Talk:Godless: The Church of Liberalism/Archive 1

The Purpose of Talk Pages

I remind anyone who comes here that the point of talk pages is not to espouse a point or beef with the book or article, really, at hand. This is an encylopedia and while the talk pages aren't mean to be NPOV, using them to just make a point is not why they exist. Complain on a forum about the book or go tell your friends how awesome it is. Just don't do it here. --OMG LAZERS 22:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

'Tenets' Citation Requirement

The section discussion the 'tenets' of the book need a citation otherwise, they must go. Any volunteers? Citing the book would be simple enough if done properly. An online prof would be better. --OMG LAZERS 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Poem and Quote

So how does this poem apply to Ms Coulter's work:

Arthur Guiterman :

First dentistry was painless.
Then bicycles were chainless,
Carriages were horseless,
And many laws enforceless.

Next cookery was fireless,
Telegraphy was wireless,
Cigars were nicotineless,
And coffee caffeineless.

Soon oranges were seedless,
The putting green was weedless,
The college boy was hatless,
The proper diet fatless.

New motor roads are dustless,
The latest steel is rustless,
Our tennis courts are sodless,
Our new religion--godless.

Or this quote from G. K. Chesterton :

"But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it."

"Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts."

"In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
( Orthodoxy, Ch. 3) [6]

Sounds like the sort of thing Coulter would say, if she were more eloquent (and a lot smarter) than she is. Chesterton, like C.S. Lewis, had little patience for people who used falsehoods to attack goodness. But both were far more polite than Coulter, who is so shrill and combative I wonder if she feels she's fighting a lost cause. --Uncle Ed 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated text from ID

This is identical to the 2nd paragraph of Intelligent design, except for the first word:

The overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

No need to have the same text in two places. Better to link and/or summarize.

Anyway, what specifically did Coulter say about evolution? Shouldn't we quote the author before refuting her views? --Uncle Ed 17:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Motivation of critics

Cut from anti-evolution section:

Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims.

Is this the reason critics decided to speak out? Her reliance on controversial sources? Who says it's this, as opposed to the usual reason that her critics simply disagree with her? --Uncle Ed 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It said in the cites provided in the article you deleted: PZ Myers and Ian Musgrave. Try reading them before deleting them next time. There's about a dozen other critics of ID and dozens of Coulter who also say the same thing. FeloniousMonk 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in those cites? Can you quote them? Next time discuss the problems you see in other people's edits before reverting them. Please give me the same courtesy you demand of me. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't you read on your own? Do you go to the library and demand that the librarian find the ref you need? Please, learn how to do your own research, complete research, not just skimming a page. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

restore accurate supported version. Ed's was highly POV and full of characterizations and misspellings

You frequently used the term "POV" as an adjective without explaining what you mean. Please explain, don't just delete stuff you don't like (as Dr. C. says). --Uncle Ed 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Describing PZ Myers as a "blogger" is evidence of Ed Poor's continued promotion of his "edit first, research later" program. --ScienceApologist 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you're again resorting to edit warring. Are you sure this is how you want to contribute to Wikipedia?

The content you're pushing here is POV (and you and I know exactly that is and what I meant, so don't waste your time and mine), factually incorrect, imcomplete and full of misspellings. You may want to rethink your way of contributing, your being disruptive and trollish. FeloniousMonk 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you and Joshua are once again resorting to edit warring. You know I can't out-gun you, and you refuse to explain your mass reverts. You know that Wikipedia:Mass revert is not a policy, but you act as though it is.

Please discuss your changes! You can start by telling what you meant by "highly POV" instead of (1) refusing to discuss and (2) changing the subject to ad hominem attacks on me. I've asked you more than 1 dozen times to explain what you mean by this; I can't read your mind.

Please explain this, and/or point out a factual error or misspelling. No need to revert the whole thing 3 times! Only edit warriors do mass reverts without explanation. --Uncle Ed 19:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling Ed. You've become disruptive. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, FM is merely being factual. Given that you've been on Wiki since December 2001, I'm pretty sure that by now you know what highly POV means, know that your edits did in fact fit that criteria, and know that you are engaging in trolling and disruption. Fortunately, SA and FM caught your POV edits before an unsuspecting reader believed that what you wrote was accurate. And that, really, is the key here -- stop thinking about Ed Poor, think about the average reader. •Jim62sch• 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing the subject from my request to discuss your changes, and please stop making personal attacks. What "POV content" am I pushing? What point of view am I trying to make the article endorse?

