Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 75

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

→

Help with a reference please

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, I am trying to determine the origin of the term "Intelligent design". There is a sentence in the section about Of Pandas and People that references an article, but the article is hearsay. Here is the line I am referring to. "A Discovery Institute report says that Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought 'That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term'.[34]" Any help or clarification is appreciated. Thanks in advance Newsmill (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an official statement by one of the Discovery Institute's lawyerly ID proponents. Suspicious minds might think one of the variants discussed in the preceding section was a more likely precedent, my own feeling is that "The origin of printed texts, manufactured devices, and biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering knowhow" from Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit has the most obvious connection, as Kenyon was a co-author of Pandas. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe we have not succeeded finding any appropriate style of source for the question of first usage.

I have found it very hard to find any particular beginning to the term. It is basically a common combination of terms that goes back centuries. It is a classic case of a frozen idiom because the way the two terms are being used is slightly archaic, but you "get" them when you see them used in context. The context is not always theological, but very often is.
Anyway, given that we have no good source, I think we can not say much in the article about the oldest usage. We can and do say that it became a highly publicized term in the 1980s in a quite specific context (but not different in kind from older usage).
Concerning the point Dave is interested in I would confirm that from searches I did the term was already being used in the early 1980s within the American creationist movement, before Pandas and People and before Thaxton. I suspect (but this is OR) that there has been some mythologizing by that movement concerning the origins of the use. The claim that Thaxton remembered it from engineering books, then heard a NASA scientist use it, and then easily found it (pre google) by thumbing through old science magazines seems very difficult to believe given that the term is not really common in such contexts at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. The referenced material offers no answers and seems a little fishy at best. Cheers. 216.185.230.22 (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the Thaxton story? I agree. I do not think we are currently using it as "gospel" in the article though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this source fall into the category of Questionable sources? According to WP "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsmill (talk • contribs) 01:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsmill, it seems to me that our current use of this source is permitted by Wikipedia policy, that the DI is reporting "material on themselves, [...] in articles about themselves"; Charles Thaxton is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that is avoiding the issue. Clearly our policy tells us not to use sources talking about themselves if they are suspected of self promotion in the part we want to use. Clearly we know Thaxton had a reason to obfuscate. Indeed that is what it is all about. I am not saying we need to remove it, but we certainly need to be cautious of how we use this reference.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It's shown in sufficient context for it to be reasonably clear that this is the DI's claim, and other factors should be considered. . dave souza, talk 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As I say, I am not suggesting removing it. The general question was raised though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we shrink the talk page "header"

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Even on my wide higher res screen and even when collapsible sections are collapsed the "header" takes up two full pages, and I'm guessing on many computers it is "header" is 3-4 screens long. Should we shrink it? North8000 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about the lead section? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No I think North is talking about the header of this talk page, not the lead of the article itself. And I would say that North definitely has a point. For all the good intentions of that header it will not work well if it is overdone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you click "Hide" on each section, they collapse. Yopienso (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but is there any other answer to North's question? Why have something so large and complex if the only reason for not doing it is that you can collapse it and therefore ignore it? Wouldn't it be better to have a lead people are really going to be able to absorb?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir, confirming Andrew's answer, as noted in the section title (which I should have repeated in the text) I was talking about the talk page header. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@North8000: as long as it is, I don't think the header could be shrunk any further without losing vital instructions. Given the nature of the topic, the header appears to be very succinct. It gives future trouble-makers no reason to provoke arguments about certain wordings or concepts in the article. That's just my two cents. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above I have a similar subjective impression to North, but I guess that North's proposal is going to be difficult unless there are concrete proposals? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that somebody else might have suggestions. But my thoughts would be to start with the "instructions to new editors" text because that's a general primer on editing in Wikipedia. After that the part that names particular editors. And after that maybe the "pseudoscience" part which is only somewhat applicable since this is more about religion than pseudoscience. (although the DI said otherwise). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Sp33dyphil, I don't think you can cut much, if anything, without losing or hiding information important to newcomers. There's also a "Skip to table of contents" link at the top for those who don't want to scroll through it. I don't see this as a problem at all. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear someone explain the differences between this header and say the header on Evolution, which suffers the same problems and potential problems as this article. To my eyes the difference partly results from the fact that Evolution is better attended and worked on. In other words, better quality. (Also, I think I am not going to shock anyone by saying that I think the header on this article is not only aimed at for example creationists or newbies. I have noted how the header is traditionally used here as a kind of threat to experienced editors daring to propose changes here, along with the constant "this has all been discussed before and it is annoying that people keep coming here trying to change things" remarks.) Anyway, I think it is not very convincing to justify a questioned text by saying "I don't think you can cut much without losing or hiding important information"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ID is "not science" not "pseudoscience"

Latest comment: 10 years ago83 comments14 people in discussion

A number of references are given to support the claim in the lead that ID is widely considered pseudoscience in the scientific community. This is simply not supported by the sources. To the contrary, the most widely held and most well-reasoned position is that ID is "not science". To inflate a religious belief (as it has been reliably called in Kitzmiller and in other highly reliable sources) to the level of pseudoscience is to give ID-proponents more credence than they deserve. To even mention the word science in the same breath as ID is a blatant violation of NPOV and UNDUE.

Examples of failures to adequately cite the categorisation:

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design lists only two bodies that specifically mention pseudoscience. Most of the rest are in the "not science" category.
Kitzmiller calls it "not science" and does not use the word pseudoscience at all.
Ref 7 (Mark Greener. Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?. EMBO Reports. 2007;8(12):1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. PMID 18059309.) has the word pseudoscience in the title but fails to use it in the article at all, instead using the "not science" angle. I suggest that "pseudoscience" is just being used as an inappropriate editorial shorthand in the title contrary to the arguments of the actual author.
Ref 7 (Nature Methods Editorial. An intelligently designed response. Nat. Methods. 2007;4(12):983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983.) fails to use the word pseudoscience anywhere instead using the "not science" angle.

Even if there are arguments that "psuedoscience" is an appropriate category, it is certainly insufficiently sourced at present. If it really is so strongly supported as pseudoscience, it shouldn't be hard to find a detailed reliable source which classifies it as such with detailed reasons rather than just using the word "pseudoscience" somewhere in a discussion about the topic.

Some facets of ID appear pseudoscientific, irreducible complexity being the most obvious, but attaching a pseudoscientific idea to a relgious ideal does not inflate the whole religious ideal to the level of pseudoscience. It is simply not science and it is not even well-disguised religion. More specifically, pseudoscience is commonly defined as something that "masquerades" as science or "pretends" to be science or "has a close resemblance" to science. ID does none of those things except in the eyes of its supporters whose views we should not be promoting. GDallimore (Talk) 22:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ID does masquerade as science, and the description as pseudoscience is covered by a number of refs in the article. For example Mu, which I've cited. You seem to be drawing a distinction which isn't the intent of the sources, which clearly show that ID is claimed to be science, but isn't. . . dave souza, talk 22:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GDallimore, WP's policies dictate that we don't take a side on an issue. So, if ID's proponents or believers say that it is a science or a philosophy, and critics say that it isn't, we take a middle ground between the two. IMO, the best way to do that is to first present the topic as its believers see it, phrased in neutral wording, then include a detailed section with criticism and contrary opinions. That way, the reader forms their own opinion instead of us trying to tell the reader which side is right. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we do not take a middle ground on any issue, not this not any other; what we do is base what we write on WP:RS. There's no "right side" here simply because there's no "two sides" to begin with: there's science and then there's this, a pseudoscience (at best) completely discredited an recognized as such (or worst):

'Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most succesfull pseudosciences of the past two decaded... [1]
..Ronald Pine (2005) goes further, suggesting that ID is "not even a pseudoscience"; it is "simply a scam and a fraud"... [2]

I'm sympathetic to GDallimore's argument in that this probably doesn't even qualify as a pseudoscience. Personally I'd just call it a plain old scam but that would probably be considered not WP:NPOV. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 00:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

GDallimore, I refer you to the 2004 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, where the concept of "intelligent design" first came to wide public attention. The case focused on the fact that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district was pushing ID. Originally, the school wanted to replace all mention of evolution with ID; later, they backpedaled and said that it should be taught alongside evolution. Proponents of ID in Dover stated, in their own documents filed in open court, that intelligent design was "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view." They were promoting the concept by way of a text book, Of Pandas and People, which would be used in high school biology classes. The ruling in the case stated that, despite the efforts of proponents to push it as science, it was not science. Non-science being promoted as science... that is the very definition of pseudoscience.

Beyond all that, ID has been described as pseudoscience by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among other notable organizations with an interest in promoting actual science. There are more than enough reliable third party for the "pseudoscience" descriptor to remain. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 - the "split the difference" rule is not WP NPOV policy...you may wish it were, but it isn't.

GDallimore - A pseudoscience in the traditional sense is a concept/theory/epistemology which is manifested to be science but isn't. ID does claim to be science, and if one agrees it isn't science, then QED... But neither my logic model nor yours carry weight here. I would ask you, however, to consider if your citing a science journal writing about a controversial concept and calling it "not a science" might not qualify as pedantic quibbling that they didn't use the term "pseudoscience" explicitly. Science journals write about things (purporting to be) science, right? They don't write about theology. There's a context here that none of us are well served to pretend doesn't exist. The context is ID proponents trying to gain it some kind foothold in the science curricula. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

GDallimore Delete Pseudoscience or put in 'citation needed' as you see fit. If we're discussing whether it suits that is WP:OR, but if it's commonly said outside of Wiki it's citeable and if it isn't it does not belong here. Pseudoscience really is just a fuzzy-word epithet indicating displeasure, so I tend to doubt that serious books or official statements will do that form of dialogue. I'll even say that if one has got examples of high-level people having that kind of hissy-fit it is noteworthy so I'd say it does belong as individual cite. Markbassett (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd question the motivations in editing this article of somebody who says "To inflate a religious belief (as it has been reliably called in Kitzmiller and in other highly reliable sources) to the level of pseudoscience is to give ID-proponents more credence than they deserve."

Is it the role of wikipedia, in this person's view, to manage the credence any particular group is given? I find this kind of an attitude unhelpful and unnecessarily prejudiced in discussing the article. Forgive me for being so brash, but I have to say that if you cannot put your personal biases aside and treat a piece objectively, you're not going to make for a good editor of wikipedia. BabyJonas (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, WP's NPOV policy requires it's editors to put personal opinion aside and focus on presenting topics in a neutral way. When someone reads a WP article, they should not be able to tell what side on the topic is being taken. Can this be said about this article? Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality does NOT mean giving equal weight. Should we change the article on Earth then and add Flat Earther beliefs such that anyone reading it would assume that 21st century scientists are still unsure on whether it's round or flat? Should we discuss the Obama birther articles as if there really is 50% chance that he is indeed Muslim and born in Kenya and is a communist and a member of the New World Order and evil aliens from outer space sent to destroy America?

No. There's a reason why we require reliable sources. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Obsidian, nothing personal, but there are at least four logical fallacies in your counterpoint above, including false analogy (ID and flat earth theory have little in common), appeal to ridicule (comparing ID to flat earth theory is an attempt to diminish the idea and its supporters), argumentum ad populum (I'm right that ID is wrong and everyone should be told so because most people agree with me) and straw man (no one here is saying that the article should discuss ID as if it were true). Having a large section in the article of criticism of ID is fine. Along with that, the section of the article that describes ID's history, including before it was a DI thing, plus its tenets and concepts, should be phrased in language that does not take a position on whether it is true or not. That's NPOV and we are required to follow that by WP's policies. We don't have a choice in the matter Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm giving you actual examples from policies and guidelines. Because flat Earth theories and the many variants of creationism both have one very important thing in common when it comes to how we should treat it in Wikipedia: both are regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream science. And speaking of WP:NPOV, no, it actually requires us to do the opposite. Specifically:

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these 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. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. (WP:DUE)

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is 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. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. (WP:PSCI, expanded in WP:FRINGE)

Note that both of these are policies. You originally said "they should not be able to tell what side on the topic is being taken" which is directly contrary to what is being asked of us when discussing fringe and pseudoscience topics. While it's true that we, as editors should not insert our own opinions into the text. We are required to actually clearly identify what tenets and concepts are regarded as false by more reliable sources. Not doing so will be giving undue weight so as to make it seem like the belief is equal in footing with the scientific consensus.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that TechBear's statement "Non-science being promoted as science... that is the very definition of pseudoscience." is a definition core to this debate. I think that the DI version / initiative was/is indeed claiming to be science and thus could be called pseudoscience. And, as the predominant current version of ID, I think that the sources cited were referring to the DI version However, as months of extensive research and discussion have established, ID is not limited to the DI version / initiative. Other instances of it are simply religion / religious or creationism. E.G. simply a belief that life/earth/humans are too complex to have evolved or occurred by chance and therefore God must have done it. So, IMHO, it is incorrect to refer to ID overall as pseudoscience. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. This was done. We really want to dredge this up again? I figured this would happen after the last discussion. As soon as anyone doesn't push back with full force at the assertion that "ID is not limited to the DI", editors come out from the woodwork to start changing hatnotes to change the scope, and removing sourced labels of pseudoscience and creationism, and everything else that might make ID seem unfavorable. This article is about the DI version of ID. That version of ID is presented by its proponents as science. The scientific consensus is that ID is not science, but instead a pseudoscience. We go by the sources here, not by argument, and I'm honestly quite tired of editors trying to wear everyone down by repeating the same things over and over until their "opponents" leave. Bring some sources, or this is a waste of time. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess, you might be sick of being told that the sources do not allow us to equate all ID with the DI but it is still true. OTOH, I do not think this is relevant to this thread? The only concern connecting those two debates is that we should not let our article mislead readers by equating all ID with the DI version which is famous to the general public because of a textbook argument (and this is true whether or not this Wikipedia article is primarily about that textbook argument version).
Coming back to the original question then, I agree with editors who say that the DI version is "pseudo science". In other words it claims to be science, but does not meet the normal modern criteria for being science.
I disagree with Cla68 in seeming to say we could also call it pseudo-philosophy in the article. The DI might not be philosophers, but they are using a philosophical argument. And we have no sources calling them pseudo philosophers. But this appears not to be relevant to the original question.
I agree with editors that splitting the difference is not normal Wikipedia policy when sources disagree. When sources disagree, we either report the controversy, or we exclude what is fringe, depending upon the context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the question at hand, the problem and solution might more revolve around the context of the statements by the sources rather than a conflict between sources. The solution might be as simple as seeing if they were talking about the DI version/initiative, and if so, changing the pseudoscience wording to say/reflect that. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what the hell is being argued here? And if not, why the hell are we arguing? This is asinine. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is about the generalization contained in "The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience" and similar statements. I might just try a tweak of the wording to resolve. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, a proposal is exactly what needs to be presented, instead of this vague bickering. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I plan to try to juggle the lead to tweak this. The only underlying change would be try try to pair the pseudoscience statement with either the DI initiative, or with variants claimed to be science. Another goal will be to eliminate repetition which the lead sort of has. I'll ask others to revert me if they do not agree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I scaled back and did not try to deal with redundancy. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I reverted the change of "intelligent design" to "such" because the antecedent then becomes unknown. I would recommend proposing something here on the Talk page instead of editing the article directly, as not everyone here agrees that ID is something more than the pseudoscience ~~propounded~~ expounded by the DI. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with the revert.....BRD. On your last point, any folks still saying that it's limited to DI are in conflict with extensive sourcing established here in recent months.

