common sense," I do this only in my interpretation of the policy's wording. Using common sense and dictionaries are helpful, because otherwise people will come up with insane definitions of neutrality supported by imaginary loopholes.

3) I'll address this statement: "...they just eliminate words they don't like without reason." This again is unfounded. You don't know these people. You don't know what their motivations are. You merely assume the worst of them because they disagree with your point of view. For all you know, they are like me and the other people who have weighed in on this talk page. Namely they don't support the DI, but can still recognize a violation of NPOV when they see it.

4) "Any emphasis on ID having any merit is undue weight." So by not saying anything about it at all in the opening line, we are giving it undue weight? That is absurd. No judgment at all is not equal to approval.

5) Sure, having read the policy multiple times, and closely, I will tell you that we should not bluntly characterize any viewpoint as anything. This applies to advocates of a literal Hell as being in the Earth's core, Moon landing conspiracy people, those who believe the Earth is flat, Jesus myth theorists, Young-Earth Creationists, and yes, even those evil, dishonest, insincere people we know as the Discovery Institute. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What sections of the policy support your interpretation? I've included quotes, I've yet to see a reference to a section, or a source from you. Undue weight applies to wording as well as volume. Again, there is no debate in the scholarly sources, only fake debate sponsored by the DI for PR reasons. You have never provided a source demonstrating that ID is within the scholarly community anything but pseudoscientific creationism. Sources speak louder than editors, and you have no sources. Common sense is also less applicable between sources, not to mention subject to interpretation. I see it as utterly common sense that intelligent design is nonsense. The difference, of course, is that I can substantiate my point with sources. Period.

The fact that the accounts remove a single word, without any reference to the sources, makes it pretty clear. Even if their intent is good, the result is bad. Hence the revert. The fact that it is repeated over weeks without any engagement on the talk page also speaks volumes. This is a POV-push in act, irrespecitve of intent. I don't care what they think or why they're doing it - the result is that important context is reduced.

The description of intelligent design as pseudoscientific creationism isn't judgement, it's fact. Again, lots of sources on this point.

"Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." That's pretty clear to me. ID isn't a viewpoint, it's an idea that is presented by the DI as science, that is viewed by the scholarly and scientific community as pseudoscientific creationism. The DI isn't a reliable source, and no reliable sources exist that characterize ID as anything but nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if you have ceased to read my posts, as now you are simply repeating yourself. I have already addressed everything you have said here. You have not produced any new support for your interpretation, and have not even specifically addressed what I have previously said. So I suppose it is time to leave, as I do not have any interest in having the same debate twice. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. You have yet to present anything beyond your own opinion. No sources, no section of the policy. I don't need any more support for my points, because they are based on what matters - policies, guidelines and sources. Yours is still based on your opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have not cited any particular section of the policy is because my position is clearly stated in the lead. I don't need to cite specific, isolated sections of the policy to make my case. The policy in its entirety supports my position, as does the dictionary/common sense definition of "neutral," and the vast majority of users who have weighed in on this page. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The scientific community's views on ID & Meyer

On ID

• List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design

On Meyer's writings

• Sternberg peer review controversy#Criticism
• Signature in the Cell#Reception

I think that is sufficient to demonstrate an unequivocal rejection by the scientific community of both Meyer's viewpoint, and his writings in support of it. These views, particularly given Meyer's continued attempts to represent them as 'scientific', can thus be legitimately described as "pseudoscientific". It is "Generally considered pseudoscience" per WP:FRINGE#Pseudoscience, and so an article relating to this "may properly contain that information". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To me it is obvious that we should refrain from stating the value judgments of anyone, even mainstream experts, in the voice of an article itself. That being said, your most recent edits are perfectly acceptable under that principle. Well done. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a value judgment to state what the scientific community thinks, bluntly and unanimously. It is appropriate to state it in the voice of the article and scientific community per the third and fifth bullets here:

• Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Yes, creationism and intelligent design are the scientific equivalent of Holocaust denial. Per WP:FRINGE, "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

The first bullet you cite clearly does not apply to value judgments, which these are, and the second bullet - per the example within - clearly does not apply to the article's voice. Again, this is the problem with your interpretation. You take what is essentially two completely different policies acting in two different arenas and equate them.

Take these two statements: "...the absurd, pseudo-scientific view that the Earth is flat." and "...that the Earth is in fact flat, a view held to be clearly false by experts in geology, astronomy, physics, and history." The second is preferable. First, it does not express a direct judgment, no matter how well-supported or obvious, and that is always preferable within an encyclopedia. Second, it ends up giving the reader more information than the former, even suggesting places to find further information regarding the consensus views. But of course, neither is actually necessary, because an interested reader can always go to the page on "Flat-Earth" and see the criticisms there. Or they could merely look up "Earth" and see for themselves that it is not flat. In short, neutrality does not necessarily have to compromise clarity. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, the scientific community sees intelligent design as pseudoscientific creationism. That's a fact. And uncontensted assertions should be presented as fact. There is no contest within the scientific community. The only people who give credit to ID is the DI. No-one else, and certainly no relevant experts. It's not a value judgement to state that ID is pseudoscientific creationism. It's a fact. And it's infinitely clearer to note that fact plainly and simply than it is to give unwarranted weight to the clearly pseudoscientific viewpoint. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that the scientific community views ID in this way, but the views of the scientific community are not facts, they are views. Just because a large group of experts collectively make a particular value judgement does not make it cease to be a value judgment. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The DI is attempting to portray ID as science. It's not. The relevant experts have stated this is the case. This is noted in the lead. Any problems with the current wording? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I have little problem with the current wording. It was your version that failed to live up to NPOV, not the current version. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Restructure