The fact that you refuse to answer proves that you cannot answer. You are simply making up ad hominem charges to support your own rv. Everyone sees through this. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you know you're not that clueless (as do I), so stop wasting your own time. Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing about evolution in the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are the leading ID proponents. All are fellows of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. Intelligent design is rejected by the scientific community: The AAAS is the largest association of scientists in the U.S. representing some 120,000 members firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. More than 60 List of statements from scientific professional organizations reject intelligent design. the National Science Teachers Association representing 55,000 science teachers and administrators: "intelligent design is not science". The National Academy of Sciences says that intelligent design is not science. So ID is controversial and Coulter's reliance on ID proponents to tutor her on science and evolution means she's relied on controversial sources.

Like she says: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." FeloniousMonk 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you admit you are pushing your anti-ID point of view into the Godless article? Thanks, I thought so, but that's not what I asked you.

Now about my unanswered questions: (1) what POV do you say I am pushing, and in what way have any of my edits pushed it? (2) What factual errors did I make? (3) Any misspellings you'd care to point out? And why not simply correct them graciously instead of engaging in a mass revert? --Uncle Ed 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, as explained to you on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, it is up to you to list your proposed edits and rationale when there is a dispute and you wish to see a different version of the article. Your practices of editting the article and then, when editors revert your changes for various reasons, whining about "mass reverts" belies the fact that many editors have worked on an aritcle before you arrived and that you aren't owed an explanation to your satisfaction if you cannot provide an explanation of your own. I even demonstrated to you how to make a clear an concise explanation of your edits which you actively ignored. Pot calling the kettle black indeed! --ScienceApologist 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed, are you intentionally missing the gravitas of this quote "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..."? Besides, if Coulter can't write about evolution without the tutoring of those three pseudo-scientists, she wouldn't really be very bright to begin with, would she? But, as we all know, she is very savvy, and the reality is that she wanted to present a certain view, a very POV view of evolution -- the DI view. Like it or not, that needs to be clearly spelled out in the article. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I stick my toe into the water here only because it relates strictly to science, my field of expertise, as well as the quality of an article that reflects upon that broad field. I hope this whole debate doesn't continue in these talk pages because the point of this talk page is discussing our role as Wiki editors with the responsibility of accurately reflecting what the book says, not to debate the substance of the book. So, we should provide citations for her quotes, represent what the book says, clean out the POV, and move on.

Second, with the article accuracy and quality in mind, it does bear representation that her sources/tutors for the science sections of her book (which I've read myself) are primarily lawyers, politicians, philosophers, psychologists, and mathematicians - and their top fellows do not regularly publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals for the sciences upon which they regularly comment. It is true that only a select few of them have obtained a graduate degree in a hard science (and that the one with the Ph.D. in biochemistry got his degree in 1978 has not performed scientific research in the last ). So, using these individuals as primary sources for a book makes it clear why there is a controversy - and for that reason their qualifications should be mentioned. But it is important to note that the qualifications of the sources for this book, and not their views themselves, is why there is cause for such a reaction from the scientific community - the article should reflect that. However, I hope this article does not turn into another debate forum for the ID proponents to start whining about how they are persecuted - take it to a blog people. Nor is this a place for scientists to start debating the substance of Coulter's book. There are plenty of science articles on Wiki to which we can contribute. This is a book. Can we not just describe the book itself and move on? So, aside from citing pages in the book as refs to the quotes in this article what can we do to improve this article further? Astrobayes 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of Ed's changes

Ed

Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to criticizing evolution, which, Coulter brands "Darwinism."

Blagger Arturick wrote: "Anyone going to read "Godless" expecting a hysterical, ignorant assault on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, replete with Genesis quotes, will be disappointed. Shockingly, she lays out a case against evolution that relies heavily on logic, information presented by scientists, and examination of the motives and history of Darwinian scientists."

Blogger PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data. Myers also argues that readers should disregard her anti-evolution arguments on the grounds that she herself is not a scientist, pointing out that Coulter turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..."