So, my proposals are regarding the word/phrase just reverted by Misterdub.

Idea #1 change it to "such"
Idea #2 change it to "these beliefs when purported to be science"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Both proposals suffer the same flaw: what are you referring to? The sentence appears immediately after the introduction of IC and CSI as concepts, so... are you talking about either one? Or both? Or what? What we want, and what the sources say, is "intelligent design is a pseudoscience," as it currently reads. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is an aspect and/or specific type of intelligent design which is a pseudoscience, ie the aspect or type which claims to be scientific. Am I wrong? (Intelligent design does not by its definition do this, even though it is a common and notable association.) So is there any reason we would want to make this unclear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's a common good writing practice to do that. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And the current wording is significantly more problematic. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So, the statement that ID is pseudoscience is accurate then, yes? "[Intelligent design] is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as 'an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins' rather than 'a religious-based idea'." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an accurate statement about certain instances of ID, including the DI type, and IMO that is the context of the statement by the source. But it is inaccurate in it's overreach. North8000 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you have an inaccurate perception of what ID is and this view is leading you to propose changes that are neither supported by the sources nor Wikipedia policy. ID is not the teleological argument, and confusing these two subjects is a violation of due weight in that it presents a fringe theory/pseudoscience more favorably than its professional reception. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I can't see how that relates to or describes what I was proposing. To (over) simplify, I was simply proposing to have the "pseudoscience" statement apply only to those variants (or to the DI variant) that claim to be science. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is no variant of ID that is pseudoscientific because there are no variants at all; it's all pseudoscience. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. So how did that second sentence come to say that? I've apparently missed something and at first sight this re-opens the older discussion. Our sources, just to remind, do NOT allow us to equate all intelligent design to the pseudo scientific variant. After a lot of discussion I believe it was recently agreed that Wikipedia has no right to be making that equation (quite independently of whether this article is about that variant). MisterDub, you do not recall that conversation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the third sentence preserves the concept that there are "versions", as was proven by examining the sources. So now the second sentence has evolved away from the third one, and they disagree. This needs a fix. The third one is justified by sources, but the second part of the second sentence is a reinsertion of an assertion created by Wikipedians and published here in older versions of the article, and does not agree with the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this looks like a revival of the "all ID is DI" assertion which I think extensive sourcing based discussions over recent months has shown to be wrong and in conflict with sources. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You both seem to think you have proven more than you have. I honestly don't see a point in arguing this again. If you want to change the subject of this article, please start a RfC. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the subject is fine. But if you are taking issue with my last statement, (which was essentially that ID is not limited to the DI version) then are you asserting that ID is limited to the DI version? If that is considered an open question then maybe we should do an RFC on that question to get it resolved, although I thought it already had been. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages and pages of talk demonstrate that this article is about the DI's version of ID.Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If so, the work that you described was to confirm that the article had/has a serious problem and is in conflict with sources. I don't really think it's that bad. With the prominence of the DI version within ID, it's fine that the article is weighted towards the DI version. IMHO there are just a few tweaks (involving statements that make generalizations that conflict with sources) that need making. North8000 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@MisterDub, I do not recall any argument or source from you or anyone else which showed that all ID is DI? Just name one source or point to one "argument"? What is very clear in this discussion now is that you are claiming this (you say there are no variants) and you are saying that the last part of our second sentence is saying this. (One of the arguments used to stop changes was that our article does not imply or say it. So that argument is not relevant now.) Why would you want this?

@Yopienso, whatever we Wikipedians decide that this article is about is not my issue here. It still should not distort, and it should be correctly disambiguated. Wikipedia should not say in any article that all ID is DI, because that would be a lie. I note that in the previous arguments you were one of the people who agreed with this, and claimed that the article does not make that lie. Now, given that the subject here is specifically a sentence which says there are no variants of ID, you are defending the lie openly? (Sorry to use a clear word like "lie" but clarity might save us wasting time again.)

...anyway, the third sentence disagrees with the second sentence, as I mentioned. Are there variants, or is all ID, DI?

@everyone. Here is the only thread which actually stayed on topic during the recent discussions and which I believe led to (temporary?) changes to the lead aimed at removing the implication that all ID is DI. I will point to one poignant example of how that discussion went: When I finally read a copy of the main source being cited against me, Padian, K.; Matzke, N. (2009), I saw that it says clearly that ID is traceable at least back to Aquinas and Paley. And on page 33 they specifically distinguish "your father's 'ID'" and "The DI's version" or "The ‘ID’ purveyed by the DI". Do we have a source saying that our father's ID, and that of Paley and Aquinas is a "scam"? I do not think so. So can we get past this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Yopienso & MisterDub, I thought we had somewhat amicably resolved that ID is not limited to or solely DI. Probably the only changes still needed in the article are to tweak the wording on a few sentences which indirectly make that claim. (and the above thread is about one of them). If the question is not resolved then it is perhaps time for an RFC on that question, which the core question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not claiming that ID is necessarily associated with the DI, but it is pseudoscience, as the sources state. The sources show that ID is related to the argument from design, in that ID is a teleological argument, but this article is about "this version of the argument," not the argument itself, which is treated elsewhere. "This version of the argument" is pseudoscience. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 06:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Mister Dub as I have just pointed out, all the sources clearly distinguish versions of intelligent design, and specify that it is the DI version which is pseudoscience, and specifically not the version of "your father", nor that of Paley. We can not ignore that context which is found in all the sources, including the ones which refer to pseudoscience. Putting it the other way again: we have no source saying that Aquinas and Paley were committing a pseudoscientific "scam". If we make Wikipedia say this then we are distorting the sources, i.e. telling a lie.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's called an anachronism, look it up. Aquinas and Paley weren't ID proponents, they were believers in God who argued for His existence teleologically. Get your subjects straight. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Andrew's point was that the source identified that of Aquinas and Paley as intelligent design. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In answer to "@Yopienso": As long as I've been aware of this article, (8 March 2010) it has been about the DI's ID. "Nearly all intelligent design concepts and the associated movement are the products of the Discovery Institute . . ." I do not find the present article to contain "a sentence which says there are no variants of ID." The third sentence specifies, "The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute." OF THIS VERSION Sounds pretty clear to me.

I am not watching this article closely. I was behind the hatnote that informed the reader that this article is about the DI's ID; I'm sorry to see that gone. But not sorry enough to protest! I don't have the time or interest to split hairs here. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the options of the time was to have it be only about the DI version and to change the title to reflect that. (or such an article could be created if the existing DI articles and the DI coverage within / as a subset of this article were not enough) But without that, having the current title and limiting it to the DI version is like saying that the Automobile article is only about vehicles manufactured by Ford. An article dedicated to and limited limited to the latter would be the Ford automobiles article. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mister Dub, I agree with North. What you are saying is not what our sources say, and this has been proven. Somewhere in history Wikipedia has misunderstood its sources and created its own myth. Intelligent design is not by definition pseudoscience or a "scam", and there are variants, both before and after the 1980s. That is how all the sources write.

@Yopienso I agree that the third sentence is correct. But the second sentence, if you look at how Mister Dub used it above, says that there are no variants at all. So these two sentences are in conflict now. You can call this hair splitting if you want. I guess editing is all about hair splitting?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, Andrew, you can both be wrong. Want to change it: RfC. I'm done arguing this nonsense. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

An RFC about what then? If someone can define a clear RFC then good, but it is very hard to get defenders of this article to stick to one position that they can all agree upon for more than a couple of posts, apart from opposition to change. In the meantime, just to make it clear, telling someone to raise an RfC in no way impels them to stop editing or proposing edits, which seems to be the tone of your expressive rejoinder. "I'm sick of it" is not an argument, but it is stunning how often I see such exclamations on this particular special talkpage as if people should care. People do not own WP articles. When you are sick of WP, you can stop, but you can not demand that others stop. Just to remind: there is a problem here because the second and third sentences disagree, and the second does not match our sources. If you do not want to talk about it, so what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

An RfC about the subject of this article. Currently, and historically, this page is about the "theory" of ID, a teleological argument that is presented as science and rejected by scientists as creationism (thus, pseudoscience); the teleological argument is a different subject and has a different article. The lead, as it stands, is accurate and describes that "this version of the [teleological] argument" (aka ID) is pseudoscience. There is no disagreement between the second and third statements, unless you're completely oblivious to the subject matter(s) at hand. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mister Dub, as I mentioned above to Yopienso, it does not matter to me so much what this article is about. The more urgent problem is that it should not say things which are untrue and unsourced, so your RfC idea is not really relevant here. Concerning the second and third sentences we can avoid your "I do not see the problem" approach because I can quote the interpretations of two editors of this article who do not want it changed, one being you:

1. Concerning the second sentence, you wrote above: "The sentence appears immediately after the introduction of IC and CSI as concepts, so... are you talking about either one? Or both? Or what? What we want, and what the sources say, is "intelligent design is a pseudoscience," as it currently reads." And in the continuation: "What I mean is that there is no variant of ID that is pseudoscientific because there are no variants at all; it's all pseudoscience."

2. Concerning the third sentence, Yopienso wrote above: "I do not find the present article to contain "a sentence which says there are no variants of ID." The third sentence specifies, "The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute." OF THIS VERSION Sounds pretty clear to me."

So the second sentence and third sentence are read by other people than me as saying opposite things. I am saying we should clear that up, and remove the implication that Paley and Aquinas were scamming. What is so unreasonable about that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"OF THIS VERSION" of what? Of ID? 'Cause that's not what the article says. Try actually reading the article this time. I can't be held accountable for the inability of some editors to read English. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub it is clear that this is in any case how Yopienso read it. If that is not what it means, it needs fixing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, several of your recent posts have been personal and insulting in nature. This is contrary to WP policy. Please don't do it. I've observed that there is a history of this type of behavior on this article's talk page. It needs to stop. I will leave a note on this on your user talk page also. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how else to get a simple message across to some folk here without being blunt. The obfuscation of this article needs to stop. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Direct answer. My advice if you want to be heard would be to find sources, start reading what people write to you, answer them. Most of your posts are just expressions of emotion about the stupid people who keep coming to this article and thinking it is poor. Mister Dub, the sources all clearly use the term "intelligent design" to mean "argument from design", (as well as frequently referring to the movement and, much less often, its actions such as its textbook "scam"). For example even after the 1980s it is being used to refer to classical philosophers. So we have to write in a way sensitive to that, in order to avoid making Wikipedia lie. Your proposal is effectively that we should distort our sources in order to avoid giving the DI respectability. But that makes WP political and violates WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

'Andrew, I think you've already shown that modern sources use ID to refer to this pseudoscientific variant of the broader argument from design, if you prefer "your father's ID". It's an argument from design, distinguished from the purely theological versions by being pseudoscience in the same way as creation science. The theological argument is not science, the theological argument presented as science is pseudoscience. . dave souza, talk 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, nowhere in your post are you addressing the core issue...in order to claim that "all ID is pseudoscience", you need to establish that all ID claims to be science. Which is not the case. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. And to remind, this is a concern quite independent of what this article decides to be mainly about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Not what I've said: the general modern usage of ID refers to creationist pseudoscience, the generic design argument is historic: got any sources showing it as current and currently using the term intelligent design for that supposed modern version with no claims to be science? . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That does not need to be proven to say that the "all" statement is unsourced and false. To further clarify, if the "all" were changed to the wording that YOU just gave (ala forms under the most common modern meaning of ID) the problem would be solved. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North. In case it helps I also note: yes, intelligent design is most often discussed in the context of the most commonly talked about type, i.e. the DI style one which is pseudoscience. But in most of those cases it is still referring to their argument from design. This is certainly true of all sources discussed with me so far as far as I can recall. The defenders of this article are cherry picking words from descriptions and narratives and treating them as definitions, whereas the same texts, where writing definitively, all or nearly all treat "intelligent design" as meaning "argument from design".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see where we're really at

MisterDub (and others feeling similarly) perhaps we need an RFC, but I would like see if there are really embedded disagreements vs. some type of a logical mixup or superficial or easily resolved issue.

First, like the old joke "I really like this hammer and have had it my whole life. So far I've put 3 new heads and three handles on it." So what is "this hammer" and what is "this article". The article by the title "Intelligent design"? The current block of text and whatever text or name it evolves to? So for clarity I am going to avoid the term "this article" (except for the putative premise for #4)

So I would ask MisterDub and like-minded folks:

Are you saying that DI is the only version of ID?
Are you saying that there must be an article exclusively about the the DI version of ID?
If your answer to #2 is "yes", are you further saying that the name of such an article must be simply "Intelligent design". (the most likely alternative being changing the title to reflect that it is about the DI version specifically)
Are you saying that (putatively) if the subject of the article is limited to the DI version, that such would support/justify making a statement like "ID is pseudoscience" even if it is not true for some non-DI versions of ID?

Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, DI is not a version of ID. The DI is an organization that promotes ID. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I just want to point out my understanding:

Though I doubt the wisdom of it, I think this article is currently about the pseudoscientific "textbook debate" ("scam") version of ID. (There are dozens of articles basically covering the same topic, and they are effectively a WALLED GARDEN.)
I think MisterDub does admit that the DI is only one subset of that textbook debate scam, but the most notable. MisterDub is still in denial about "Intelligent Design" in the sources being a still broader term which most often refers to arguments from design as such, and normally does not necessarily imply any scam pretending to be scientific.
I want to make sure that any discussion of what this article is about does not obscure the fact that no matter what it is about, it should not commit censorship about the links between the likes of Aquinas and Paley, and the modern textbook "scam". MisterDub has openly said that he does not want to lend the DI respectability, but on the other hand why should we protect Aquinas and Paley? There is a link, and given that we are not just writing a newspaper here the history of ideas should be explained on Wikipedia, and certainly not forbidden for political reasons!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, MisterDub clearly and accurately states that DI is not a version of ID. The DI is an organization that promotes ID, a pseudoscientific version of creationism that has at its centre the theological argument from design. We clearly show that link, any specific suggestions for improvement will be welcome. Unfortunately, you still seem to be going on about the occasional use of the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to the purely theological argument, an aspect which is appropriately covered by our teleological argument article and is noted in sufficient depth in this article about the more recent pseudoscientific ID. . dave souza, talk 13:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The main statement in "DI is not a version of ID. The DI is an organization that promotes ID" (that DI is an organization and what it promotes) is an obvious one that we all agree on. But hidden in its in its vagueness (it should have said "promotes its version of ID to be less vague) it contains a false implied statement (that there is only one form of ID). North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Dave, sorry, there might some words missing above, but I think the point about DI (the DI's "version") was clear. Let me state two problems which are quite independent of what this article is about:

You are incorrect that ID is only occasionally used to refer to argument from design. This is the main use, also in the sources focusing on textbooks. What is confusing people is that the main way it is used it is also referring to the DI style associated with the textbook debates. The term ID is frequently and consistently used to refer to the whole tradition going back to Aquinas and Paley and whoever.
Even if this usage was the second most common, we all know it is common. Therefore to write as if there was no possible confusion is to lie, because it means we are saying that ID is clearly defined as scam, which no source does, and it means that Aquinas and Paley are being called scammers, which no source does. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave & MisterDub. I feel that the 4 questions above are neutrally written and would help clarify the situation. Are you agreeable to answering them? North8000 (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you have not sufficiently proven that ID is the common name for the teleological argument, but even if you had this article would still be about the pseudoscientific theory due to Wikipedia's policy on natural disambiguation. The relationship between ID and teleological arguments in general is well presented in this article, so I can't even fathom how you could claim that there is censorship here.