I've placed the 'Peer review controversy' & 'Signature in the Cell' within 'Advocacy for creationism and intelligent design', as (i) both topics fall within that advocacy & (ii) the Peer review controversy occured years after he started his advocacy (making it anomolous to mention the controversy before the advocacy). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Besides the chronological consideration, it seems to make sense, categorically, to arrange the sections in this way, as the two - now subordinate - sections relate directly to the advocacy section. - Gregorius the Brown (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ID in the Lead

WP:LEDE states that "the lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable...". I would suggest that it is important and relevant context, and a large part of what makes him interesting or notable, that the idea that he has dedicated his career to creating is unequivocally and very vocally rejected by the scientific community. It is the quixotic nature of his crusade that makes it interesting -- if it was some obscure hypothesis, nobody would likely care -- but Meyer is seeking to not only overturn the most fundamental scientific theory in biology, but also the scientific method itself (see theistic science).

I would therefore suggest that this material be restored to the lead, reverting this edit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute that ID should be in the lead; the dispute is whether "a concept regarded by the scientific community and American courts as pseudoscientific creationism" should be in the lead. WP:LEAD also states that "the lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." How can that material be either an introduction to or a summary of that which doesn't appear in the article body? Keep in mind also that this is a BLP, not the 'Intelligent design' article. Adding that material to the lead smacks of WP:SOAP. It is also too broad--while ID may be rejected by most in the scientific community, the disputed material says unequivocally that the scientific community as a whole specifically regards it as "pseudoscientific creationism." It also claims that the American courts as a whole specifically regard it as "pseudoscientific creationism", while in reality a single court decision regarded it as creationism. I certainly don't see how Meyer is "seeking to" "overturn" the "scientific method." Drrll (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It is establishing context, as WP:LEDE explicitly allows for. "Keep in mind" that this article is ubiquitously about Meyer's promotion of ID. "Keep in mind" that WP:DUE requires that "articles specifically about a minority viewpoint ... should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." I would suggest that it is "relevant", when establishing the context of what it is that Meyer has dedicated his career to promoting, to "reference" the fact that the "majority viewpoint" (being the scientific community) considers this to be meritless pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about whether or not Meyer's views are correct. It's about him, his works and which views he holds. While there exist other articles on his works and the viewpoints he supports, the discussion as to whether they are correct/accepted by mainstream science/etc should be left there. I think Tom_cruise#Scientology is a useful comparison: no discussion about scientology, only about Cruise's actions in supporting it and any aspect of it that relates directly to him. GDallimore (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Two distinguishing points are that (i) unlike Meyer, Cruise is first an foremost an actor, his prominence as a Scientology spokeman comes a very poor second (and is completely derivative of his fame as an actor) & (ii) unlike ID, Scientology is a religion first, and a set of pseudoscientific claims a distant second. A more reasonable comparison would be with Immanuel Velikovsky, the lead of whose article does in fact mention scholarly rejection of his claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I totally disagree that that is a good comparison. Velikovsky's ideas do not have articles of their own at all that I can see, and only some of his books have articles in which to discuss the dismissal of his "theories". If his ideas or more of his books became notable of themselves, then the debates about the subject matter could be split off from the main article. Such a split has already happened in this article (metaphorically speaking) so there is no need to go on at length about reactions to ID and related matters that are already discussed extensively elsewhere. For one thing, it's an excellent way to create a POV-fork, something which should be avoided.

Of course, if as part of his support for ID etc, critical things have been said about him personally then I would not suggest excluding them merely because they are ALSO critical of ID etc (the peer review controversy section being one example, although I think it currently goes too far off-topic), but this article is not the place for repeating the many and varied objections to ID in general. GDallimore (Talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Persecution hoax

That the "persecution" of anti-Darwinians is a hoax, was originally cited to an article by a long list of prominent scholars (including Ronald L. Numbers, generally considered to be the pre-eminent historian of creationism). An attempt was made to WP:WEASEL-word it to being only the opinion of "some". I have therefore added concurring opinions from the National Center for Science Education and the Florida Senate's research branch. If anybody really wants to contest that this is a ubiquitous opinion (outside ID spin circles), I'm sure I could find more. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"this assertion has been dismissed as a hoax by a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources" is not supported by your three sources and one of those sources could hardly be called a reliable source for a BLP. The only source that supports regarding it as a "hoax" is the single journal article signed off on by eight individuals. That can hardly be called "a wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources." The Florida legislative source doesn't even support the broader notion of simply dismissing the assertion. It instead says: "According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work." Lastly, as an anti-creationist advocacy group, using a site called "Expelled Exposed," the National Center for Science Education is not a reliable source for a BLP, where higher-quality sources are required. Drrll (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Drrll, it is "signed off on by eight individuals" prominent scholars in relevant fields. That the NCSE defends the majority academic position (which WP:NPOV explicitly requires article to give 'due weight' to) does not make it "not a reliable source" -- quite the opposite. That two of the sources do not use the exact word "hoax" does not change the fact that they clearly support the position that there is no persecution. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was about to grant you the "wide range of scholars" bit until I did a bit of digging on the authors of the journal author. Of the eight, only five could be considered scholars (and only three of them are scientists, with a philosophy professor and a history professor included). All five hail from the exact same university--U of Wisconsin-Madison. Five professors from the same university is not a "wide range of scholars." In addition, one author is simply a lawyer, another a state House representative, and the other merely a legislative assistant. Just because an advocacy group (NCSE) holds a majority academic position does not automatically confer reliable source status upon it (again, the "Expelled Exposed" is a dead giveaway that it is not some objective news organization). How in the world does the above quote from the Florida legislative source negate that "those who oppose 'Darwinism' are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views"? How about:

Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views, though this assertion has been strongly challenged in a scientific journal article.