Original

Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism." Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement.

The overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.

Analysis

(Since Ed has not chosen to explain his edits, I am forced to speculate)

Opening:

Ed changed "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to polemical attacks on evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism." to "Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to criticizing evolution, which, Coulter brands "Darwinism." [1]"

Presumably he takes issue with the term "polemic" and the phrase "in keeping with the religious right".

So is her work "criticism" ("The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything; esp. the passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure." (OED[7]) or is it a "polemic" ("A controversial argument or discussion; argumentation against some opinion, doctrine, etc.; aggressive controversy; in pl. the practice of this, esp. as a method of conducting theological controversy: opposed to irenics. (OED [8])

Coulter has no background in biology, and displays a deep ignorance of the subject in her work. Not only is she not qualified to criticise the work, she also doesn't analyse it - instead, she borrows freely from other sources (attributed or unattributed). No, this isn't an "analysis", it's a "controvertial argument". Polemic is more accurate (and thus more NPOV) than criticism.

Ed move "Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement." further down the page and deletes "The overwhelming majority[6] of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[7] or junk science. [8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[9]"

This is information that is useful to the reader. The fact that she has no background in the subject and that she admits that she was "tutored" by Behe, Berlinski and Dembski is crucial to a fair and unbiased presentation of the information. This is useful information (from Coulter herself), and does not belong buried as a "critics say"

While it isn't essential (from the point of view of NPOV) to include the explanation of who these people are, it's very useful to the average reader who doesn't want to have to click through the links and read three articles, and then have to click through links on those articles to figure out what intelligent design is). So this is information useful to the reader.

Ed then adds: "Blagger Arturick wrote: "Anyone going to read "Godless" expecting a hysterical, ignorant assault on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, replete with Genesis quotes, will be disappointed. Shockingly, she lays out a case against evolution that relies heavily on logic, information presented by scientists, and examination of the motives and history of Darwinian scientists." [2]"

I'm not sure what he means by "blagger" means, but since Ed reinserted it I presume it isn't a typo for blogger. I'm not sure what makes him/her a reliable or notable source - presumably Ed will explain this.

He then replaces "Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[10] In response to Coulter's citing of Jonathan Wells' arguments concerning peppered moth evolution, Ian Musgrave, argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution."[11]"

with

"Blogger PZ Myers, to Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[3] Myers also argues that readers should disregard her anti-evolution arguments on the grounds that she herself is not a scientist, pointing out that Coulter turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski..." [4]"

Characterising University of Minnesota Morris associate professor of biology as "blogger PZ Myers" is clearly misleading, apparently intentionally. It appears to be calculated to balance "blagger Arturick" with "blogger PZ Myers". Myers is a notable writer on the subject, and is well qualified to speak on the matter. This change is very misleading. Guettarda 21:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All that to say that his edits were seriously POV?  ;) •Jim62sch• 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Proving her theory

by editing this bage so biasedly in favour of views against this ladies views dont you simply further enforce her views? Proving that liberalism is just as fanatical as a religion. tsk, tsk. (an unsigned comment from Is04qoe (talk · contribs))

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you have something useful to add, let us know. --Zagsa 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, all contributions to an article to improve its quality are welcome at Wikipedia. However, talk pages are and should be reserved for discussions of this nature alone, while debates about the substance of an article belong in blogs rather than on Wikipedia. If you wish to improve the article, please make edits that do so. I am primarily concerned with the accuracy and representation of the science aspects of her book so if you have any particular suggestions regarding those I would enjoy seeing them. Cheers, Astrobayes 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I have tried to make improvements to the article and none of the edits have been accepted. What I find to be simply unabashed bias is the reverence with which Michael Moore's similarly researched publication Farenheit 9/11 is worshiped on Wikipedia, while Ann Coulter is just absolutely annihilated here. If you compare the treatment, there is a clear bias/prejudice toward liberalism. Which btw is highly unfortunate, as the uneducated will use this as a research tool, only to get half-truths and a skewed perception of the whole. Peace.