North8000, your questions don't make sense. Hence, I cannot answer all four. I answered the one to the best of my ability.

To both of you, it is quite clear that you want this article to be on the same topic as the Teleological argument. I don't agree with this, but my problem isn't that you are trying to change this, but how you are trying to change this. What you are trying to do is sneak in a major change through small, successive edits, and that needs to stop. If you want to accomplish your goal, take the appropriate action: RfC! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT? At this point I have to consider you as simply refusing to give a rationale or source, and deliberately and willfully mis-stating my argument, and the history of discussion on this talkpage, and my minimal editing history on the article. Your reverts, if they continue, are according to me just edit warring. I spent a month going through the sources and proving the case, and you have been sneaking in a reverse. My concerns have been kept to a minimal core which is basic and has nothing to do with the article subject selection. I note that you have already above defined your aim as political.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your changes only succeed in obscuring DI. Please stop making changes until this BS is resolved. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You think you can refuse to discuss things and just tell editors to get lost? Don't think so. I note you did a second revert within 4 minutes. I think you can not have even read what was a new version. This is not the right way to work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is definitely not the right way to work, you should give WP:BRD a read Andrew. You seriously need to recognize when consensus for a given edit is not there and learn when to drop the stick. I agree with MisterDub and also advise you to stop making unilateral changes to the article unless and/or until you get consensus to do so. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. What does the D stand for? Discuss. Mister Dub has done a 3 minute SECOND revert of a NEW edit, and at the same time he has effectively announced here several times that he is not going to give any reasoning or sourcing. The game of running away from discussion has gone on for how long here? And what does the B stand for? B means make bold edits. You are saying that if I read BRD it will tell me why I should not edit, and why MisterDub does not need to discuss anything in order to do multiple knee jerk reverts? Don't think so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way this appears to have been a misleading edit summary. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gaba, quit the "drop the stick" and false implying violation of BRD accusation crap against Andrew Lancaster. It is absolutely unwarranted, out of place in the rational and most source-based discussion of anybody that Andrew has been having, and borders on a personal attack.North8000 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

North, if you want to see a WP:PA you can read Andrew's comment above where he accuses me of making a "misleading edit summary". If you feel that advising to read WP:BRD to an editor who has done pretty much the same edit twice, the second one less than 3 hours after being reverted and with absolutely no new consensus formed for making it, borders a personal attack then we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. I commend you for agreeing to open an RfC, hopefully that'll put an end to this endless discussion. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I have explained why your changes are wrong for years. Yes, literally, years (North8000 has been at this for some time), including very recently. I've repeated myself for long enough, yet you two persist in imposing your perception of ID here as if the sources support you (and they don't). So start a RfC! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on one. Carefully. It should be clear and neutrally worded, and it should go to the heart of the open issues here. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see it is all very emotional for you, but just to remind once again: no matter what we on WP decide to make this article about, we still have no right to make the article tell a lie by saying that ALL ID is considered a "scam". I don't think it is any excuse whatever "other stuff" happened before I recently went through the sources in detail and showed how wrong this is. You can not use WP:DUE to justify writing that a supposedly secondary meaning of a word should actually be censored out of Wikipedia in order to avoid giving respectability to a group. (The aim you have.) I have placed my latest proposal below in a new section. Will there be any "D"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New opening sentences

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

After the above discussion I have adjusted the opening sentences to the following, with the changed bit in bold:

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism[1][2] presented by its proponents as the theory 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."[3] Specifically, a version of such a theological argument from design for the existence of God is presented by the intelligent design movement as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4] The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.

I hope this leaves open a realistic number of options about its meanings, such that it does not strongly imply that "intelligent design" is not interpreted as being a word which ONLY and ALWAYS refers to what is defined by some editors here as a "scam". The reason we should not be giving this implication is because we have no source for justifying such a claim. Please note that this correction has nothing to do with what we think the article should be about. If anyone can see an error, please note it on the talkpage here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, MisterDub deleted it within about 3 minutes with edit summary "STOP!" I think that says a lot about the real source of the problems of this article: emotions, politics, lack of consideration. Consider the above a draft then. Are there any comments that actually involve the point at issue?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the recent archived discussion of the sources, for easy reference. It is old enough to archived, so normally people should have registered issues by now, and an edit would not be shocking. I also want to remind that this sentence needs fixing no matter what this article is about.

Do we have sources saying or demonstrating in any way that intelligent design is not commonly a term for argument from design (including even in the context of textbook discussions)? No we do not.
On the contrary, do we have sources saying or demonstrating that intelligent design is commonly a term for arguments from design. Well yes, in fact nearly all make this explicit. Even the ones used as sources to say the opposite.
Do we even have sources saying that there is any definition of the term which necessarily includes misleading scamming? Actually as far as I know we do not.
Do we even have secondary sources saying that what the primary and minor meanings of "intelligent design" are? As far as I know we do not. These assertions have only come from Wikipedians, not "sources".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False assertions, and your primary and secondary suggestions are ill supported, as discussed at great length previously. To reconfirm, ID is defined by numerous sources as this specific form of creationism, based on the older teleological argument. Some sources use the phrase "intelligent design" to describe that argument, which is most commonly known as the argument from design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by dave souza (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 November 2013‎

Dave well yes, "to say the least" your last sentence is right, so why is our article not written to allow for that possibility? Concerning your first sentence you give no sources (and I know you can not) in order to justify your accusation. All the bullets are correct. You appear to be arguing that if ID is ever used to refer to a specific type of argument from design it is always and only used that way, and that this reference is a definition. We've been over the sources you cite and they actually make it clear that they can not be used that way. They say intelligent design is an argument from design going back to Aquinas, Paley etc. You are cherry picking individual words out of sources and calling them definitions. Name your sourcing claims clearly and we will take that to WP:RSN?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The article does allow for that possibility: it specifically discusses it in the origins of the term section, and the lead makes it clear that It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, not the only version. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you lost the thread? The concern is that the article is saying that all "intelligent design" is pseudoscience, not all "argument from design". MisterDub explained the meaning of the second sentence as he reads it above: there are no variants, he says, of what "intelligent design" means. At the same time, he also says that there are variants, but rare. You are doing the same thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Support This changes it from an unsourced and false claim that all variants of Intelligent design claim to be science to a statement that a particular intelligent design initiative claims to be science. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no such claim: the article is clear that the phrase "intelligent design" is sometimes used for the non-scientific argument from design, the article specifically covers ID which is presented as science. . dave souza, talk 20:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The why would you be supporting retention of a sentence that conflicts with what you just said? that (in shorthand) ID flatly / unconditionally includes a claim of being scientific? And I think that such a sentence clearly is the claim that I described. If you say "an automobile is a vehicle made by Ford" you are saying that all automobiles are made by Ford. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You're forgetting the first defining paragraph: It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea" Without that presentation, it's merely the theological argument from design and is not science. . dave souza, talk 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your second sentence. Regarding your first sentence, nobody is forgetting about it; this is a proposal to change it. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God as presented by the intelligent design movement: the proposal is clumsy, unnecessary and doesn't make the change you seem to think it does. . dave souza, talk 23:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I note that Mister Dub appears to strongly disagree with you that there are any variants at all of ID which are not by definition a scam? Then again maybe Mister Dub will not want to be held long term to some of the posts recently made here. But there is the problem I think. Personally I think my concern about this sentence is being blown out of proportion in a reflex way because of extreme sensitivity and defensiveness on this talkpage. From what you are saying my change should be uncontroversial, surely? The opening 2 sentences currently simply make it unclear whether being a scam is part of the definition of ALL things called intelligent design. So why leave that deliberately unclear?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, where? I didn't take that from MisterDub's comments, we're both clear that the ID movement's version is essentially a scam to get religion into science classes, though I don't doubt the sincerity of their belief that they're doing The Right Thing. . dave souza, talk 17:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I only point to Mister Dub's position because all of us have the task of finding a consensus, and ideally we want Mister Dub to be part of that. I point to the difference between your position and his for that reason.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation hinges upon the results of the RfC. I will hold my comments until that time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that it does. I think there are basic sourcing and editing questions which should be handled here. Possibly a new attempt to define the article's coverage might help, but looking at the history of this article, and at the enormous header of this article which is like a scar, and your heartfelt frustration about sneaky editors who keep changing the article, gives me doubts. The bigger issue is to do with emotion and politics, and maybe this article is destined to be unencyclopedic until people forget the textbook case. In summary I feel that quite apart from any RfC, whatever else happens, basic editing and sourcing questions should be handled when they come up. I see no justification for blocking such editing. I believe that no individual editor has the right to ask WP to "STOP!" (as you wrote) while they collect their senses, especially not for months or years. The matter raised above has nothing to do with what the article is about. It is a wording and sourcing question, or to put it bluntly, a concern about WP being made to tell untruths.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Untruths? Your whole argument seems to hinge on trying to promote a relatively uncommon meaning of intelligent design as something essentially unconnected with ID. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree, we are talking about the presence of a statement which is unsourced and false as written. While I think that the problem arose from the other issues here (e.g. creating a new narrower definition of ID which is synonomous with one version of the disputed scope) I think that it exists independently of it. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sentence looked to me unsourced and false as written, please clarify. . dave souza, talk 17:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who feels this talk page is moving in circles? It's the same issue raised by the same group of editors A and opposed by the same group of editors B over and over again and it's getting rather silly. I recommend opening an RfC as North proposed above about this issue trying, to the extent of what is reasonable, to lump together as many of this small proposed changes as possible into one single edit. There's really little point in commenting anything else until that happens and we can get some outside input. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on an RFC. As noted, we gotta do it carefully / right to have it neutral and to actually address and resolve the opening issues and so it's taking me some time. And it includes the generalizing statements being discussed here. But my post is also agreeing with Andrew who is is essentially pointing out (in a nicer and more indirect way) that the current sentences in those areas are in violation of a core policy (wp:verifiability) and need to get them fixed independent of any RFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes Gaba there is a long term circle on this talkpage. I believe this is because we have very few posts which contain any rationales or sourcing. Most posts are expressions of frustration. Like for example...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for a change to a sentence above in order to avoid WP implying that, for example, Paley and Aquinas are scamming pseudo scientists. I have not yet seen one single on-topic reply except for North's. MisterDub and dave souza have written posts which seem to admit that at least "rarely" this is what the second sentence implies, so let's fix it. The detailed sourcing discussion was started (and I thought finished) more than a month ago. So when can I make this tweak please? If there is a sourcing claim or rationale I am missing, I would genuinely be interested to know about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Paley and Aguinas are in the past, Andrew, and we are clear in this article that it is talking about a current form of creationism. In the previous discussion we modified the phrasing to meet your objections, now you're having another go at confusing the issues. ∞ . dave souza, talk 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed that below Dave, where you posted about it most recently. But in this section here, can you name anything wrong with my proposed wording change? Thanks for the unfounded accusation BTW. Can we try sticking to topics?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Before I start making changes again, for the record:

Here is the archived version of the end of the long discussion about sourcing and wording. Please see discussion under the heading "Various Options" around 18th September. The final consensus worded by Dave souza and agreed by him and many others, with no open opposition indeed from anyone including MisterDub who was active on the article at that time, was to use a word such as modern or contemporary to remove the above ambiguity. Here is the actual edit by Dave souza into the article.
Here is the edit where MisterDub, of all people removed that careful compromise with the edit summary "Minor copy edits; removed duplicate REF tag". I say "of all people" because it is precisely MisterDub who has claimed that others have been sneaking in edits that go against this very consensus. And it is precisely MisterDub, who called changing them a minor copyedit, who has made it clear that h/she sees them as important ones that change the whole meaning of the article (which I do not see myself).

Following is a quick comparison for convenience.

Consensus before "Minor Copyedit"	"Minor Copyedit" of 19 Sept	current version	My recent proposal
This is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, except that contemporary ID proponents present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4]	It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4]	It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4]	Specifically, a version of such a theological argument from design for the existence of God is presented by the intelligent design movement as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4]

Anything I am missing? It is clear that the consensus of 18th September has the most support of all recent versions, and that the current version was inserted without consensus (despite all expressions of moral indignation expressing the opposite). I therefore propose that we change back to the known consensus unless we can quickly find another new consensus with similarly wide support. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you seem to be missing the discussion from 18th September to 01:15, 21 September 2013 which indicates consensus around the 19th Sept version. Your proposal lacks clarify and adds nothing useful. . dave souza, talk 11:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please give a diff for the discussion you refer to Dave. And please note that my current proposal is not the proposal at the top of this section any more, but to revert to the version before the "minor copy edit" of MisterDub, which I believe was not discussed, and which was misleadingly summarized. Address the issue clearly please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Europe

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This section contains the following:

As a reaction on this situation in the Netherlands, in Belgium the President of the Flemish Catholic Educational Board (VSKO) Mieke Van Hecke declared that: "Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science."[158]

The citation says "De Morgen, May 23, 2005". Is that a person or a journal? The translation is also very poor. We need a better translation and citation. Myrvin (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

De Morgen is a newspaper. I speak Dutch, so I'll see if it is online.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

2005 is not online unfortunately. It is quoted on the Dutch Wikipedia for both Creationism and Intelligent Design, but without quotes, and I wonder if someone has placed quotes on our version by misunderstanding because it actually reads like a translation of the paraphrase from a newspaper. To me it seems least worst to remove our quotes and then reword with better English (but still of course making it clear in context that we are paraphrasing). Does that make sense? BTW The creationism article in Dutch has more information about other initiative/statements relevant to Belgium.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected 4 days