Drrll (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that (i) a philosopher of science and a historian of science clearly have relevant qualifications for venturing an expert opinion on this issue -- particularly as both Elliott Sober & Ronald L. Numbers are prominent in their fields & (ii) that the academic standings of the directors, officers and supporters of the NCSE "confer[s] reliable source status upon it" and the fact that they "exposed" what is widely regarded as a dishonest anti-science propaganda piece hardly detracts from that. And no, I do not agree with your wording, which blatantly underplays both the depth and the credentials of the contrary view -- and is clearly in violation of both WP:UNDUE & WP:GEVAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Sober & Numbers are qualified to speak on this issue. I would say that while many of the directors, officers, and supporters of the NCSE may have adequate academic standing to speak authoritatively, what matters is the venue in which they speak. Doing so in reliable sources such as scientific journals or news publications is perfectly acceptable for WP; doing so via an advocacy organization is not. I don't have a problem in saying that the assertion of Meyer is dismissed as a hoax--if the scope is limited to what is supported by the sources, namely the authors of that journal piece. If the statement is sourced to additional sources then it needs to say something that would cover all sources like "challenged" or "disputed." By all means, provide additional reliable sources that counter Meyer's assertion. In the spirit of collaboration, what modified wording would you suggest? Drrll (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Drrll: I am getting heartily sick of your WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Your argument by assertion notwithstanding advocacy on behalf of the scientific consensus DOES NOT make the NCSE unreliable. NCSE is run by respectable academics, and (unlike the DI) is not extremist or WP:FRINGE and has a good reputation for fact checking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have expanded the material to (i) give increased WP:WEIGHT to the numerous prominent sources disputing Meyer's claim & (ii) give nuance to the non-"hoax"-stating disputants. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy on behalf of the scientific consensus DOES NOT make NCSE reliable either, nor does repeatedly declaring that they are a reliable source. DI may qualify as WP:FRINGE for its positions on science, but it hardly qualifies as extreme. The extremist position in the US is that a God had nothing to do with origins of the universe. I see that you apparently have no intentions of collaborating, taking a "my way or the highway" approach. Drrll (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking the overthrow of the scientific method, as the DI and its leadership has advocated on a number of occasions (see theistic science), is "extremist". An organisation, led by respectable academics and defending the scientific consensus is prima facie reliable. And last I checked the NCSE DOES NOT hold that "God had nothing to do with origins of the universe" (and is in fact very accepting of theistic evolutionism). I see no point in "collaborating" with wilful ignorance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever considered a career in the field of diplomacy? Drrll (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered a career in right-wing politics? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ID & creationism

Liveintheforests (talk · contribs) removed Category:Creationists saying ID is not creationism, if you have a valid source which says Meyer is a creationist then revert my edit, but i see none. He appears as ID only. I replaced it because I didn't realise that he was in Category:Intelligent design advocates which is, of course, a subcat of cat:creationists. Liveintheforests then replaced the category saying ID is not creationism, if you have a valid source which says Meyer is a creationist then revert my edit, but i see none. He appears as ID only.

While Liveintheforests' rationale is clearly erroneous, I support the removal of the cat because it's redundant - no need to include the parent cat when we already have the daughter cat. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Guettards i don't think all of ID proponents are creationists, though the media like to claim all of them are, quite a few of them are not, but regarding this issue it seems as if as you have sorted it already so thanks for that but anyway it seems I was wrong. I have looked up Stephen Meyer and he is infact a Christian, i did not know about this. I will add him into the Christian Creationist Category. Liveintheforests (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a supporting source for this. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I found two references which say Meyers is a Christian Creationist both these weblinks are Creationist websites, - Do these count? On a side note??

Meyer claims Intelligent design is not creationism in a newspaper article

This is confusing now. Meyers - Is he a Christian, a Creationist or just an ID advocate? Meyers has claimed he is not a Creationist and ID is not Creationism.Liveintheforests (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

ID = Neo-Creationism = 'Let's not talk about God and the courts might not notice that it's creationism'. Meyer's claims are "unduly self-serving" and thus not reliable. I believe there is an exception to the redundant cat & subcat rule where the cat isn't self-evident from the subcat. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

this article is clearly biased against Dr. Meyer. I removed the church affiliation mention from Dr. Meyer's undergraduate education, as this was clearly in a tone of disparagement attempted to impugn his credentials. anyone who is curious about the affiliation of the college he went to can simply click on its hyperlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.253.23 (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2011

Signature in the Cell

Added material from Signature in the Cell as it looks like that article is going to be deleted soon. See Talk:Signature in the Cell. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious sources

There are multiple blog references, opinion pieces, and assorted other websites used that aren't reliable sources. This was an issue at Signature in the Cell as well. BLPs require high-quality sources, so the issue is more serious here. I'm going to tag the article. Drrll (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Taken care of using the version at Signature in the Cell. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I wasn't very clear, but I was also referring to sources used elsewhere in this article. Sources like:

• The American Prospect
• Touchstone
• Access Research Network
• "The Republican War on Science"
• talk.reason
• millerandlevine.com
• homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg
• The Panda's Thumb

These can't be fixed easily/quickly, so I'm going to retag the article.