Amazon listing

This is not a classified ad, and I don't think it's appropriate for us to be linking to the book's Amazon listing. I'm gonna go ahead a get rid that link, but if you all think its really alright to have that there, go ahead and put it back.B1oody8romance7 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading It Now

I'm reading this book now, and I must say that its Wikipedia article seems more like a collection of gripes from bruised victims than an article about the book. Shouldn't it maybe be renamed or something? Or at least if somebody voices criticism, shouldn't the criticism be preceded by a long quotation or an honest summary of what Ann Coulter said about the subject? Lou Sander 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

Quotes

• "Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'" [9]

• Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident). [10]

Would it be appropriate to add either of the two passages above to the article? If they are relevant, would it be better to add them as direct quotations from the Amazon Book Description (Editorial Review) or to summarize them? The latter would look nice with bullet points. --Wing Nut 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I like 'em as they are, and I think it would be good to put 'em in. IMHO, one reason that there's so much "anti" stuff in articles like this is that there's a lot of work in finding and posting stuff that's actually in the book, or that summarizes it, while it's a flick of the keyboard to react to stuff that jabs one's sacred cows. Lou Sander 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it's just that Coulter substitutes rhetoric and cyphers for broader understandings and ideas making any covering of her writing an exercise in decoding and providing balance by means of the majority viewpoints on those topics. Favoring the narrow viewpoint of the author here over the broader perspective flies in the face of the WP:NPOV policy. 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading the book right now, and it's extremely easy to read and understand. The author is very direct in making her points, and she's a master of logical argument. It shouldn't be a big challenge to put what's in her book in an article about her book. It just takes a little work. Lou Sander 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Being easy to read and understand is not really the point. I've read it as well and representing her viewpoint in the article is not difficult. The issue is that in her book she demonstrably misrepresents many significant points and ideas, particularly about science. That requires balancing statements that represent the majority viewpoint, in this case the scientific community's. Considering she freely admits she relied upon for her understanding of science three individuals who have made careers misrepresenting science in the furtherance of their own religious pov, Dembski, Berlinski, and Behe, it's not surprising really. FeloniousMonk 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, place them in the article. FeloniousMonk 02:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Science and intelligent design

The last paragraph of this section is, IMHO, a solid presentation of the views of those who disagree with Coulter. Such things, IMHO, can legitimately be placed in articles like this. Here it is:

Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science prompted critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, against Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since theories are explanations for data.[5] In response to Coulter's citing of Jonathan Wells' arguments concerning peppered moth evolution, Ian Musgrave argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution."[6] James Downard criticized Coulter's favoring of secondary sources over primary sources, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."[7]

The next-to-last paragraph, however, doesn't refer to Godless, but to legitimate science's view of intelligent design. Here it is:

The scientific community[1] views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience[2] or junk science. [3] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[4]

While the shorter paragraph is well sourced, it doesn't have much to do with Godless, except maybe in a very indirect way. I think it should be deleted or, even better, moved to another article, leaving the much stronger next paragraph to present the views of Coulter's critics.

What do others think? (About the paragraph, please, not about the controversial Coulter or her views.) Lou Sander 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Coulter advocates for ID and ID proponents claim ID to be legitimate science while the scientific community rejects that claim, then the NPOV policy requires that both sides be presented: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Also, since the scientific community says ID is pseudosience, WP:NPOV has a specific clause for dealing with pseudoscience, NPOV: Pseudoscience: "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." The paragraph is relevant and necessary and will need to remain in the article for it to comply with WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention Coulter's POV in the article?

Coulter regards support for evolution as dogmatic, even unscientific, a point of view pointedly opposed by critics of her book.

Does Coulter say that evolution is scientifically incorrect, i.e., does she make a "scientific critique" of it? Or does she consider support for it to be dogma? --Wing Nut 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Coulter seems to be branding the theory of evolution as pseudoscientific, although no one in the scientific community supports her POV:

There is no evidence that it is true. The fossil record contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to "prove" evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology. [11]

Of course, I'm quoting from a blog (which is quoting Coulter), so I don't know if this is really in the book. Can I put this in the article anyway? --Wing Nut 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't fall into the same trap as Coulter with secondary sources. Direct quotes from the book are better. FeloniousMonk 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a direct quote from an interview?