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Folks, the article has been full-protected for 4 days due to the recent content dispute. Please use the Talk page and other WP:DR pathways to work out the dispute. The page has been protected without regard for the state of the content at the time of protection, and is not in any way an endorsement of the current state. Please use the {{edit-protected}} template to request edits that have clear consensus. Zad68 19:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You know, there really isn't any excuse for edit warring to be taking place on this article. Instead of protecting it, which is a short term solution, why don't you block the editors who were revert-warring each other? That would likely keep them from doing it again, which would be a more long term solution. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There was not that much reverting going on anyway. My best guess is that the trigger for the protection was not any amazing burst of edit warring (I think it had run its short course), but apparently that it was requested/suggested by the same editor(s) who recently slipped in a non-consensus edit with misleading edit summaries. The exposure of that trick has triggered various new actions and new arguments, but at least it is now all a bit more in the open. The page protection was therefore suggested, and "successful" because for whatever reason it was put in place a short period after a final revert was made to re-emplace that non-consensus edit. The second idea/argument now clearly developing is to link discussion about the non-consensus edit to the RfC proposal and say that discussion of the edit should wait until that RfC and be somehow decided by that RfC. I personally do not see a link, because the RfC will be about article topic, and the sentence tweak is about distortion of sources, which would be a problem no matter what the article is about. I am registering my thoughts in the interests of transparency. I want people to understand what I think I see, but I would be happy to receive better information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't anticipate putting the disputed edit into the RFC. I think that it is 90% a process/policy issue (and wouldn't want to freeze that discussion for 30 days or make process/policy issues an RFC question)and there has been little discussion about the underlying content changed. I'm thinking of putting the underlying content question in as an RFC question, but that would just be a sidebar. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I hate to do this, Andrew, but if you continue to accuse me of things I did not do (intentionally marking a major edit as minor, requesting a page block), I will take this to the administrator's noticeboard. Thank you. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That is up to you MisterDub. I call it how I see it. If asked, I stick to saying that it is almost impossible to interpret your edits in any other way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just some follow up notes: To reiterate, the version of the article that happened to be there at the moment the article was locked should not be considered the stable or consensus version just because it was up when the protection was applied. If there's a change for which there's broad consensus for here on the Talk page, use the {{edit-protected}} template. The protection was the result of a request at WP:RFPP. The request was not made by MisterDub or any of the regulars here, it was made by what looks like a passer-by who I do not see has any recent history of editing either the article or this Talk page. Regarding blocks, edit-warring blocks would not help solve any long-term problems here, because none of the recent reverters have any edit-warring blocks in the past few years, so edit-warring blocks would short (24 hours is the norm) and have no long term effect or be likely to improve stability. Lots of reverting is a symptom, it isn't the disease. WP:DR pathways such as DR and RFCs are more likely to lead to long-term stability, as even though they take longer, they can result in a clear consensus with broad support, and will include input from 'outsiders'. Remember that this article is under WP:ARB/PS and editors are subject to discretionary sanctions. If there is persistent bad behavior that can be documented with diffs, such as continuing to argue tendentiously against things that have clear consensus with broad support, consider making use of WP:AE. Zad68 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We were already headed towards an RFC to settle the big questions. (and they are NEW) Except for this dustup, the contortions on this article have generally been on the talk page rather than in article space. There have been 4 main discussers here (2 on "side A", 2 on "side b") A "side A" person I think unknowingly made a major unconsensused controversial change and innocently mis-labelled it as minor. When the two side B people finally saw it, they tried taking it out. The 2 main side A people did not try to put it back in. Instead other people warred it back in, claiming that Side B people not noticing it for a few weeks (due to mislabeling as minor) counted as being a "consensus". Then you locked it with the change in it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the edit under dispute does not seem to have any direct connection to the RfC, although I'll wait and see. Furthermore the rationales given by various parties for their positions concerning this edit are in theory the same, although it could be argued that no consistent rationale has been given for one of the two edits, which was indeed never discussed here on the talkpage before being put in place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments7 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A fresh start to discussion about one sentence, under the parameters explained above by User:Zad68 who placed the page under protection. This is a relatively simple issue involving the recent revert of what the local editors here all demonstrably know (and even insist upon, in effect) to have been a sensitive piece of consensus wording. So I think it is obvious that it should be replaced until a new wording can be found with similar consensus. For the record:

Here is the archived version of the end of the long discussion about sourcing and wording. Please see discussion under the heading "Various Options" around 18th September (but it goes very far back). The final consensus was worded by Dave souza and agreed by him and many others, with no open opposition from anyone including MisterDub who was active on the article at that time. The key point was to use a word such as modern or contemporary to remove a type of ambiguity coming from over-absolute word use, that many editors have remarked on this article over time. Here is the actual edit by Dave souza into the article.
Here is the edit where MisterDub removed that careful compromise with the edit summary "Minor copy edits; removed duplicate REF tag". (A similar note was placed on the talk page.)

Following is a quick comparison for convenience (with bold added).

Last clear consensus (proposed to return)	"Minor Copyedit" of 19 Sept (current version)
This is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, ~~except~~ that contemporary ID proponents present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4]	It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4]

I have also read the counter arguments discussed above and I offer the following summary and responses:

MisterDub's version reads better? This is clearly a lower priority than the change of meaning which was clearly something more sensitive to everyone, and I think no one is stopping proposals for better readability as long as it does not change the meaning.
MisterDub's version did not change meaning? The responses which have attempted to argue this are frankly ridiculous, because they all include comments which show that at the same time the editors who defend MisterDub's edit see any attempt to reverse it as an attempt to change the meaning in a very important way.
MisterDub did announce the edit on the talkpage? Yes, he called it a minor edit, as he also did on the edit summary, which it was not. I for one did not pay much attention because of those misleading edit summaries. What drew my attention to it was MisterDub's own use of the sentence's new meaning in a discussion with another editor who, as usual, was pointing to ambiguity coming from over-absolute wording.
MisterDub's edit now is the consensus edit because it survived longer than the old edit he changed? This is a misunderstanding of what consensus means. Consensus implies people knowingly accept something. I for one believed that during all that time the old version was essentially still in place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ADDED: HERE is the recent archived discussion of the main sources relevant to the lead, for easy reference. (It is already linked in many places in discussion above.) I also now add the sequel, by Dave Souza: HERE. Please note that most of these sources were not found by me and are textbook debate oriented, which I think is a bit one-sided if we are considering whether a word is always or sometimes or rarely used in that context. (But as explained in that discussion, at least several of them clearly use the term intelligent design as a term which can be separated from pseudo science.) So here are some examples of word usage for "intelligent design" in other contexts:

Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century).
Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back).
[3] Francisco Ayala, who I believe to have some expertise in this area, talking about William Paley (1802), and saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
[4] Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato
[5] Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity using this exact term to translate the name of the fifth proof of the existence of God (see quinque viae) used by Thomas Aquinas (14th century).
[6] Used to name a subject handled within David Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (late 18th century)
[7] Again being used to refer to Paley.

I believe that the accusation of there having been no sourcing evidence or sourcing discussion can be put to bed? If there are sourcing questions relevant to this wording discussion which are not resolved with the above examples, they need to be made clear and not just mentioned as a theoretical possibility. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Support Both from a process and content standpoint. Per analysis by Andrew Lancaster, with a few extra notes. A return to the one that actually had consensus. Others missing an edit for a few weeks because it was mis-makrked and mis-discribed as a minor edit does does not constitute agreeing/considering it to be a new consensus. Plus, the change represents injection of an a unsourced, unsourcable claim that ALL Intelligent design, (e.g. even the historical ID covered in the article) is/was presented as being an evidenced based theory. MisterDub said that he honestly felt that it was a minor edit, and did not attempt to reinsert it, nor did Dave Souza. It was re-inserted three time by persons not involved in the main discussion on it. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for several reasons: 1- as I stated above what Andrew and North call "consensus" is absolutely not. The word "except" was introduced by Andrew (following no previous discussion, something Andrew holds against MisterDub's edit BTW) and remained in the article for less than 11 hours. 2- I feel MisterDub's edit improves the article as opposed to the wording proposed by Andrew and North which only obscures it. 3- No WP:RS presented to support the change. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you have it completely mixed up. Andrew and I were reverting it to the version that was thoroughly discussed and written by Dave Souza. Andrew was not proposing or putting in any new material. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC) new

Gaba 1) As mentioned, consensus is not defined by success in deception but obviously requires conscious acceptance, such as can be gained by discussion. I have referenced above to the ending at least of the extensive discussion which led to the consensus version. 2) Vague criticism of Dave's wording, but sure: Can you define what it is obscuring? If you refuse to define it of course we can not improve the wording. 3) Above, I have given a link to the references discussion above, or at least one part of it. (Tell me if you are missing sourcing for something, but then you'll need to tell me what is not sourced.) That discussion was extensive.

Concerning 2) and 3), I have to note that once again we have this strange thing: you, Dave, and MisterDub, continually appear to be claiming that my reversion to consensus changed meaning (for example here you say it would require sourcing), but then you, Dave, and MisterDub are all also apparently claiming that MisterDub's edit which was the same in reverse was a minor copyedit. Did it change meaning or not? How can my change be a major change of meaning, and MisterDub's not? LOL. If there was a change of meaning, then how? If I have to find a source for something, then what? We go round and round in circles about this, but no one wants to answer this very simple question in a straight way. Wonder why. My proposal: The problem is not a sourcing problem, it is the constant insistent on inappropriate absolute (all or nothing) wording, leading to potential misunderstanding and long term article instability.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

North: no I do not. The version you and Andrew were reverting to included the addition of the word "except" which is the core issue here. This word, as I've mentioned 1 billion times already, was introduced without discussion by Andrew and removed after only 11 hours. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered consensus.

Andrew: again, issues with and editor? --> AN/I. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG though. Can you define what it is obscuring?, sure, just look at your edit, specially the unnecessary change of "it" for "this" and the unnecessary addition of "contemporary ID". The addition of the word except is unsourced, as opposed to the current version which deviates very little from the sources used. Regarding the minor vs major issue that concerns you so much, I've made my position crystal clear above and I take your insistence on bringing this up over and over again as disruptive, so I'll simply not comment on that again. To summarize: I oppose the proposed edit for the reasons stated above. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. You clearly don't understand what consensus is. What we have on this talk page is not consensus (and especially not for these edits that started the edit war). Using the EP template to request a change without consensus is not helpful, especially considering that system is almost always backlogged. Please don't create work for other editors for no reason. I've turned off the EP template. Establish consensus before requesting changes, as Zad asked you to do. This is seriously disruptive. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Man Jess I find turning off the template as an involved party in this situation to be highly questionable. The reasoning above and the links to past discussions confirming consensus is obvious. The proposed edit is not even written by me. And anyway, who said that EP templates can only be used after consensus is reached? I find this quite unusual. But let's focus: can you show us all where the discussion was about the edit made by MisterDub, in order to demonstrate its consensus status?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gaba, thanks for giving something to discuss. I see you are now homing in this edit by me, which was after that of Dave souza. I think I have a good counter proposal to remove that concern, which is to propose the immediately preceding edit, which was Dave's. I had not even thought this would be an issue, nor indeed remembered it. This means removing one word ("except"). That is indeed the version of the sentence which is least controversially the most recent consensus. Do you agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

@Man Jess, with all due respect I have reversed you de-activation of my good faith edit proposal. I don't want to be reverting people on something like that but actually switching it off also reduces the potential for broader community input, which is really wanted.

@Gaba, I have adjusted the proposal above, and honestly everyone it is a good faith proposal with a very straight forward reasoning (returning to the version of Dave souza of 18th Sept, which was the last one exposed to careful discussion, and which must be either very close in meaning to the current version, or else it must be very different for some reason that has not yet been discussed here). Of course if there are valid concerns it is quite likely there might be an easy solution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

General remark. Template or not (see discussion below) we still have a situation where there are two versions of this sentence being claimed to be the consensus one. Only one has been discussed on this talk page and received consensus so far, so in my opinion the other one does not have a claim to consensus until it is discussed here in some way that makes general acceptance possible to demonstrate. This is going to be hard to achieve without better explanation of the rationale. If proponents are not even willing to say clearly how it changes the meaning I think support is clearly going to be less.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew: I oppose your new proposal quite simply because I see nothing to gain from the proposed edits. Only you and North are claiming that your version is the consensus one so I'd advise you not to attempt to enforce it again into the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that a small number of people do not like the proposal, and it would be good to get more input from others, but OTOH we know that many editors now expect some sort of RfC. And so it is important to note that this is not just a proposal concerning a new edit but also an attempt to at least simply state what the most recent consensus edit was (relevant because the page is now on protection, and awaiting, possibly some sort of RfC). So may I ask you as a temporary matter whether you disagree that the version I named is the last edit which was carefully discussed on the talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I disagree. In case you haven't noticed the edit currently in place has been thoroughly discussed in this talk page for the last few days. Sadly one again I have to make this statement: you have no intentions of dropping it so this will be my last answer to you. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

And you consider the talk on this talk page in the last few days shows signs of consensus about MisterDub's change? I'll just register that this is likely not something most people will agree with, but thanks for the answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sub-discussion about validity of edit request

OK, so now we even have edit warring twice on the talkpage, with Man Jess and then Gaba de-activating the edit proposal on the basis that it should have consensus first. I want to note that:

I was following the instructions of User:Zad68 above about trying to register what the most recent clear consensus was, at least as I understood it. I hope Zad can comment on this turn of events. The wording of Man Jess's post above implies that the intention is to stop the broader community from having input (for their own sake of course: apparently I was creating unnecessary work). Is that really reasonable in this particular context?
By definition the most recent clear consensus version is a consensus version and I think it would be quite odd to argue that the new version which was reverted to just before page protection is uncontroversial or a consensus of any kind at all. So at the very least the proposed version is the "least worst" and most careful and conservative proposal for the time being, and I have simply registered this with all evidence included including detailed links to the consensus building discussions and the sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The EP template is not to solicit broader community input. RfC, 3O and DRV are. The EP template is handled by volunteers whose job it is to judge if consensus supports the requested edit, and to make it if so. I've worked handling requested edits. It is almost always backlogged, forcing editors with legitimate requests to wait sometimes months for help, so adding new requests which are disputed is not helpful. The very fact that this change began an edit war, forcing page protection in the first place (not even considering opposition on the talk page) means that there is not consensus for it. I'm not opposed to you generating consensus, but I am opposed to wasting the time of other editors in assessing that consensus hasn't formed.

Andrew, I don't doubt that you are trying to make edits to the article which you think will genuinely benefit it, and I don't mean to come off as though I do. However, I think your approach to getting these edits into the article is intended to contravene consensus that you think is wrong, which is not how WP is intended to operate. That is exceedingly frustrating for me. This EP request doesn't help, since you've quoted editors in past discussions in a way directly opposed to their current views. That's disingenuous at best. I believe you're doing it to "benefit wikipedia", but that doesn't make it appropriate behavior.