Drrll (talk)

The American Prospect article is properly used here. The article is written by Chris Mooney, who is a reputable journalist specializing in the topic. There is no reason to question his fact finding.

The Touchstone article is written by Phillip E. Johnson, as is properly used to source the sentence in the article.

The Access Resarch Network page is properly used to source factual material about it's own president (Meyer).

"The Republican War on Science" is also written by Chris Mooney, and is properly used to source the quote by former DI associate Edward Larson.

Talk.reason is not used as a source. The actual source is the Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry paper, a copy of which is archived on the Talk.reaon site. The source is reliable and used correctly.

millerandlevine.org is properly used to source the Miller quote used in the article.

The homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg is properly used to source his denial, which is proerly attributed to him in the article.

The Panda's Thumb source is actually a book review written by Elsberry. He is a notable and qualified marine biologist and expert on creationism. he review is thus notable and can be included in the article.

So all of the sources you have listed are reliable for the purpose at hand in accordance with WP policies.

If you disagree, you will have to take it to WP:RSN. Frankly, I think your objections are fantastical and based purely on your imagination, and not on WP policies. Please read the policies again. They don't mean what you imagine they mean, or want them to mean. Repeatedly placing tags on articles based solely on your vague, unarticulated suspicions is unjustified and constitutes disruptive editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Where to begin? I was under the mistaken impression that this section was proceeding as a civil conservation. Given that at the beginning of this section I referenced the sourcing problems at The Signature in the Cell, where at that article's Talk page I discussed a good bit of policy and how such policy relates to a non-BLP article, given that I also mentioned here that BLP sourcing is more stringent than non-BLP articles, and given the length of your tenure on WP, I thought that what I wrote would be adequate to tag the article and start a conservation, as opposed to just removing the material.

Here are some relevant policy quotes from two of WP's most important policies regarding BLP articles, plus RS guidelines, as well as policy regarding questionable links in the LINKVIO copyright policy:

WP:BLP:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.

External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs

WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it…Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight…They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

WP:RS:

Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

WP:LINKVIO:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

I noticed that you didn't bother to quote or even reference policy or guidelines; what quotes do you have that contradict the above quoted policies and guidelines, demonstrating your contentions that they are acceptable sources?

• "The American Prospect article is properly used here. The article is written by Chris Mooney, who is a reputable journalist specializing in the topic. There is no reason to question his fact finding.": used ostensibly to source where Meyer taught, even though it never does such a thing (in actuality used to host a lengthy excerpt in the footnote that makes numerous factual assertions)--an opinion piece ("Survival of the Slickest") in an opinion magazine, not a news source, used to source a fact, not an opinion [Mooney's academic credentials: an undergraduate degree in English]
• "The Touchstone article is written by Phillip E. Johnson, as is properly used to source the sentence in the article"--an opinion piece in an opinion magazine, not a news source, used to source a fact--'which it fails to do, not an opinion
• "The Access Resarch Network page is properly used to source factual material about it's own president (Meyer)"--a self-published source used to source a fact, which both the WP article ("a director") and you ("it's own president") get wrong--he's a board member--check the source
• ""The Republican War on Science" is also written by Chris Mooney, and is properly used to source the quote by former DI associate Edward Larson"--an opinion piece (with such opinionated chapter titles as "Defenseless Against the Dumb" and in "The Antiscience President" section, "Bush Leage Science" and "What We Can Do") used to source a fact, not an opinion
• "Talk.reason is not used as a source. The actual source is the Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry paper, a copy of which is archived on the Talk.reaon site. The source is reliable and used correctly"--a self-published website publishing an original piece, with no editorial control over the piece (after being posted as a blog post on Talk.reason); an opinion piece, not a news source, used to source a fact, not an opinion
• "millerandlevine.org is properly used to source the Miller quote used in the article"--an opinion piece (actually just a webpage), not a news source, on a self-published website, used to source a fact, not an opinion
• "The homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg is properly used to source his denial, which is proerly attributed to him in the article"--a self-published source used to source a fact (would be an acceptable source for Sternberg's BLP, not someone else's)
• "The Panda's Thumb source is actually a book review written by Elsberry. He is a notable and qualified marine biologist and expert on creationism. he review is thus notable and can be included in the article-"-a self-published blog post on a self-published blog, posted there first, and later made available on Talk.reason; an opinion piece used to source a fact (the inane fact that "A critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website"!)

I missed two more:

• antievolution.org: misrepresents that the "Wedge" document is hosted at the Discovery Institute; legally suspect hosting of a link on a non-reliable self-published website; used to represent the fact the Meyer cowrote the document, when the document itself does no such thing
• external link to EvoWiki: a Wiki?!

"if you disagree, you will have to take it to WP:RSN": not according to BLP, V, and LINKVIO policy quoted above. I am actually in my right to take an axe to the material improperly sourced--especially since it's in a BLP.

I'd hate to know how many total errors and outright misrepresentations there are in this funhouse representation of a BLP if the few sources I checked are any indicator of the rest of the article. As an example, from the lead: "Meyer was a professor at Winthrop University. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network" He was actually a professor at Whitworth University and not at Winthrop University. Three sources purport to source this information. In reality none of them source where he taught, let alone said that he taught at Winthrop! He is not vice president at CSC; he is a vice president at the Discovery Institute. He is not a senior fellow at CSC; he is its director. He is not a "director" of the Access Research Network; he is one of four board members there. And from his inbox: "Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute" Besides conflicting with the lead, he is not a Senior Fellow at the CSC, but at the Discovery Institute itself.