• Cybercast News Service: Most people consider evolution to be a branch of science, or at least a scientific theory, yet in "Godless," you refer to it as a "cult" and a "fetish." What is your basis for calling it that?
• Ann Coulter: There is no evidence that it is true. The fossil record contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to "prove" evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology. (Of course, I would say that. I'm just a Capricorn, aren't I?) [12]

Critique of Evolution

Full Disclosure: I've read the "cosmology" section of the book, and I'm kind of familiar with her arguments. I've also read Origin of Species, but it was a long time ago. I still have both books. Basically, I'm an open-minded skeptic about both evolution and "intelligent design," or whatever it is. I don't love Coulter and I don't hate her, and I try very hard to be fair to her. I think she makes strong arguments, and the other side does, too. I'm familiar with the concept of odium theologicum and I think it swirls around Coulter (is she a shiite or a sunni?). My opinion about controversial matters is that the article is about a book, and not about its critics (or even about the author). Nevertheless, the critics probably ought to be heard. This isn't their soapbox, though, and their voices should be subordinate to hers, even though their position is more respectable than hers, is well-stated and sourced, etc.

What I think this section should look like is this:

The heading, followed by a brief, fair description of what the author says in the book. (No "this idiot says, against all scientific evidence..." stuff, please. That comes later.)

Some number of subsections, organized by topic or by the chapters in the book. (My own preference is by chapters. There are three of them, and it divides stuff up nicely.) As much as is reasonable, the subsections should include quotes from the book. It's OK to have the outrageous ones, but they're only part of the story.

Response of critics, where the arguments for the other side are presented. It might start with a summary of the conflict between the notions of evolution and "ID," or whatever it is. Please, no strong words just yet. Then the response of the critics should come. It should be well-sourced (but I don't see any problems with that--her ideas have plenty of articulate published opponents). It would be great if it could be organized along the same lines as the above subsections. It can be as strong and as shrill as it ought to be. Whatever its nature, we should guard against the response being longer than the corresponding material about the book. It should probably be less shrill than the shrill stuff in the book, since it's from real science and doesn't need shrillness for effect.

That's just my two cents worth. Lou Sander 16:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All of that sounds reasonable. It would help if I actually started reading the book, instead of looking up quotes on the web with a search engine. --Wing Nut 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Species has little to nothing to do with Coulter's actual arguments; as mentioned in the article already she conflates the current understanding of evolution, the modern synthesis, with natural selection, terming it "Darwinsim." If you fail to understand this simple distinction, I doubt your proposed rewrite will be particularly accurate. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wingnut (accidentally) hits upon an important issue. While it's good to have a read a book about which you are writing, it's a little but incidental - we are supposed to rely on secondary sources, not primary ones. We need to keep that in mind. Guettarda 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about this, Guettarda is right, we are supposed to rely on secondary sources. FeloniousMonk 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The End of Faith?

Is this book written partly as a response to Sam Harris's The End of Faith?

There are a number of similarities between the two, I won't bother listing them but suffice to say they come at similar things from radically different points of view if what I've read about her book is corect - anything in the index about him? Anything specific? This book was written about two years after his, which made quite a splash itself, so it would make sense if she wrote about it. I may very well be wrong, though!

An interesting observation, one startling similarity is that both books are published by companies owned by Bertelsmann, a company no stranger to stirring hatred (they call it "being a Global player" these days). They are pure muscle, and very capable of making "quite a splash" for any book launch, their Public Relation and media information reach is evident in their ability to lie about their Nazi activities for several decades. Godless and the End of faith are one of the same.

Dean1970 Oct 29th, 2006.

Evolution as dogma

• "It's very important for the liberal clergy to force small school children to believe in a discredited mystery religion from the 19th century -- evolution -- in order to prepare them to believe in the nonexistence of God, one of the main goals of the American public education system." [13]

This is Coulter's POV, not mine. Why delete it (twice) from the article?

Her point is that Liberalism (which she regards as a "religion" or "church") uses government schools to indoctrinate schoolchildren into atheism. Shouldn't readers know this is her political belief about Liberalism and its support for evolution?