I don't plan to contribute here much more unless an RfC is formed. I think every editor has spent quite enough time discussing the same issues for many months, and it's high time to let it go, rather than driving everyone else away. I would be very unhappy to see a thread on ANI or AE form as a result of this dispute - truly, honestly - but it seems we're being continually pushed in that direction. I was trying to be very blunt before to avoid that ensuing trainwreck, but it seems my efforts didn't help. Please take the input of other editors. They're not trying to silence discussion (a laughable idea, since we've all engaged in it for several months without end); they're trying to bring closure to an issue which has been beaten to death. If you want to show that you value the input of others and you want to abide by consensus, rather than contravene it, then the only option is to stop discussing it, stop trying to insert changes into the article, and start an RfC to generate broader input. Nothing else is going to help; I promise you, the problem is not that we don't understand your position. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

How could anyone imagine that adding the above {{Edit protected}} was appropriate? Hint: If you have to explain why you are right and others are wrong, or if you need to edit war to restore the request, the proposed edit fails the requirement that EP be "used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus". To state the obvious, the procedure is to (1) propose an edit; (2) wait for a clear consensus supporting the proposal; then (3) request the protected edit. It looks increasingly likely that Andrew Lancaster will never be able to work collaboratively on this topic, and sooner or later administrative assistance will be required to resolve the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq and Man jess, it is frustrating to see that nearly every second post on this talk page is about trying to create a false impression of my editing and talk page record, plus the various veiled threats and baits and so on. The battlefield on this article was here long ago, and what we need IMHO opinion is less smokescreen and more people willing to discuss rationales and sourcing. That is my non-ambitious priority, and we have made progress on this already. Of course it could never have been fast or easy given the situation. Concerning this edit request I repeat, I did what I understood was suggested by the protecting admin, and I proposed the only clear consensus version we have. I have also been stating my reasoning that consensus implies a discussion was had, and I think no one is openly disagreeing with that? It would be good to see input on this procedural matter from a non-involved editor please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew it's time for the love of everything that is holy in the universe for you to let it go. I don't know how many editors telling you the same are needed but please, you need to drop it. WP is built by consensus and you do not have it in any way for your proposed edit. Your incessant commenting on this talk page is frankly becoming disruptive. People have discussed and you have failed to convince a large portion of them. The end. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Emotional appeal registered. But I think my request for some outside input on this particular questions does not deserve such drama. Can you please stop filling this talk page with posts about editors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let it be noted that you were warned numerous times to drop it by several editors and you refused to get the point. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

More relevantly for an article talkpage you should actually make a point other than "go away". User talk pages are for editing advice. I consider your posts deliberate attempts to distort the record. I consider my request for input from a third party to be quite simple and reasonable, and not deserving of all this put-on drama.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you are completely misrepresenting the situation and people's action. trying to gin up mis-represent proper and normal behavior as being problematic. It is time to STOP and limit conversations to content and improvement of the article. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I was ping'd to this discussion. The use of the {{edit protected}} template was clearly premature. It really should only be used when there's clear consensus already established. I can certainly assume good faith that the editor who used the template did believe there was consensus, but very quickly that was revealed not to be the case. It was correct to decline the request. It is more "proper" if the request is declined by an uninvolved party, but if it's so obvious that there isn't consensus, I don't see any problem with an involved party closing it, but doing that sort of thing will probably lead to an argument. Zad68 03:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Further note: I see there are complaints that the article was locked with the WP:WRONGVERSION. Is there agreement that is the case? If so I can, based on that agreement, revert the article back to its state before the latest set of edits that resulted in the protection. Either way, the article full protection is set to expire tomorrow afternoon. (What will happen at that time?) Zad68 03:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Zad68. I guess your second post raises the relevant question: are there any recommended procedures for this situation? It is apparently a case of "wrongversion", and apparently drama has been invoked as a result of the use of the wrong jargon. My reading was that you suggested the template I used, but if that was wrong, then anyway my "edit proposal" above is a proposal about what the least controversial recent version is. Is that a reasonable approach?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the only procedure necessary is starting a new section called "Proposed edit", copying your above table into that section and asking for comments. Garamond Lethet c 08:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC development

Latest comment: 10 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

In my work to develop an RFC that is neutral and which really gets to the heart of the issues, I am running into one "chicken and the egg" quandary on the broader issue of article scope. If folks would be willing to give brief answers on my 4 questions above, it would help sort that out but otherwise I was drafting a way that circumvents the quandary:

Regarding scope, I think that gist of what one side is saying (myself included) is that any article which takes the broad "Intelligent design" title inherently needs to be about more then the DI version/initiative. And I think that the scope concerns raised by this group could be resolved in several different ways, emblematically these two:

Rename the article to clarify that it is (only) about the DI version.
Decisively decide that that article is about MORE than just the DI version, even if the DI version is 80% of the article.

IMHO "other" side sort of vaguely wants an article that makes it appear the ID is just the DI maneuver. They seem to acknowledge that sources say otherwise, but refuse to say what they propose or are agreeable to that is consistent with that reality. My 4 questions were intended to cause that clarity to happen and would help to formulate an RFC. If that is not available, then a core question which still provides clarity on a step forward (if not to the final answer) despite that would be a question on the scope of an article named simply "Intelligent design" and that is what I'm working on.

Also, what projects and specific editors should it be advertised to? My opinion: several projects, and NO specific editors.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's an idea: why don't we name this article by the name used for multiple sources for the version promoted by the DI, that is intelligent design, and focus this article on that version while giving due acknowledgement of its relationship to the older argument from design. We could then name the more generic version by its most common title, argument from design, or alternatively by the more philosophical name, teleological argument, and in that cover occasions when "intelligent design" is used as a synonym for the generic argument. Please make this one of the options for consideration, and provide sources for proposed alternatives. . dave souza, talk 17:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Vaguely"?! Really?! I've explained this in great detail, ... but whatever. Let me see if I can clearly explain how these subjects interrelate:

Various figures of differing fame have proposed teleological arguments for the existence of God (technically any god, but for all practical matters, this mostly concerns the Christian God). These arguments from design are described in the Teleological argument article. They are rarely referred to as simply "intelligent design," and thus, have little to no claim to that term for its common name.

A specific teleological argument is presented as science and an alternative to evolution. This purportedly scientific theory is called Intelligent design (ID) and it is described here, in the Intelligent design article. It is not necessarily associated with the Discovery Institute, and therefore claiming that this is the "DI version" is inaccurate. There are no strict "versions" of the teleological argument anyway; there are different arguments from design made by different people, and they are identified by the philosopher/theologian who proposed them.

From my perspective, the articles are well-organized, though not above improvements. If the name of the article on the "scientific theory" is a problem, we ought to have a discussion about the names of these articles, instead of trying to manipulate the lead of this one and obscure its topic. If "Intelligent design" is deemed to be the common name of the subject currently described in Teleological argument, there needs to be a discussion with the folks there to change the name. This article can then be renamed to something else (in the past, I've suggested adding creationism to the title).

For a less verbose explanation, see dave souza's comment above. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with MisterDub. This dispute seems to be based on the presumption that multiple versions of the design argument, or the generic design argument, are identified by the opening statement that ID is 'the theory 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."[3]' Note the quote marks, and if you think this is a generic definition, please provide a published source showing exactly the same quote from someone unrelated to the DI. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, not responding to Dave's 17:32 post) Thank you both. My questions here are to understand where you're at for the purposes of formulating an RFC rather than debate. It is tantalizing though, that once you 2 explain your thoughts we seem to be not disagreeing overall, but disagreeing on a few high-impact semantic issues, I (or we) keep thinking that we're a few tweaks away from settling this, but somehow we never seem to get there. So I guess that an RFC is needed. Responding to Dave, there are so many possibilities for articles and names that I was thinking of not trying to go there with the RFC. (unless we could narrow them down here). Instead I was thinking of proposing the two different scope views for the article named "Intelligent design". The answer would not necessarily answer "what next" but it would, as a minimum, positively move it one step closer to the final resolution. There is one thing that I have to clarify. MisterDub says that there is no "DI version" and I believe says that the articl should be about only and all versions purporting to be science. Dave says that it should be about "the version promoted by the DI", seemingly (but not necessarily) in conflict. Also Dave "fuzzied up" his scope opinion by saying including "giving due acknowledgement of its relationship to the older argument from design." but not mentioning modern "ID" that is religoius and does not cliam to be science. Could you two agree on a clear definition of what you feel the scope of the article should be? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, the problem is that there is no such thing as "modern 'ID' that is religious and does not claim to be science," nor are there multiple "versions purporting to be science." There is only the purportedly scientific theory called ID, and the more general, philosophical arguments from design. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To sidestep (rather than debate) that lets say that there was a modern faith-based claim "intelligent design" (no claim of being scientific) that the elegance and complexity of life and the universe shows that God created it. Would your preferred definition exclude covering that in the ID article? North8000 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources needed: we can discuss specific published secondary analysis of such a case if it exists. Note that the design argument is a theological proposition, not a claim. To avoid this becoming too simplistic, be aware that we discuss in the article another related proposition centered [largely] on the design argument, creation science, which like ID claims that its religious view is science and should be taught in public school science classes. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We're beating around the bush; I'm just trying to get a clear statement (for the RFC) on how you/Misterdub clearly say that the scope of this article should be defined. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, we're not trying to beat around the bush; it's just difficult to answer your questions to your liking because you persist in a fundamentally flawed perspective. In answer to your question, however, "a modern faith-based claim 'intelligent design' [...] that the elegance and complexity of life and the universe shows that God created it" ought to be included in the Teleological argument article, not here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Misterdub, my core question is: Dave/MisterDub, can you write down the scope definition that you prefer for this article, a clear one?.

North8000, I have done so here (please see my first post in this section)... I don't know what else you want. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like for you and Dave to put something clear in the blank here: "According to folks on one side of the debate, the scope of the article name "Intelligent design" should be defined as __________________. Thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, the blank should be "the purportedly scientific theory 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.'" -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation: that could be read as saying it is about arguments from design. (The first 5 words are descriptive, and the quote which reads as a definition is a definition of an argument for design.) Perhaps what you intended is to say that...

this article is about arguments from design but only in the case where they are pretending to be science

(That would be pretty much what I think the article is about now, and what my recent wording proposal was actually trying to maintain.) The only other way I can parse it is that...

this article is about arguments from design and they are all pretending to be science

(This is pretty much what I think we need to avoid.) Is it one of those two, or something else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither. As I said before, this article is about the purportedly scientific theory. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I am just reading the words you are writing, and trying to understand your intention. There would be no point having an RfC with unclear proposals. So if you reject the two options I gave, the "the purportedly scientific theory" is simply the "theory 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'. But in other words it is simply the argument from design then? For example your words ""the purportedly scientific theory 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.'" could be proposed as an opening line to teleological argument couldn't they, because we know some people purport that? If you are trying to argue that the opening lines of this article and that article should clearly be different, it is not clear how yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two things that I think that we have settled:

The article scope is not defined as or limited to the Discovery Institute
ID is not limited to the DI.

Is there anyone who disagrees with these? (If so I'll need to put something on them into the RFC. If not not.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

North the funny thing is that at last based on past patterns, getting agreements about theoretical principles might even be surprisingly easy. For example all editors supposedly are already in agreement that we should follow the sources, and we should follow Wikipedia policies, but in practice the breaches of these principles are striking, and this has nothing to do with how we define the article topic. How will the RfC stop editors from saying "I just can't see how that the sentence says anything important, and I feel tremendously strongly about "readability" or something, and by the way I am sick of talking about this now" or whatever. That is the type of message which keeps the circular discussions going here every time. I doubt that you will be able to define any clear and distinct position that people will stick to, as shown by the responses you are getting already. As mentioned by me above, MisterDub's answer gives a standpoint which can not even be logically distinguished from a proposal to merge this article with teleological argument. Over recent months I have kept some amount of track of statements in running discussion about what this article is about, and it is shocking how they keep changing. Theoretical positions are constantly changing, but the actual meanings of the edits being defended stay mysteriously the same. I think the most recent trend was that this article is about a "strategy" or "scam" of the IDM movement. But good luck getting anyone to make that comment clearly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

North, you seem a bit muddled:

"The article scope is not defined as or limited to the Discovery Institute" – the article deals with the creationist anti-evolution ID which was creation science relabelled as intelligent design in Pandas, as such it includes background information about the broader argument-from-design as well as the development of creationism.
"ID is not limited to the DI" – as you've repeatedly been told, the DI didn't become involved until about 5 years after the publication of Pandas, but they've since become central to promulgating this version of creationism.

I'll add that the phrase "intelligent design" has previously appeared in various discussions of the theological teleological argument, but has not been used as the main term or the commonest term for that argument which is usually referred to as the argument from design or the design argument. Thus the split into two articles in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. . dave souza, talk 11:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, that starts getting into other areas but seems to be in agreement on the two narrow points that I asked about. I realized that I asked old (I think settled) questions that do not relate to the current discussion; I just wanted to make sure that they are such (or put them in the RFC if not). So its not due to being "muddled" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on the RFC but certain elements of what needs asking seem to be a moving target. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

See User:Andrew Lancaster/ID RfC draftNorth8000 (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC notifications and duration

There were no answers to my question on notifications. I am proposing the following:

All of the projects listed in the talk page header
NO individual users. If somehow somebody blows it and starts notifying individual users, then we'd start working from the present on back and notify all users who have posted or edited.

Duration: The default 30 days unless there is a very clear strong consensus to end it earlier

Agreement with / objections to the above?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

See further discussion below. But I would point out that if one of the questions involves specific policy/guideline interpretation, maybe we should post to some type of forums who would watch those policies/guidelines. In particular I am thinking about the argument that MOS:LEDE, WP:NOTDICT, WP:COMMONNAME etc somehow forbid us from including clarifications of secondary usages in a lede, and even force us to not mention them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Does rarely mean never?

Latest comment: 10 years ago87 comments9 people in discussion

I would like to compare two excerpts from this discussion written by the same editor. I am not blaming MisterDub because I keep seeing the same contrast on this talk page, not only in the posts of MisterDub:

Quote 1. These arguments from design [...] are rarely referred to as simply "intelligent design," and thus, have little to no claim to that term for its common name. [And I note here that this claim about what is common has never been proven by anything other than assertion. We have no secondary source saying this. Anyway note that "rarely" means it is not "never".]
Quote 2. there is no such thing as "modern 'ID' that is religious and does not claim to be science," [So now in effect the "rarely" becomes a "never".]

What the first quote is grudgingly admitting is that the sources say time and time again, in the context of textbook debates, but also in other contexts, that "your father's" "intelligent design" (just to use one wording) was not necessarily pretending to be empirical science, as does the "intelligent design" (meaning argument from design) of the DI. That means the second quote is not true. Please note that this is not a relative matter which can be handled (as argued further above by the same editor, MisterDub[8]) as a WP:due weight question. It is really just not true (i.e. verifiable in reliable sources etc). There seems to be an argument developing that in order to make this one sentence cease to say "untruth", which we all know it does, requires us to change the article topic. I am not sure if that is correct, but if it is correct then we would indeed need to change the article topic, as shown by the 2 quotes I give from MisterDub. But is that the only solution? Interested to hear what people say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, these two statements are both true, but your and North8000's persistence in calling arguments from design "ID" is the problem. Teleological arguments, as I said, are very rarely called "intelligent design," and the example you trot out from Padian and Matzke source uses an obvious anachronism (will you please look it up this time?). When I say there is no modern "ID" (in my second statement), I mean that teleological arguments are not primarily known as "ID" and that they belong in their appropriate article (Teleological argument). We don't all "know" that the lead has an "untruth"; you and North8000 simply believe this to be true because you don't understand the difference between ID and teleological arguments. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub if sources say "primarily" (which I do not actually even see in any source) and we change that to "only", then that is an untruth. BTW I do know what anachronism means but I do not see how you demonstrate that there is one. So yes, we are making Wikipedia lie if we do not change that sentence. If that means changing the topic of the article so be it, but does it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Andrew, the article doesn't say "only", it is clear that ID is a specific version of the argument from design. To put this in context, you've found a few modern cases of "intelligent design" being used to describe the theological arguments of Paley, Aquinas etc., generally while comparing to the modern creationist ID. There are clearly multiple examples of modern (post 1989) usage of intelligent design to refer to revamped creationism presented as science, as promoted by the DI when they came on the scene. You seem now to be claiming that the phrase has been used for a modern religious view with no claim to be science: source please. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, please help me understand. Is this what you claim?