That's just the errors or misrepresentations I found in the lead and the infobox--the shortest, but most important parts of the article.

"your objections are fantastical and based purely on your imagination, and not on WP policies. Please read the policies again. They don't mean what you imagine they mean, or want them to mean.": now who exactly is that referring to? Drrll (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in yet another prolonged argument with you, so I'll cut it off here. You have not convinced me that the sources above are not used in accordance with WP policies. If you have genuine concerns about any of the sources given, feel free to take them to WP:RSN.

As for individual errors like the Winthrop/Whitworth mistake and the various positions Meyer holds, they are good faith errors that do not justify placing a tag on the whole article. You are free to change them ONE AT A TIME and insert appropriate sources (be very careful about removing other sources because they might be used to source other information in the sentence). You are much more likely to get consensus for your changes if you do that than if you try to make wholesale changes.

In the future, please limit your comments to article talk pages to concise, specific suggestions for improving the article. Vague, overreaching and rambling rants about multiple problems, real or immaginary, are not contructive.

Your "seven-headed hydra" approach of overwhelming other editors is agressive and tendentious. Stay on topic, and stay concrete. Vague and hyperbolic comments like:

"I'd hate to know how many total errors and outright misrepresentations there are in this funhouse representation of a BLP if the few sources I checked are any indicator of the rest of the article"

are not contructive, and undermine your credibility. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your suspicions or suppositions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you also have no intention of engaging on the issue of defending blatant policy and guideline violations in a BLP, even though according to policy, the burden rests with those supporting the material's presence, not me.

"not contructive, and undermine your credibility. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your suspicions or suppositions": Help me understand your logic. Nobody gives a rat's ass about the possibility that the rest of the article might be as bad as what little I checked. But I'm supposed to give a rat's ass about your "suspicions or suppositions" that formed your unprovoked personal attack on me ("objections are fantastical and based purely on your imagination, and not on WP policies. Please read the policies again. They don't mean what you imagine they mean, or want them to mean")? We are to believe that those personal attacks were "constructive" and boosted your credibility? And I'm supposed to give a rat's ass when you try to dictate orders to me like "You are free to change them ONE AT A TIME and insert appropriate sources (be very careful about removing other sources because they might be used to source other information in the sentence)"? Drrll (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points

Dominus Vobisdu has asked me to weigh in on this topic, so I'll make a few points (this should not however be regarded as an expression of willingness to engage in endless discussion of this topic).

General thoughts

1. Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources, cannot be used in BLPs except about the themselves. However it incorporates WP:SELFPUB by reference, which expands this slightly to include "their activities".
   1. However, their usage, even about themselves is still covered by the restrictions in WP:SELFPUB.
   2. Also, it would appear to be an unreasonable under WP:WEIGHT to allow the above restriction to allow favourable affiliated self-published material whilst excluding unfavorable unaffiliated material of similar reliability. Some form of work-around may be needed to preserve balance whilst excluding unaffiliated self-published material. If a conflict between WP:BLPSPS & WP:WEIGHT cannot be resolved, it may be better not to say anything at all.
2. Where the material is not self-published, or otherwise prima facie unreliable, and a local consensus cannot be achieved on its reliability, it should be taken to WP:RSN.

Specifics

1. Gishlick, Matzke, and Elsberry appears to be unpublished (except on Talk.Reason or self-published on own websites), so cannot be used.
2. Mooney's work all appears to be published, and he does not appear to be prima facie unreliable.
3. Phillip E. Johnson article is published, and reliable for this statement about the history of the creation of the Wedge document (events that he himself is likely to have been a party to).
4. ARN is self-published, but used about one of its own officers, so acceptable as being about their "activities" that overlap with Meyer's. (If you disagree with this interpretation, take it to WP:BLPN.)
5. Miller quote is self-published, so cannot be used. (Is there a published source for this quote?)
6. Sternberg is self-published, but used about his actions in concert with Meyer so acceptable as being about his "activities" that overlap with Meyer's. (If you disagree with this interpretation, take it to WP:BLPN.)
7. PT is self-published, so cannot be used.
8. antievolution.org is merely a WP:CONVENIENCE link to a document that the DI has admitted authorship of. As far as I know, neither the text nor the authorship of this document is in question.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(N.B.: all of the 'specifics' are based on information to hand -- new information, and in particular finding a reliable published source for any of this material, will affect these views. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC) )

I also can't verify that the Gishlick article has been published elsewhere, so I agree that it must go. The sentence in the article that is is used for seems credible and factual, so a better source needs to be found. There are several good sources in the Teach the Controversy article, and I'll probably use one of those.

Same for PT. with this one, Drrll is correct. The sentence in the article is gratuitous, and I have removed it.

As for the Miller quote, I agree that it should be left out as it is self-published and is used to source his commentary about third parties, and not himself. I've removed it.

Thanks for your help. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevant policy, guidelines, and an essay:

WP:V:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

WP:CITE:

When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable. Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

WP:ELNEVER:

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

WP:ELBLP:

In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.

WP:CONV essay:

It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively plausible to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.

The first relevant policy to convenience links is Wikipedia's copyright policy. Pursuant to the relevant section of that policy, editors may not link to material that may be a copyright violation without making a reasonable effort to ensure that the material is in the public domain, is published under license, or qualifies as fair use.