If someone disagrees with her, shouldn't we balance her pov with their pov? --Wing Nut 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the edit summary that KC used when she removed the quote. Using long quotes to illustrate AC's position isn't the same as writing an encyclopaedia article about the topic based on secondary sources. Quotes should be used sparingly, and should used to illustrate a point, not to make a point. Find a secondary source that discusses AC's position, and reference it while discussing her position. Don't stick a quote in and say that you are presenting her POV. That isn't how you write an encyclopaedia article. Guettarda 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was wondering what was meant above by "secondary sources". --Wing Nut 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and Secondary sources. FeloniousMonk 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But she is right. Things that were taught in schools years and years ago are being taken out by these people who consider Christianity and religion a danger. --66.218.12.63 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Creatonist arguments against evolution"

Some edits to this article seem to characterize classic arguments for evolution as arguments against it. From the article:

To back her opinion, Coulter refers to examples used in long-standing creationist arguments against evolution (emphasis mine), such as Galapagos finches, the peppered moth, Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's drawings, and the Miller-Urey experiment, presenting them as flawed, discredited, or made-up evidence and stating arguments to support her case.

The importance of the arguments cited is in their longstanding use as arguments for evolution, not in their recent citation in arguments against it (follow the links and see). IMHO, citing them as the latter distorts the meaning of the sentence, which is that Coulter backs her argument by citing flaws in important arguments for evolution. Maybe someone can find a way to fix the problem. (One way would be to delete the word "creationist" and to replace "against" with "for.") Lou Sander 16:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The term you're perhaps looking for is examples used in support of evolution which are critiqued by opponents of evolution. --Wing Nut 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the listed subjects are primarily used by creationist polemics. Within the scientific community there's been little need for arguments for evolution or compelling examples thereof for many decades; evolution has been widely accepted as a valid theory since long before the 1940's. Meaning these haven't been used as significant arguments for evolution in the last 50 years or so. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If ever. Guettarda 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fel, you might be stretching things. I have been seeing most of the listed subjects as examples of evolution all my adult life. One of Coulter's objections to them is that some of them are still used in textbooks today, even though possibly no longer valid. Also, when she plainly states them as arguments for evolution, it isn't quite appropriate to twist what she is saying by inserting words that distort it, or that editorialize her arguments with arguments from the other side. (Also, Miller-Urey was from 1953.) Lou Sander 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we getting a bit off-topic here? Coulter's main point is that Liberalism (or possible materialism itself) is tantamount to a religion; and that powerful political forces are spreading it; in other words that atheism is beating religion at its own game.

Whether it's legitimate for Liberals or Atheists to do so isn't really the question. Coulter simply asserts they are doing so. And the only reason she brings up the Theory of Evolution is that it's a "religious" doctrine spread by liberal "clergy", i.e., public schoolteachers.

If anyone (other than Wikipedians) is arguing against Coulter's position, such an argument would be relevant: a denial that Liberalism is akin to religion; or a denial that arguments for evolution are dogmatic. --Wing Nut 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wing, I don't think we're off topic. The topic is the twisting of plain words by inserting anti-creationist material where it doesn't really belong, where creationist arguments were used only peripherally if at all, etc. Lou Sander 22:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lou, Piltdown man used in textbooks? How many schools do you know that use pre-WWII textbooks? Guettarda 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's why I said "most." Chapter 9 features detailed discussions of the history of "all" of these examples as "proofs" of Darwin's theory, of the subsequent scientific discrediting of "many or most" of them, and the recent (21st century) use of "several" of the discredited ones in scientifically respectable journals and textbooks. The book does not assert that Piltdown man is used in the 21st century, but cites it as something that the scientific community once embraced as proof of Darwin. Lou Sander 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's called equviocation. We don't use equivocation writing an encyclopedia, and we're certainly not going to find equivocation or special pleadings compelling for altering content here. The passage in the article is accurate as it is written. FeloniousMonk 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fel, you could help us all, and especially me, by pointing out the equivocation. The passage is "accurate," but it uses words and ideas unrelated to the subject or thrust of the main ideas of the passage. In doing so it alters the meaning of the passage and twists the ideas of the author. (It's not very professional to do that, IMHO.) Coulter uses the topics referred to in the sense that they were long used to prove Darwin; she's not in any meaningful way promoting the ideas of wacky creation scientists. Lou Sander 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you two are talking past each other. I'm guessing Felonious objects to Coulter's book because Coulter sides with design theorists against evolution. You and I (or is it just me?) see Coulter as branding support for evolution as tantamount to religious or anti-religious dogma.