You admit intelligent design can mean any argument from design. This would imply that we should definitely not say or imply that all intelligent design is something else (in any WP article), but...
But you say that it only ever means this when authors are writing about people from before the 1980s?

Obviously I did not know this, and indeed it would be a remarkable thing. In any case, please name a source for this, and also we'll need to let our readers understand this, right? It is certainly not being explained in our article now. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What an odd way of putting things, Andrew, you seem to be arguing that you've got sources which you don't want to put forward for some reason. To repeat, I don't "admit" whatever you're trying to imply, I've seen sources using the phrase as a synonym for the historic theological argument which is most commonly labelled the argument from design. What sources have you found that use it for a modern version of the argument which makes no claim to be science? Please be specific. . . dave souza, talk 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave I can not really understand your question unless you are implying that you believe what I just proposed to be your understanding. Yes it seems a bit odd, but that is also the honest reason I asked you to check my understanding. I am not holding back any source. What do you want the source to say? You are saying you already know sources treat "intelligent design" as a term for "argument from design". So what do I need to prove? Please help me out with this. If I am confused, I guess our readers can be confused also. Why would you not want to clear it up?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you're confusing what I said, "the phrase as a synonym", with what you call "a term". Hence your misunderstanding: the phrase "intelligent design" has been used in discussing the argument, the common term for the argument is "argument from design". To repeat, we've already got multiple sources using intelligent design as the common term for a specific form of creationism, we've got a source showing that the first place that the term was systematically used, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism was in the 1989 textbook Of Pandas and People, co-authored by Davis and Kenyon. Finding some examples of the phrase being used when discussing versions of the argument from design doesn't override that. We can of course discuss specific examples if you care to cite sources. . . dave souza, talk 00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a very straight answer is it? It is still not clear what kind of source you were asking for, and I guess you have given up on that approach. But if you want to try defining what source you think I have not yet given, please do. Until that moment we are still in this situation:

You agree that "intelligent design" is at least sometimes a term (or even "synonym") for "argument from design". By the way, every argument from design is a type of creationism. (Also note: I have given evidence that this is in fact the most common use of the term.)
You have agreed that it is not true that all arguments from design are pseudoscience. (Another note: I think you have never given evidence that intelligent design is ever defined as something pretending to be science. What our sources say is that the DI et al do pretend this, but we have no source saying that this pretending in itself is referred to as "intelligent design". Indeed we see sources saying things like that they pretend that intelligent design is a science, which makes it clear that our sources do not see the pretending as part of the ID itself.)
It is a basic syllogism that the first 2 bullets above mean that you should then logically agree that not all things called intelligent design are pseudoscience.
Yet in direct conflict with this straightforward logic, you apparently insist that the aspect of the second sentence of this article should remain, which MisterDub, North, and I all read as saying that there are no different versions of "intelligent design" because they all involve pretending to be science.

(The remarks you make about what the first use in a glossary etc are very likely correct, but not very relevant concerning the lead and definition of subject matter of the whole article. It is something for the body of the article, because we are not writing a dictionary. The intelligent design movement brought arguments from design to public prominence (but note WP:NOTNEWS), and popularized certain terms. One thing in the real world can have many names, and the names can change, but that does not mean each of those names gets a Wikipedia article. WP:NOTDICT.)

So I repeat my original question: why do you want the second sentence of our article to be readable as saying that Aquinas and Paley were scamming pretend scientists?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that here was the end of the recent epic discussion about the lead. At that time the following was the agreed consensus text for the relevant issue: "This is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, in which contemporary ID proponents present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"." MisterDub has made accusations about how the present lead was the result of said discussion and that people are trying to sneak in changes. (Indeed this appears to be the excuse for refusing to give any reasoning or sourcing, because it was already done?) I think the evidence suggests the opposite. The agreed wording has been removed and the original problem of the older versions have been re-introduced. Dave souza in particular should consider what his position is because he was involved in accepting that text.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to move forward on developing the RFC. Dave/Misterdub, if it is OK with you could you "fill in the blank" above? North8000 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The existing lead is fully sourced and defines the scope of ID. That answers your question, now your turn to give your proposal. . dave souza, talk 23:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This has gotten ridiculous. I agree with Dave souza, the lead is fully sourced and rather clear in its meaning. Either open an RfC or propose a clear edit, wait for comments and accept the outcome whether it is consensus or not. Please. Gaba ^(talk) 00:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We have no clear definition of any distinct positions, so we can not have any meaningful RfC yet, and I doubt we ever will because the problem is bound at the roots with that lack of clarity. See my note to MisterDub in the appropriate thread above. Concerning Dave's remark, if requested, I will also go through the thicket of sourcing of the said opening lines and demonstrate how the sourcing is not sufficient, at least concerning the issue we are discussing in this thread. (The implication that the term intelligent design always means pretending to be scientific. At least 3 editors read it that way, one of whom openly wants it to say that.) But I think I already did it in the discussions which led to the consensus version that has been changed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NOTE. After analysis of what happened here, I have proposed in the drafting thread above that we go back to the consensus of 19th September before MisterDub's "minor copy edit" (which MisterDub clearly feels was actually an edit that changed the whole meaning of the article), unless a clear and meaningful RfC can be organized, which I honestly doubt (because no defender of something without clear sourcing or rational will be willing or able to state a clear and distinct position). I mention it here because it maybe makes at least some aspects of this particular discussion redundant, and we should try to keep similar subjects together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. (also it was misidentified as a minor edit) The reversion to the last stable /semi-agreed version should be only in the areas of question. And I'm working on an RFC which I think will move this all a decisive step towards resolution albeit not all of the way to the finish line. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I you mean revert to this edit then I say no. It improves readability without affecting meaning and it most definitely is a minor edit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 10:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaba really? Look at the enormous talkpage discussion which led to that wording (which by the way is not mine). Look at MisterDub's own characterisation of these words as so important that the difference requires an RfC to change the whole core of the article. Your position is somewhat amazing:

After pouring abuse over everyone for ignoring hard won consensus, you now show that you were ignoring it all along. If the principle that was aggressively demanded was sticking to be hypersensitive about attempts to edit, and sticking to the version agreed most recently, then why now suddenly change that principle???
You say the tweak is minor in terms of meaning, and yet you fight hard for it. If several editors feel strongly that the change is not minor, and potentially reverses the work of months of debate concerning an issue which has plagued this article for years, how can a minor improvement in "readability" possibly become your top priority all of sudden? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, "pouring abuse"?? I'm not even going to comment on that.

Second, the "enormous talkpage discussion" is mainly thanks to you. Since September you have made more edits to this talk page than the next two editors combined. It'd be really nice if you could slow down a bit.

Proposing to stick to a version that has been stable for two months is respecting consensus. Opening new sections over and over and over again to discuss the same issue is definitely not.

I've not fought hard for anything here, not sure what you are talking about. I simply stated that I prefer the version that is currently in place to remain over yours. The edit is minor, it improves readability and as far as I can see it does not "reverses the work of months of debate " in any way. So yes, I support the edit and no I oppose your proposition. This is WP Andrew, you need to learn that other people can and will disagree with you over stuff and mainly learn to let go (please!) Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gaba, the 19th September onwards version which has been the consensus version as of 01:15, 21 September 2013 is clearer and more precise. . . . dave souza, talk 11:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way is it a consensus version when it was never discussed Dave? And if it is a minor tweak, why is anyone saying that reverting would require an RfC? Has logic been abandoned? Of course we should revert until we have a new consensus. That is the principle that has been insisted upon?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If one takes a look at Help:Minor edit it is wp:snow that it mis-tagged as a minor edit. (which made me not look at it) Not only is it not a minor edit, it is a major edit in an an area that is disputed and under discussion, and puts the sentence in conflict with sources.North8000 (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Never discussed? See Archive 74 as linked above. "Folk, I made a few minor copy edits to the new lead and removed a duplicate REF tag. I think the last sentence still needs some work, but I'm not sure exactly how to make that sentence flow better at this time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)". In the same thread, North commented on 20th and 21st September, Andrew on 20th, neither raised objections. And now, North, you're saying you didn't look at it ~~for more than a month~~ until now? . . dave souza, talk 12:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave I am confident you know that you are not answering the relevant question. MisterDub himself is the person who recently pointed to the exact words he changed as critical to a big issue (for him, and others). That is what drew attention to them and started this discussion. So where was the new draft proposed and discussed those important words? It seems like the edit summary was deliberately misleading. Just saying that I could have seen that myself if I monitored it more closely is really an unconstructive excuse!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Dave, Yes, I just noticed that a major change was in an edit tagged and described as being minor. It might have been inadvertent, so no harm/no fault to MisterDub, but it has the long list of problems noted in my reversion of the sentence to the last stable version. And any ONE of the long list of problems is enough to, as a minimum, require taking it to talk for a consensus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted North who unilaterally and without consensus edited the article back to the version previous to the consensus one (and yes, month and a half up without change is consensus) That was a bad edit North, you know you can't change a consensus version unless it is overturned (which has not happened) and you know that this is specially discouraged while a discussion in the talk page about that edit is occurring. Please don't do that again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(added later) That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the situation, at every stage of your post. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaba there is no other consensus version. You are defending a clearly non-consensus version but waving the flag of consensus. And this is not just me or any individual. The discussion which started this involved other editors noting the same old source-distortion problem that dozens of editors have remarked over years, and then MisterDub himself then citing the new wording which he (and you and Dave) all were then arguing until only hours ago was so important and so consensus based, that it would require an RfC about the whole subject of the article to change it! Now suddenly discussion is not needed and there is no meaning change. How silly is this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree and then some. It has the whole list of noted problems, any one of which is sufficient take it out pending resolution. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you are correct; that was a minor edit: it still says the same thing, just in a less confusing manner. That aside, perhaps we need to temporarily protect this page until the RfC is over. Where is that RfC, by the way? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The reflex shows itself once more: the push to exclude not vandals or POV pushing creationists, but good faith editors accused of, wait for it, minor edits which supposedly do not change meaning, and which happen to be the most recent consensus. This is verging on comedy. You talk of page protections and RfC's to protect this supposedly tiny little difference: It can not be both minor and major, so which is it? If this is just a tiny little copy edit, what is all the fuss about and why did you cite these exact words as being so important yourself recently? (Which is what drew attention.) Your descriptions of the contents of your edit misled me more than once. How can anyone understand this sequence of rapidly changing rationales protecting a strangely stable tendency in the edits you want? If the page is to be protected, then who from and which version? Until a few hours ago there was a repeated appeal from you and other defenders of this version to the idea that the recently reached consensus should be held to until there was clear agreement about any proposed change. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, that was not the sentence that started this latest discussion; you might want to check your facts before making accusations. And from whom are we protecting the page? Everyone! It's not a permanent block of some editors, it's a temporary protection from all editors... until this issue is resolved. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Misterdub, I'm working on the RFC. A part of the time line was getting the answers from you and Dave. There is also the still open quesiton on places that people want it advertised. I plan to be ready by tomorrow. While it may have been inadvertent, I think that your edit was like 2000% over the (very low bar defined by policy) limit for tagging as an minor edit, but also (whether you noticed it or not) completely reversed / added the assertion about historic ID. North8000 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite the verbal contortions on the talk page, I think that the 4 main participants here have been pretty civilized regarding editing. I hate to think that we need page protection. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I think the constant edits, reverts, and debate on this page paint a different picture, that we ought to consider page protection. As for the minor edit, I can assure you it was honestly believed to be minor. Perhaps I ought not to mark any edit here as minor, in case someone chances to think it musses up a particular message, but really, you folks had plenty of time to look at it and challenge it if you did not agree with this assessment. Thank you for your work, and I look forward to that RfC! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, just to "source" my remark which you question, see above as follows: MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) and Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC), and around there. That was the crucial point in the discussion by my reading. And the sentence involved was precisely the one you weighed on most heavily. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Except I never claimed that a change to that sentence was a major issue, did I? The sentence you were trying to edit was "The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience because it lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to edit anything (I edit this article very little), and you did point to this sentence as your crucial evidence of the consensus concerning what the article is about. Misleadingly, because you knew that you had recently changed the words, away from the consensus, using misleading edit summaries on this talkpage and on the edit itself. It is all very depressing really, to see how blatant this all is.

So anyway tell me again: was the change you made to this sentence a minor one according to you or a major one?

If it is a minor one to you, but you know it was heavily discussed by other editors, you'd leave it and not be talking about the need for RfCs and page protection, right?
If it is a major one, then we have found that editor you were looking for above who was trying to sneakily change the article away from the consensus. Case solved. Lets revert.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence that begins, "It is a version of the theological argument from design", yes, it was a minor edit. I made known that I did this, and there was no discussion afterward regarding said change. Had I left it alone, I still would've reverted the later change you made to the sentence which begins, "The scientific community considers intelligent design a pseudoscience", because it created a proform with no clear antecedent, as stated in the edit summaries and talk page discussion. And yes, we'd still be here talking about RfCs and page protection. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to put things into context, the edit that is being reverted back and forth is composed of three small parts: 1-the word "This/It", 2- the word "except" and 3- the words "contemporary ID". The version that North and Andrew are claiming as "consensus" is composed of "This" and the other two parts.

The words "This/It" I don't think are the issue here other than grammatical preference.
The word "except" is apparently the key word in the conflict. It was introduced by Andrew (replacing "in which") and remained in the article for less than 11 hours.
The words "contemporary ID" were introduced by Dave in a large revision and lasted less than a day.

The version I and others refer to as consensus has remained in the article almost one and a half months. It doesn't matter if the original summary said minor or not, the fact is that the version currently in place remained untouched and unchallenged for more than a month and hence it is the consensus version and should not be changed unless this consensus is overturned either by discussion here or by an RfC. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all and completely conflicts with itself. You are in essence claiming that we agreed with the edit which we disagree with. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a pretty easy concept North: the edit that remained in the article a total sum of less than two days is not the consensus version. The edit that remained a month and a half is. If you want to change the article away from this consensus version you do so by making use of the talk page to achieve a new one. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I would think that on WP discussion is relevant to calling something a "consensus" version? The version which we are calling the consensus version was made by Dave souza and discussed A LOT. The version by Mister Dub was slipped in without discussion, and misleading descriptions. It has no claim to consensus at all. I am glad that you admit that removing the word "contemporary" was a significant change from the real consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew please do not put words in my mouth, specially to claim that I "admitted" to anything which I of course did not. In fact my comment makes it perfectly clear that I take the word "except" to be the most significant change in the proposed edits.