Dominus, thanks for making the changes you made (one of the two instances of Gishlick at The Panda's Thumb and the millerandlevine.com reference). It is a good step in the right direction. However, there are still numerous problematic sources:

• Self published sources--"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to…websites, blogs…—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (WP:BLP): Access Resarch Network (not a Meyer website), Talk.reason (no editorial oversight over book review referenced), homepage of Dr. Richard Sternberg--involves "claims about third parties", antievolution.org (does not directly support the fact alleged in WP article--that Meyer cowrote the Wedge document), EvoWiki: (a Wiki at that)
• Published opinion pieces used to source facts, not opinions--"rarely reliable for statements of fact" (WP:RS, referring to all articles, not BLP articles with its higher sourcing standards): The American Prospect (does not actually source what's alleged in the WP article--where he taught), Touchstone (does not actually source what's alleged--that Meyer is coauthor of the Wedge document), "The Republican War on Science"
• Sources ostensibly used to source facts, but in actuality do not--"This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material" (WP:V); "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented" (WP:NOR): antievolution.org, The American Prospect, Touchstone, as well as Whitworth University
• antievolution.org link to Wedge document not allowed per WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:ELNEVER, WP:ELPBLP, and WP:CONV policy, guidelines, and essays as quoted above, despite the fact that it is a convenience link and that DI has admitted authorship; correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't compare this representation of the document to the actual document. Note that this source is actually used solely to source the fact that Meyer cowrote it, yet the document does no such thing

Hrafn, "events that he himself is likely to have been a party to": "likely"?

"all of the 'specifics' are based on information to hand -- new information, and in particular finding a reliable published source for any of this material, will affect these views"--I agree completely, provided that the reliable published sources are not opinion pieces used to source facts and that they directly support what they claim to support

I also ran across some more problems:

• The Whitworth University reference does not appear to be a reliable source for a BLP and the reference ostensibly is used to source "graduated with a degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from Whitworth University", which it DOES NOT do. Rather than doing that, it actually points to the "Mission & Heritage" page at WU. I cannot for the life of me figure out why that page was chosen :)
• The link to Meyer's biography at Discovery is that link, but the title of the link in the reference is "Paul Chien"

These self-published links should also go, in addition to the ones listed previously:

• Whitworth University--for the above reasons
• Discovery bio of Meyers--not published by Meyer's CSC, but by Discovery itself
• CSC article about Ken Miller--makes a "claim about third parties"
• website statement of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington
• press release from AAAS
• ISCID
• ISCID RAPID webpage
• reviewevolution.com--apparently not published by Meyer's CSC, but by Discovery itself

The self-published links to Meyer's CSC and/or pieces authored by Meyer should stay unless they involve claims about other parties or events unrelated to Meyer or the CSC. Drrll (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:TLDNR. If you want to argue everything under the sun, then I suggest that you take it to WP:BLPN, and see if anybody there is interested in your concerns. Speaking for myself, I think that your interpretation appears excessively narrow and is likely to result in a rather disjointed article, as a considerable amount of connecting material is disallowed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Either one of you care to remove the other Gishlick reference, the sources that are used to source certain facts but actually don't directly or even indirectly do so, or to correct the inaccuracies? There are you two editors on one side vs. one editor on the other side, so it would be best if one of you made the changes. Drrll (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. There are some more that need to be made regarding his positions and Whitworth. I am going to make them now. Drrll (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Another sourcing problem is the representation of a article written by Meyer that was published in an independent scientific journal made to appear that it was published by the advocacy group he works for. Drrll (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPN

I am about to post a notice about this on the WP:BLPN. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

blatantly biased

The article is blatantly biased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.229.20 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Yep. ExileFromGROGGS (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A propos of which, whoever wrote the Intelligent Design section seems to be blissfully unaware of the difference between Intelligent Design (I won't link to the w'pedia article there as it can be pretty well guaranteed that that will have it wrong as well) and Creationism, and has confused the two. ID advocates almost universally reject strict creationist tenets. I explicitly asked Meyer once if he was a creationist and his answer was no; and nothing in his writings contradicts that assertion. All mention of creationism should be removed, if this section is to reflect the actuality. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"I explicitly asked Meyer once if he was a creationist and his answer was no". It's not like the Wedge strategy documents were leaked on the internet or something. Bill Clinton didn't have an affair with Lewinsky, because clearly he said he didn't. The reality is that the reliable independent sources describe it as creationism, their own documents indicate it is, and the courts agreed that it is. It is irrelevant what Meyer said to you. You can not deduce the motives of people by what they say to you. They can lie, so it's irrelevant to this article. Second Quantization (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And here is a nice article on ID in an unlikely place (How Stuff Works), detached and objective, just what the w'pedia article should and could have been.--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

    I completely agree. And as for those who say Meyer is a creationist, they have not read his writing. DBWolf0 (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In the section "Darwin's Doubt" only the negative critics are written and there is no sign of positive admiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emehri (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Attribution and sourcing

An anon made this edit saying It is irrelevant how Meyer's opponent describes him. Removed a piece of the multitude of bias that this article presents. Removing the attribution of the statement to Pennock changes it from Pennock's words to Wikipedia's, and removing the source makes the statement unsourced. On one hand, I'm not certain we need Pennock's voice to call Meyer and ID advocate, I don't think he would take exception with that characterisation, but we absolutely need a source. On the other hand, the anon has a point - the way it's phrased may put a bit too much emphasis on Pennock. Guettarda (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Major issue here is that we can't have unsourced statements in a WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

response: Forgive me but I'm not certain how all of this works. I'm glad to go through the correct procedure if someone will guide me. The article I edited is horrendously biased and that first bit of bias jumped out at me. Honestly, I think the entire article needs revision but such is many of these articles on wikipedia. I merely came to the article to get information on the man himself and yet I see all of the mentioning of the dissenting voices against what he does. I don't come to an article to find out who disagrees with the person I'm reading about. It's as if I go to President Obama's page and the vast majority of what they say about the man is what Bush thought of him. To me that's quite unprofessional. I did not know how to respond to this here so I just hit the edit link to write my thoughts. If this is not the correct way to do this please let me know and tell me how I go about responding. Also, this ip is a shared ip and most all of the prior edits were not done by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.101 (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Darwin's Doubt critical review

An unregistered user with the IP address 65.12.180.156 made this edits, citing reason of ‘dubious source’ of blog from an undergraduate student. In fact, this user deleted a lot more content than his/her reasoning provided. Half of my entry is the book review from an expert in paleontology, Donald Prothero, published on a prominent website in the Skeptics community, The Skeptics Society. In addition to technical information, Prothero also quoted two other paleontologists to support his opinion. This entire paragraph is removed by 65.12.180.156 without reasoning or even mentioning its existence. Regarding that ‘undergraduate student’, Nick Matzke was prominently involved in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, had worked in National Center for Science Education and is active in the ID debate circle. So he is no ordinary student writing his own blog. This blog is only one of the references cited in Gareth Cook’s article. Other content with academic journal referenced was also removed by 65.12.180.156 without proper reason.

I did provide reasoning. Lack of balance and NPOV and Sources wikipedia policy is if it's a living person's bio to remove such content immediately, correct ? . Regarding NM's review. What does his involvement in the court case matter? He's not an established Cambrian expert he's a grad student publishing his review on a blog. He published an almost 10 000 words review a day after the book was published and quoted things from the book that *didn't appear* in the book .It raises some suspicions don't you think ? Again, if it's a living person's bio , err on the side of caution .

The Skeptics Society is not a reputable source. As for the review from their expert it originally appeared as a user review on Amazon . I've no issue with including it IF the response to the review from an equally biased source is included for balance. The article also needs to include the positive reviews and mention of the fact that the book was on the NYT bestseller list , is an Amazon best seller to provide balance IMO . As it stands now it reads like an attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.180.156 (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see giving "equal validity". Minority, fringe or extraordinary claim (without extraordinary evidence) should not be presented equally with the mainstream consensus opinion for the sake of 'balance'. The content is not biased and does not violate NPOV if it is supported by scientific evidence and current consensus in the relevant field. Presented one-for-one of 'negative' and 'positive' reviews is not balance when the views are not equal in prominence (according to Donald Prothero, 'no Cambrian explosion' is the mainstream consensus in paleontology). Nick Matzke's involvement with the court case (I assume you read the wiki article about this case) matters very much with his credentials as an ID critic and experience in providing supporting evidence. Being on NYT best seller list gives no credibility to the scientific validity of this book. Precisely because of its popularity (as predicted by Gareth Cook, described at the end of the section of 'Darwin's Doubt'), it is important to show what the science is saying about the 'Cambrian explosion'. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Prothero self published a review and you , that by your own admission is not an expert on the subject, takes his view as authoritative based on what exactly ? This was not published in a reputable publication. Nick M's involvement in ID is irrelevant this page is not about ID. It's again a self published review written by a graduate student who is not a recognized C expert .This is a bio page about the author not a page about ID so having a book on the NYT best seller list IS relevant on the author's bio page. All your arguments might make a little more sense on an article about ID, or the book, not on his bio page so balanced and NPOV needs to be followed --FooooFighter (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY, "if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal". Please read the policies at the top of this page, as they answer this and other issues you've raised. Vzaak (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Who makes the decision that this is a "minority, fringe or extraordinary claim"? Who decided that there is no "extraordinary evidence" in the book? It was pointed out that Prothero didn't seem to have read the book, but this fact is not acknowledged, whereas his arguments that don't actually address the book are listed. Basically, what do you want to achieve with Wikipedia? Are you concerned that it should be presenting the facts about a debate? Or are you happy to use its reputation as "authoritative" as a means of inhibiting discussion? Your call, Ginger Maine Coon. However, your behaviour hitherto, not just with my contribution but clearly with others, suggests that it's the latter. ExileFromGROGGS (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Notably, the most important content in both Prothero'’s and Cook's article, 'there was no Cambrian explosion' is deleted by this IP user. Instead, 65.12.180.156 replaced the criticism with the lame 'Cook's wrote a negative review, called it psuedoscience'. The mainstream consensus in paleontology that 'Cambrian explosion did not exist'’ invalidates the entire premise of Meyer'’s book. It seems this IP user does not want reader to see that.