The version which you are calling "consensus", as I clearly explained above, is composed of two main edits that combined lasted in the article for a day and a half. The change introduced by MisterDub remained unchallenged and untouched for a month and a half whether you like it or not and this conforms a consensus. Your reverts to a cherry picked "consensus" version leaves a lot to be desired regarding WP editor behaviour. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning your first sentence, sorry you are right. You did not admit that. (I saw the words "large edit" and went too fast. I have done what I blame everyone else of: not reading carefully.) Concerning your second comment I just can't agree: the concept of consensus on WP has nothing to do with how success in deception. The question is whether there was discussion. The edit survived only because of deceptive edit descriptions. I can say that in my case with great certainty. The feeling I am getting is that you are trying to "win on a technicality" without doing all that homework we did on sources. We should be trying to win anything. Gaba, if you are interested in doing this properly please respond to my simple question: was the edit of MisterDub minor or major concerning meaning? That has relevance to how we should handle it, surely? It seems odd that people want to leave their rationales so obviously unclear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond to your simple question to make my rationale perfectly clear:

I don't think it was either a minor or a major edit. I think it was a good edit that improved the article and hence I support it.

Now let me ask you something: do you think MisterDub put "minor" in the summary with the intention of being deceptive? If you think he did then I have to tell you I strongly disagree and I advise you to take your concerns over to AN/I. The talk page of an article is to discuss article content, not other editor's behaviour. Hopefully you and North understand by now that the version you reverted to is absolutely not the last consensus edit and will agree to let it go now that it has been made clear you have no support to change it. Hopefully. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a straight answer is it Gaba? In answer to you, yes I do strongly suspect MisterDub of deliberately mislabelling his edits and misinforming this talkpage, and I have explained the evidence and stated this already. I understand that your questions and advice are rhetorical and not intended to be helpful? It is all just bullying and POV pushing and obfuscation as far as I can see. Sorry if I misunderstand. The facts are however clear. Now can you explain why page protection, RfC's and words like "absolutely" (which you just used to contrast the before and after versions) are being used to defend one single edit which is NOT major in its effect? Odd? And secondly, you still have not responded to my questions about what constitutes a consensus. Do you say that it is not related to whether an edit has been discussed and agreed upon?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a straight answer?? It's impossible to make it any clearer. The ones making a fuss about whether it was "minor" or not are you and North, I really couldn't care less and not only because I agree with the edit. I'll repeat this once again in case it wasn't clear before:

Have an issue with an editor? --> AN/I.
Have an edit to discuss? --> Talk page.

The protection was imposed because you and North kept reverting the article to a non consensus version. The RfC was asked because you and North seem unable or unwilling to let go after it has been clearly established that you have no consensus for the edit you wish to impose. I wouldn't call this "odd" but you wouldn't like what I would actually call this, so I better not. I have answered your question about consensus I believe three times now, but here it goes again: when an edit has remained unchallenged and untouched for a long time, say a month and a half, it has become the consensus. Have more questions about consensus? This is not the place to ask them.

This is my last response to you, You have a bad case of WP:THELASTWORD and are clearly determined to not get the point so this has become a waste of my time. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your constant suggestion that my concern with one sentence is linked to changing the whole meaning of the article, which is not my understanding at all, are in stark contrast with your semi-answer suggesting that the wording change was not major for you. And please put down the flag of consensus? Your demands are in direct opposition to any meaningful respect for the norms of consensus on WP. The D in BRD stands for discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, your repeated accusations that other editor[s] are guilty of deception is a blatant failure to WP:AGF: look it up, you're engaging in battlefield editing and that can lead to sanctions against you. Please desist: I feel that although you're very prolix, you're presenting arguments with good intentions: you must assume the same about other editors. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Dave but indeed I am unfortunately not assuming good faith concerning this edit. I hope that I have explained my reasons in a clear and consistent way. I would be very happy to be convinced I am wrong about this, but I also do not want to insult this community by "playing dumb" about something which is blindingly obvious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Outsider comment

I remember taking part in that RfC last year (or was it two years ago even?). Also started by the same people and dealing with exactly the same subject. As much as I initially AGFed in the previous discussions, by now this is hilariously more than a little reminiscent of the wedge strategy in action.

The phrase "intelligent design" found in older works does not refer to an ideology nor a movement but are merely serendipitous juxtapositions of two words. There's already a hatnote. The subject is already clearly delineated. And we have an entirely separate article which discusses what you think is ID (but is not) in teleological argument, and a section here describing how ID itself was derived from them. These are the same answers given in the last RfC I took part in, IIRC.

By using "contemporary ID" (to presumably contrast with "ancient ID"), you are implying that ID as a discrete movement existed before 1989 when that is simply not true. ID may be a kind of teleological argument, but extending the meaning of ID to include previous forms of teleological arguments just because they used the exact phrase in rare instances is synthesis. It's like claiming the United Kingdom was founded in 3000 BC.

More puzzlingly, as far as I can see, making it seem like ID has older roots than Of Pandas and People only serves to do one thing: it makes DI's ID seem more respectable than it really is. So why is this being brought up again and again? How many RfCs have been made on this topic already? Because just looking at the un-archived text here and Archive 74, almost every section here ends with the same people steering the conversation into broadening ID to include teleological argument. Why? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, welcome to this discussion. You ask a question. As the new guy, I'll try to give an update of what has happened since August. I believe your quick summary is not quite correct on all points.

I arrived on this article in August, and I think I had no real preconceptions or position (BTW I am atheist and Darwinist). (So it is not the same people here as two years ago.) I saw exactly what you describe, and what still exists here, which is an argument that keeps repeating. Like you I wondered why. I read the claims you describe and I read the counter claims, and I decided to look myself, thinking I could help, and started reporting the results here on the talkpage. This is on more than one archive, because I put effort into this. I do a lot in editing precisely in the area of history of ideas, including evolution and how it fits in the history of science and philosophy. I looked at the sources which are used to make the claims you state, and I also cross checked to see what else exists. I do not believe this was done properly any time recently. Apart from receiving quite a lot of patronizing and sometimes very angry "not again" remarks, I think I have in fact changed some opinions on both sides, and received thanks from both sides at various points.

I now however find myself increasingly worried by the fact that new information is rejected automatically and there is a game going on which makes editing impossible, and the battleground eternal. Attempts to discuss sourcing are very difficult. Many discussions on this talk page are in fact like the post you just wrote "Hi I am back again and see it is the same old stupid arguments". I can fully understand, but it is knee jerk, and it not necessarily helpful. There is new information and the preferred arguments and preferred sources of both sides have changed. (For example I think no one is claiming anymore that the term "intelligent design" is never used to refer to "argument from design", and no one is arguing the opposite.) The scars of history make it very difficult to get past the idea that the "war" will go forever, and I find myself in the odd position of being categorized as someone who fits into that history as if I was part of it. That is the way the human mind works I suppose: categorize a person and then argue with the average person of that category.

In fact I think you are fundamentally wrong about what is being argued, at least if you were referring to me. The latest wording debate above is about one sentence, which was carefully worked out by consensus in September, and then quietly changed back, so that it now implies (again) that all "intelligent design" is by definition pseudo-science (pretending dishonestly to be something it is not). This is not what you say is being argued. But it is clear (and admitted by both sides now) that at least sometimes the term "intelligent design" does not imply a scam. So my position is simply that there is no need for Wikipedia to exaggerate. We can say the same thing without the extension into absolute speech. A few small word changes can (as they did in September) remove the straightforward distortion and keep this article basically as is in most respects. So people are obfuscating their true positions, and their edits, and trying to avoid answering questions. The argument against the September consensus has collapsed down to something no one can truly believe: "it was just a readability edit which did not change the meaning". (I guess this is not the argument you report from two years ago?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew and am also an Atheist/Darwinist. So we are both here on Wikipedian grounds. I think that things have made the 2% evolution needed to resolve the problems from 1-2 years ago. Now IMHO the article the we just needs another 1% evolution to be OK. Specifically a few wording tweaks (usually by just adding a qualifier) to fix a few overrreaching unsourced unsourcable sentences. But we have stalled a few inches from the finish line. We're working on an RFC which I think will resolve it, but it's a shame, being so close. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no contradiction in saying that "intelligent design" has sometimes been used before ID when discussing teleological arguments, and saying that there is no such thing as "modern" ID. Again the previous usage is not terminology. Intelligent merely happened to be the adjective used for design. Never in the sense of "Intelligent Design" as a synonym for a kind of teleology as in later usage. The words "modern" and "contemporary" both imply a precedent, when there is none. Compare for example with how "Theory of Evolution" is contrasted into "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" (Darwinism) and "Modern Theory of Evolution". Because while both have changed significantly (particularly when genetics became a viable science), both have essentially direct lineage with the core concepts intact. That is not the same relationship with DI's ID and the previous mentions of the phrase "intelligent design" in old sources on teleology.

And this kind of obfuscation is unwanted precisely because it is DI itself which is claiming that ID predated them. That is COI. We are basically taking their word for it when they dug up ancient books looking for instances when the two words just happened to be together which they then gleefully point out, naming random philosophers and theologians as their "father of ID" (instead of Phillip E. Johnson). It's an attempt to distance themselves from the controversy Pandas created in the first place when they were found out to have blatantly simply replaced every single instance of "creationism" in the original copy with "intelligent design" in an attempt to make it seem more like science.

It is highly POV. And from the wrong POV according to our policies. And yes, this is still the same discussion.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OS, with all due respect I think you misunderstand at least some things. As I understand it, the DI itself denies a link to the past "ancient wisdom" and claims that the term is an engineering term. (Their reasons for this are presumably linked to their argument that they are not practicing theology but modern science.) So denying the link is following them, and during August and September we achieved a bit more clarity on this in some parts of the article. It is the DI-critical sources peppering our lead which all insist that the DI's argument's roots are in theology, and specifically that they are an argument from design. We have not always been following those sources. Here is one part of the recent archived discussion of the sources, for easy reference. Also, I think you (and others) are still mischaracterising my concern: I am trying to work within what the article topic is according to others. As I understand it now, it is a bit like you describe: an article which in effect is about the overlap between teleological argument and intelligent design movement. [ADDED: And in that overlap, yes, there is the textbook scam you mention, and which is of course mentioned in this article and many others and in no way hidden.] I have no major issue with this, but am more concerned about making sure the article does not contain distortions. It has been my hope that smoothing out those is the best way to try to reduce the long term problems of this article. Others are arguing that an RFC is a better hope, and I will try to work with that if this goes ahead. It is not a crazy idea, but I am sceptical and anyway, the need for looking at wording and sources will not go away after that. I think no one is helped by mis-stating my concerns and my editing record.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for years, and I've been following this iteration of the discussion just about every day. I have a lot of good faith, often more than other editors I encounter. I've exhausted that good faith on this issue. There appears to be a very clear trend, an intentional strategy, to discuss and discuss the same issues so often and with such insistence that it drives off any opposing editors. If there isn't consensus now, perhaps we'll wait a month or two, or twelve, and have the same conversation then. Perhaps we can create new sections on the same topic repeatedly for months. Perhaps we'll feign giving in to consensus, and then propose a series of minor wording changes that progressively step towards our original rejected proposal. As soon as editors stop opposing a point we make in each of their replies, we'll assume consensus formed in our favor. I skimmed the last 10 pages of archives, and didn't find a single one where this same discussion hadn't taken place. The last several pages of archives feature this discussion almost exclusively in every single section.

I'm blown away that this has been allowed to continue for so long. I agree with Obsidian Soul, and Misterdub, and Dave souza... and Gaba, and Yopienso, and Professor marginalia... and Johnuniq, and Noformation, and Guettarda, Dominus Vobisdu, IRWolfie, and every other editor who has commented in a similar vein. Notice that half of those editors no longer participate here (myself basically included)? This is civil pov pushing by 2 editors. It has to end. This article's scope is very well defined by now, I assure you, after all this discussion! It does not include the teleological argument, or Aristotle. We link to related articles, and even discuss them (prominently) here, in hatnotes, and wikilinks, and "History" sections. Consensus distinctly opposes the idea that we should change the scope of this article substantially to include other topics; this topic is big enough. I can't comment here 50 times a day to say the same thing in dozens of new sections; I have a life offline. I'm sure Misterdub and Dave do too, and would be elated for this nonsense to end. We have WP:STICK for a reason. If there's some kind of confusion about consensus, then stop discussing it and start an RfC, and when that RfC ends, let it be. If we can't do that, then I don't see any other option than beginning to discuss editor conduct in an appropriate forum. Please just stop. Ask for editor input if you'd like it, but please accept that input and let's all move on. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please quite the accusatory and assuming bad faith crap. Andrew is a recent arrival and has proven the point with sources. The unsourced claims of universality in the article have not only not been proven, there is no sourcing for them as written. And while Dave & MisterDub seem to hop / fade away right when the conversation get to the core, they have been intelligent and civil and have not pulled the crap that you just tried, trying to villianize editors who are sincere and behaving properly. Quit it! North8000 (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously several (possibly a dozen or so) editors disagree with the claim that the article makes "unsourced claims of universality" or that "the point" has been "proven with sources". WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed AGF is not a suicide pact: Let's talk straight. It is clear if you read the sequence of events and the rapid changing of rationales that actually no active editors truly believe that the edit which was made by MisterDub was not one which was at least intended to create a major change of meaning against the consensus. That change of meaning has not been justified by any discussion on this talkpage, and it was slipped through with misleading edit summaries on both the edit and this talkpage. So I do not assume that MisterDub did that edit in good faith, though of course I can assume that visitors to this talkpage might not see this so clearly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm commenting on specific conduct that's been taking place on this page for months, and I'm not the first (or fourth) to do so, by the way. Two editors have been discussing the same topic for 3 months straight, contrary to consensus. That is the very definition of WP:STICK. I can't even recall the number of times you've been asked to let it go. I understand you think the article scope is wrong. Got it. The tactics you're employing in order to change the article scope are not consensus building, and it is beyond disruptive to have filled 3 archives full of the same arguments. I'll repeat: if you want additional input from new editors, then post an RfC. Until then (and after then), there's nothing else to say on the topic, so please accept existing consensus and drop it. If you can't do that, then there are broader issues to discuss elsewhere. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Man Jess I presume I am one of the 2 editors you mention. With all due respect I have a sincere doubt that you could summarize my position, not that you seek to be able to, and that makes discussion slow and frustrating for all parties. I do not see my editing here as connected very strongly to any RfC idea, which I see as most likely just another cycle of wikidrama. My aim on this talkpage has been to go over the sources, and the wordings and the rationales. In September this led to some wording tweaks which clearly made the article potentially more stable and less controversial (because less distorting of sources). These have been deceptively removed and now you guys have the same problem again. I see that the article is constantly being visited by editors who find bits of this article odd, who are then bullied and chased away, and that will not stop if I give up interest. If there is an RfC I will try to help, but I see it as unlikely that it will reduce tension of and by itself. Maybe indeed North is right that the article topic as it is now is part of the problem, but I have been trying to work with the topic as other editors seem to define it (though they are often very unclear about that).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Promoting the idea that ID is part of ancient wisdom is fun, but all good things must come to an end and the NOTFORUM violation of repeatedly debating the obvious over and over needs to stop. I suggest that we all stop feeding the drama—any unwarranted edits can be reverted per consensus, and the whole thing can be thrashed out (again!) after a neutral RFC has started. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a mis-characterization of what is being discussed, and that kind of thing is precisely what makes this talkpage so dysfunctional. The way I understand the situation on this page, your first sentence has it backwards. It is defenders of edits like MisterDub's recent one, which was clearly against consensus and sources, who are openly worried about the "respectability" of people like Aquinas and Paley ("ancient wisdom") and do not want that respectability to be linked to the ID movement, even where it is acknowledged in the sources and on this talkpage. The reasons are political: the aim of these editors is to make sure the reporting of the IDM movement is as negative as possible, even if it means going beyond our sources. I don't see it that way. Not only am I opposed to censorship, because it always backfires anyway, but I think people here are over-estimating the respectability of Aquinas and Paley. They are in themselves also part of a controversy which goes over the ages. As we are writing an encyclopedia that controversy is relevant. What we are not writing is a political tract and we are not writing current affairs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jess, actually this is not the old question. The old question was whether ID is limited to the DI version. The inevitable sourced reality emerged (that it is not), much delayed by intimidation and harassment of editors such as you did in your above post. The current (new) underlying question is essentially whether ID is limited to versions claiming to be science or whether sentences can implicity or explicitly say that. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would go one step further North: I have explicitly NOT been arguing that this article needs to be about intelligent design which is not pseudoscience. The only concern was wording which implies that there is no such thing (i.e. apparent statement of facts which are wrong). Such advice would normally be an easy decision on Wikipedia, especially when several editors who want to imply this non-existence admit quite openly that intelligent design does not ALWAYS imply pseudo science. (Not the talk section title I gave above: does rarely mean never?) It is really simple stuff actually.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Two responses to that.