If I didn't want the readers to know that I would have removed it all together don't you think? The link to the article is there the reader can go read the review , the gist of the review was negative and that the book is pseudoscience. Additionally Prothero view on the CE is irrelevant in this context because one of the points that the book in question makes is that it refutes his view. The book *specifically* address Prothero's view on the CE and refutes it in chapter 13. Also what mainstream consensus . The book endorsed by Prothero himself *in his review* as a good account of the C , Douglas Erwin and James Valentine's The Cambrian Explosion (2013) states "Great variety and abundance of animal fossils appear in deposits dating from a geologically brief interval between about 530 to 520 Ma, early in the Cambrian period " and "Taken at face value, the geologically abrupt appearance of Cambrian faunas with exceptional preservation suggested the possibility that they represented a singular burst of evolution, but the processes and mechanisms were elusive. Although there is truth to some of the objections, they have not diminished the magnitude or importance of the explosion. ... Several lines of evidence are consistent with the reality of the Cambrian explosion" , that throws a little bit of doubt on the review don't you think ? Finally it appears that the reviewers didn't read the book since they misrepresent the book's focus with regards to the CE. The book views the explosion as the 3rd stage (5-6 million years) in which 13 or 14 new phyla appear not the entire radiation .

This is not the place to debate whether there is 'Cambrian explosion'. Without reading the book by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine's The Cambrian Explosion (2013), (not that I can understand it since I am not a paleontologist,) I can’t make comment by what you quoted. But I believe Prothero knows what he is talking about when he recommends their book to support his view. Also I would like to caution that quotation of several sentences from a book may have the risk of 'taking out of context'. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect but what you believe is not really the issues here. Again, if you're not familiar with the topic why think a self published review from someone with an axe to grid is a reliable source? This is why you should only take reviews from reputable sources that fact check their articles .. When in doubt leave it out. --FooooFighter (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see post by User:Vzaak on 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC) above. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem to modify the entry, or remove some source not meeting the wiki standard. But I will have to disagree with a wholesale removal of the content with slim reasoning. Please discuss and reach some consensus. IP 65.12.180.156 and other editors are all welcomed. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9 put back my entry of Meyer's book review, but IP user: 65.12.180.156 reversed it again. This is the second time this user do that despite my request of dialogue. With courtesy, I am still waiting. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

IP editor has already been given a one day ban for their edit warring. They appear to have not gotten the message. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to get on the high horse you should maybe refrain from removing my edits without comments . You removed content added to the signature in the cell section that were made to restore some balance .. did you discuss ? did you add a comment  ?

FWIW, Nick isn't an undergrad - he's well on his way to finishing his PhD. Guettarda (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

grad student then — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.180.156 (talk • contribs)

An expert with an M.S., 15-years post-Bachelor's experience and a remarkable publication output, much of it in the area of speciation and diversification within lineages. Guettarda (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What's your point? He's a graduate student + he's not a Cambrian expert. --FooooFighter (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

He's a graduate student and a subject matter expert. He's an expert on intelligent design and an expert in mode and tempo of speciation/cladogenesis stuff. I'd say that there are few people better qualified to review Meyer's book. Guettarda (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What peer reviewed "stuff" has he published on the Cambrian? .. ? Fact: He's a grad student . Fact: He's NOT a recognized expert on the Cambrian. FACT: The review is self published on a blog. In any event , did I say remove mention of TNY review  ? No  ? It should be presented as an opinion by a Pulitzer price winning science writer and unreliably sourced quotes used in the article should not be parroted as facts. The Prothero review should plain not be there IMO.--FooooFighter (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Specific publications on the Cambrian are entirely beside the point. The issue here isn't the diversity or structure of the Cambrian fauna, it's the evolution of that fauna. Nick has, quite remarkably, peer-reviewed publications on speciation and cladogenesis from the Proterozoic forward. He also has an extensive publication record on intelligent design. As I said, there are few experts better equipped to review Meyer's work (certainly Nick is more of an expert on this than Meyer). And self-published sourced from experts are acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The above thread has repeated a few times that regarding fringe subject, self-published source from subject matter expert is within the Wikipedia policy of sourced material and NPOV. So I am not going to repeat it again if you are still not convinced. I just want to point out the plain fact: Donald Prothero is a noted paleontologist. Nick Matzke is a subject matter expert (Thank Guettarda for additional information about Nick) on evolutionary biology and ID. On the other hand, Meyer is not a paleontologist, (also not a molecular biologist but wrote the book ‘Signature in the Cell’) but a prominent ID proponent. If you are putting doubt on the credentials of Prothero and Matzke about the subjects of Cambrian explosion and evolution, shouldn’t you have doubt first on Meyer’s credentials in writing a book about paleontology? And writing a book about molecular biology? And just happens that, he concludes in both books that ID is at hand? At this point, I am not sure I am debating with one or two persons (65.12.150.156 and FooooFighter), but please read WP:TEND. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Another review (Marshall)

There is another review of Darwin's Doubt in Science (20 Sept. 2013), by Charles Marshall. Pretty perceptive. Marshall notes: "the book's subtext is to provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular." I would add some text about this, but don't know quite when I'll have enough time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read Marshall's review. Good perspective and worth to be included in the article. I may have some time soon to work on it. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the criticism

User ExileFromGROGGS made this edits, added the criticism by Tom Bethell of American Spectator on the review written by Donald Prothero on Meyer's Darwin's Doubt. The referenced article written by Bethell is not a critical review of the book, rather an advocacy of Meyer’s philosophy. Given Bethell’s history of supporting fringe science, AIDS denialism, man-made global warming denial and intelligent design, I view his article as biased and should not be included per WP: NPOV Giving "equal validity". Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The second part of your challenge is an ad hominem argument, and says nothing about the validity of Bethell's analysis. The first part amounts to: "He doesn't disagree with Meyer, therefore he must be wrong." However, I see you've deleted the entry anyway. Fine. As you were.ExileFromGROGGS (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)