You are (correctly) noting that the recent hottest stuff is not directly about article scope, it is about claims made in sentences. While the other folks fade/hop away each time you get near to the logical heart of the debate, and don't provide any full rationale for their opinion, I believe that it is a sort of logical "domino effect" from scope E.G. "This article is only about the "claimed to be science" variant, and so therefore one can make statements about the more general term which in fact apply only to the the narrower "claimed to be science" set, because the latter is the (putative) subject of the article. So I think scope might still indirectly relate to some of the current the current hot issues. I guess the question is what you / we mean by "this article"....that could mean the article that has (taken) the general title "Intelligent design", or an article about the ID that purports to be scientific (retitled) or the combination of the two which somewhat makes the assertion that all ID purports to be scientific. My attempts at mutual effort at dissection of these questions in the "RFC development" section had not takers, and so I am formulating it as just relating to the "article titled ID".
The other is that recently contested edit. Aside for the large amount of process issues, it essentially introduced a claim that all previous forms of ID also purport to be science. What you are saying is even more true about this.....it is farther away from the scope question.

North8000 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Second outsider comment and proposed RfC

Before I started editing WP, I had already spent several years slumming at talk.origins and had something of a reputation as someone who could track down obscure sources. After a few brief interactions here, I added my name alongside of dave souza as someone who could be consulted to verify citations. Andrew Lancaster contacted me on my talk page in this capacity. I have not had this page on my watch list for many months, had not been following this discussion, and consider myself to be WP:UNINVOLVED.

I will restrict my comments to two points of contention: the phrase beginning with "except that" and phrase "contemporary ID" in this sentence:

[Intelligent Design] is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God, except that contemporary ID proponents present ID as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather...

"except that"

I assume the following are sufficiently well supported by reliable sources as to be uncontroversial.

There exists a collection of arguments classified as teleological arguments.
Intelligent design as promulgated by the DI is classified as a teleological argument.
Andrew Lancaster wants to emphasize that intelligent design is distinct from other teleological arguments, and has chosen the phrase "except that" to emphasize this distinction.

On its face, this emphasis is perfectly reasonable. The problem lies in the choice of words. "Except that" raises the expectation that intelligent design isn't really a teleological argument due to whatever exceptional circumstances are detailed in the remainder of the sentence. A better choice might be "distinguished by". In my opinion, the structure of the sentence is sufficient to make the distinction without further emphasis.

"contemporary ID"

After careful consideration of all of the citations given to me by Andrew Lancaster, I find "contemporary ID" to be misleading and unsupported by the sources provided. At best, these sources are describing earlier teleological arguments in the now-familiar terms of ID. This is a rhetorical convenience for readers, not a claim for classification.

This is a subtle point, but it does have important consequences for the meaning of the sentence. The sentence begins by placing ID in the class of teleological arguments, and then distinguishes it from other teleological arguments by referencing the scientific presentation. If "contemporary" is added as a qualifier, the reader is left wondering what distinguishes non-contemporary ID from contemporary ID. We as editors can't say; no reliable source makes that distinction.

Proposed RfC Wording

To bring closure to at least these two points, I would like to propose the following RfC.

1. Do the following citations give adequate support to a distinction between "contemporary intelligent design" and an earlier class of intelligent design? The list is Andrew's, and he and anyone else is welcome to edit it as he sees fit.

Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century).

Context: after discussing Vico's unusual proof of God in the 1720s "from the intelligent design of human society", it notes "For contemporaries, the argument from intelligent design presumed that the existence of God was self-evident from the nature of the physical universe". added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back).

Context: it appears once in the book, "In one passage Socrates appears to give the very first argument from intelligent design to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent creator god:" added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[9] Francisco Ayala, who I believe to have some expertise in this area, talking about William Paley (1802), and saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.

Context: on p. x Ayala's preface says that science and the theory of evolution are "consistent with a religious belief in God, whereas Creationism and Intelligent Design are not." On p. 2 he describes both Aquinas and Paley as presenting an "argument from design", then on p. 6 says "In his Natural Theology of 1802, William Paley made the strongest possible case for intelligent design…..the argument from intelligent design has never been made, either before or afterward, as extensively or as forcefully as it was made by Paley." On p. 11 he says "Modern versions of the argument from design, 'intelligent design' as it has been currently named, are considered in Chapter 8." In that chapter, p. 138, he writes that in the 1990s authors including Behe, Dembski and Johnson "revived the argument from design" but "typically avoid explicit reference to God, so that the 'theory' of intelligent design (ID) could be taught in the public schools, as an alternative to the theory of evolution, without incurring conflict with the U.S. Constitution". added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[10] Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato

Clarification needed: a search shows the word "intelligent" twice on p. 137, but not the phrase "intelligent design". added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[11] Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity using this exact term to translate the name of the fifth proof of the existence of God (see quinque viae) used by Thomas Aquinas (14th century).

Context: a heading on p. 507 reads "Fifth Way: The argument from intelligent design", the only reference to intelligent design shown by searching the book. The index has "Design, argument from 507, 508"added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[12] Used to name a subject handled within David Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (late 18th century)

Context: the only use of the phrase in the book is on p. 24, on Hume's "arguments against proof of God, especially the argument from 'Intelligent Design'". added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[13] Again being used to refer to Paley.

Context: the Contents list shows other sections on arguments from design, then "Intelligent design arguments 163". The controversy over evolution and creation discussed on p. 12 notes "Another recent position, known as Intelligent Design theory" fuelling the debate. The points to be discussed in chapter 6 are noted on p. 23, "four of the main versions of the design argument" are 1) Paley, 2) modern 'laws of physics' argument from design, 3) the anthropic argument, and "(4) the contemporary argument from intelligent design", this is repeated on p. 147. On p. 105. "Creationism should not be confused with Intelligent Design theory, which we will hold off discussing until Chapter 6." On p. 147–148, on Paley's version of "the argument from design", it states that "Paley's argument has received more attention in recent years because of the ongoing cultural disputes involving evolution and religion, and now more recently, intelligent design (especially in the United States). Pages 153 to 211 are not available in preview, the index includes Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, the index has an item for "Intelligent Design theory". added by dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional references

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District page 24 – "The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987." … John Haught "succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God."

2. Given this sentence,

[Intelligent Design] is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". (citation omitted)

which of the following should replace the bolded portion?

a) no change

b) , except that proponents present as

c) , distinguished by proponents presenting as

d) , except that contemporary ID proponents present as

e) , distinguished by contemporary ID proponents presenting as

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Garamond Lethe (talk • contribs)

It is good to have a new perspective and someone willing to look at the sources and rationales. This can only help the article. I will try to be brief:

It might not be appreciated that the consensus version I have been proposing lately was basically written by Dave souza, not me. (The choice of the word contemporary over modern was a minor point, and as discussed below I think the addition of the terms "except that" was also a minor point.)
It is refreshing to see someone not portraying my aims in a highly distorted way, but as a simple attempt to clarify wording and in a way "disambiguate". I have done very little editing on this article, but focused my attention to small areas where there was already long lasting instability and controversy. A lot of the replies I get are knee jerk distortions or open efforts to simply make me go away. But where discussion has continued, many of the points I have made have sunk in eventually even if people do not recall where they came from. (I believe I can say that several times edits I proposed which were rejected were then effectively re-proposed by the person who initially rejected them, apparently without realizing that my original proposal had never been objectionable at all.)
It should perhaps be mentioned that I have tended to propose more direct ways of handling this disambiguation issue in the lead, such as openly saying that "intelligent design" can have other meanings in other contexts (such as our sources also do, for example Padian and Matzke who contrast the DI's "version" of ID with "your father's ID") and/or making use of the term "intelligent design theory" which is what philosophy and theology based secondary sources (very underused in this article, even though we say this is a theological subject) tend to do when wanting to avoid ambiguity.
I am not sure what RfC could be helpful in this situation. (It feels like some editors see it as a way to avoid open discussion of rationales and sources, by turning it into an election, and by saying all other discussion should wait for it.) But if one goes ahead then maybe it should focus upon the question of why such clear disambiguation in the lede is not "allowed". When I arrived here, the main arguments where literally that policy forbids it, citing MOS:LEDE and WP:NOTDICT. Probably this is still a belief affecting this article and it could help the article long term to get that problem removed? I am not sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to be more concrete, but really just suggestions for discussion...

I should have added that WP:COMMONNAME is often cited also along with the other two. So in effect I guess I am suggesting, at least for consideration, that the RfC should contain a question such as whether anything in the 3 named policies actually forces us not to name or attempt to explained secondary meanings of terms that might potentially confused readers or editors. MisterDub in particular has suggested several times that this is the real issue driving his edits, and which should go to RfC.
Your first proposal seems clear: you are asking, I think, whether there is evidence that the term "intelligent design" is a term not always referring to the specific argument from design which pretends to be science, associated with the contemporary intelligent design movement. Correct? This has been admitted a few times but it would be good for the article if it was on record.
Also, trying to be concrete about your 2nd proposed RfC, I guess it should be written in a more general way, such as simply whether it should be clearly mentioned that we are specifically writing about a contemporary phenomena or not. I am thinking that as written, the voting will give results that will difficult to apply in future without further controversy? I am seeing this question as the one which asks whether we on Wikipedia should convert rarely into never.
I guess some people are expecting the RfC to be about the topic of the article. I would tend to think however that this is almost pointless (it would imply knock-on discussions about merges, excess articles, POV forking and so on and open up discussion on the bigger walled garden, so it will make people even more defensive), and does not lead to better articles. Nevertheless it could be asked. I guess the question is whether the article is confirmed to be about the intelligent design of the intelligent design movement, which is pseudo-science. I believe it is not so controversial but having it on record could be helpful.
Potentially we could ask whether the term "intelligent design theory" could be more used to help disambiguate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Per previous section I've been working on an RFC. Goals are to make it neutral, and to go to the hear of\ the general issue so as to make a decisive step towards resolving them. I paused because the topic seems to have become a "moving target". The proposed RFC addresses a different topic which one could "infer" from the fog of the recent dustup but which I don't really see having been debated. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

North I am not really clear yet what you propose, so I am not totally sure what you mean, but I think the bullets have all been discussed at different points in time and are not just inferences? So just at least for discussion I have suggested a generalizing of Garamond's second question, and the addition of a question about whether the LEDE, COMMONNAME, and NOTDICT pages truly forbid us from mentioning other meanings of article titles in the lead. My other much more tentative suggestions are concerning whether we need to discuss the article topic itself, and whether we should consider the use of the term "intelligent design argument" as a less ambiguous term for what this article is about. Garamond's new approach helped me think a bit about how an RfC might be meaningful, so I felt it worthwhile to give those remarks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, I've expanded the listed examples with quotations to show the context which was previously missing, and have added one further source. In my view it's clear that the examples referring to the older versions of the design argument use "the argument from intelligent design" as a more descriptive synonym for "the argument from design", and don't use "intelligent design" as a term or label for the anti-evolution creationist concept which has currently been named intelligent design. . . dave souza, talk 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On your last point, I think that there is agreement by everybody. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well yes and no, and let's refresh our memories on this point which I seem to recall was a breakthrough in discussion between us in September: these sources do NOT say that the anti-evolution concept is NOT a type of intelligent design in this broad sense. Being focused upon arguing against evolution, like pretending to be modern empirical science, are both characteristics which distinguish this new type, but it is still within the general class of arguments from design. Do we agree on that? Dave, thank you for reminding of the fact that being anti-evolution is a notable identifying feature of the subject of this article. I believe that we originally worked to try to put this into the lead but like everything else which implies that the subject of this article is the member of a class of things which are sometimes referred to with confusingly similar terminology, it is not there anymore?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, Andrew, the anti-evolution concept of ID is a type [or variation] of the more generic "argument from intelligent design", you've yet to show that the term "intelligent design" has been in significant use as a label for that generic argument. . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that particular question is possible to answer for Wikipedia (we have no secondary source to tell us) nor whether we need to. It is clear enough that there is a big overlap area: Mostly the term is used to refer to argument from design but in the context of the textbook debate (which happens to get a lot of press). In order to count the most common usage we would not just need to count google hits. But is this important? Everyone seems to want to create an all or nothing stand off. There is too much cowboyism here. We know the term is common enough, and we know that argument from design has several names we can use. Main problem is not article name, but editing principles for the lead, especially a refreshed review should be put on record of what the sources say. But Dave, as so often, I can not see how your post connects to the one it responds to: not quite what? And what about the question I answered? It just seems a new subject?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I didn't say most common usage, I said significant use. Your failure to see that is instructive. . dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Dave, when we're talking about wording of statements, the standard is use, not proof that it is a major use. For example, a statement that "motorcycles have two wheels" is a statement that all motorcycles have two wheels. This far-reaching statement is unsourced, and unsourcable and also the mere existence of 3 wheeled motorcycles (whether or not one proves that the fraction that is 3-wheeled is significant) also establishes the statement as being false. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

North, what are you going on about? Where did I ask for proof that it is major use? . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Dave, looking back at your comment, that the term "intelligent design" has not been shown to be in significant use as a label for that generic argument, the simplest answer is "nonsense". But trying to really find ways of thinking together, the grey area in your sentence is the definition of the "generic". I am saying we do not need to define what the generic version is, and I think we have not way to do it either. What we absolutely know for sure is that the term is used for arguments from design. Since the term was popularized as a term for argument from design by the IDM, it is used in a high % of the very common discussions of the IDM and in a high % of the less common but more encyclopedic discussions about argument from design which is not IDM. Where we going with this though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLE#Questionable_sources

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLE#Questionable_sources

[1]