I see these as two separate issues:

1. Coulter says evolution is a sort of dogma, spread by the "Church of Liberalism".
2. Felonious says Coulter's getting her info about science from design theorists, and that they are wrong, i.e., not good sources of science information.

Does this help clear the air here? :-) --Wing Nut 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this controversy, but haven't got the specific solution yet. That won't be hard if there's agreement that it really is a solution. I think an important factor is that some material from the book was put (by me, maybe, not realizing what I was doing) into the middle of a section on "Science and intelligent design," which is an articulate critique of some of that material. Much better, IMHO, would be if there were a separate section about what the book says, followed by sections that critique it. That keeps both sides separate, and avoids confounding their arguments. The stuff Coulter says is notable and has merit. Its rebuttal has merit, too, and there's a lot of weight behind it. Keep 'em in separate sections, and readers can make up their minds. Lou Sander 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Expand on this statement

"The mainstream scientific community discounts the allegations, such as Coulter's, that the modern evolutionary synthesis lacks scientific rigor, is based on a tautology, is without experimental or physical proof or that it "disproves God." The claim that modern evolutionary theory lacks rigor is emphatically rejected by the United States National Academy of Sciences which says that evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in science."

Isn't the above statement a little tautological, modern evolutionary theory is true because so-and-so says it is true? Couldn't we put in specific counterexamples refuting Coulter's examples that she places in her book?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.56.241 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 July 2006

The first reference is to Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), which lays out their refutation of creationist criticism in detail. Is that not sufficient?--RattBoy 09:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"media" note

Is it worth noting the coverage at http://www.nowpublic.com/controversial_ann_coulter_theory_embroils_wikipedia_over_racoon_gas_debate ? (on the talk page, I mean, not the article) -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Crichton and urban atheism

Perhaps the long quote from Crichton could be summarized, leaving behind a single sentence with an internal link. Should the link go to Michael Crichton, to Radical environmentalism or both? --Uncle Ed 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Coulter on evolution

Here's what a reviewer (a secondary source) said:

• For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.
• Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called "gaps" in the theory of evolution are all there is -- Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?
• Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

I think some of this "attitude" should be in the article. Supporters of evolution will, of course, disagree with the bogus science slam. Go ahead, take all the space you need to rebut her claim. Just let her make the claim first, before you rebut her. That's all I ask. --Uncle Ed 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, isn't it already there? The "Science and Intelligent Design" section makes it clear early on that Coulter is dismissing evolution as bogus science. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me the article makes Coulter's views pretty clear. The review is hilarious, though - "keen appreciation for genuine science" indeed. Friday (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd get a kick out of that. I just hope FM doesn't delete the review if I put it (or even part of it) in ahead of his rebuttal.

I like the format of (1) what the author said, (2) why critics say the author is wrong. --Uncle Ed 21:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about what Coulter has written in her book, not what Coulter says in a Cybercast News Service interview hyping her book. [14] The language added was merely a pretense to parrot her message yet once again in this article. FeloniousMonk 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is about Coulter's ideas. I know of no policy requiring all author comments about their book to be deleted from Wikipedia articles.

I welcome all points of view in the Godless article, no matter what their source and no matter whether they agree with Coulter or disagree with her. --Uncle Ed 17:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent change by contained some obvious redundancy, unnecessarily repeating Coulter's opinion about evolution twice in two adjacent sentences. I've edited it remove the redundancy and moved the cites to the bulleted items. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sic

A quote in this article refers to "intelligent design scientists [sic]". [sic] is usually used when the quoted text contains a mistake such as a misspelling which the quoter has not corrected. Assuming that it was Wikipedia that added the [sic], where is the mistake? I don't see one. DJ Clayworth 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment that was removed

The main point Coulter is trying to make with her chapters on evolution is that there is no mention of intelligent design in the public school system. Coulter believes students should have the opportunity to debate scientific design vs intelligent design in a classroom setting. Coulter argues that any mention of fallacies in the theory of evolution is immediatly disqualified because it's labelled as being fanatical religious beliefs. This is used as evidence in Coulter's eyes as being a liberal left conspiracy to create a generations of atheists taught through the public school system. --24.84.101.236 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)CPC M.Kinna

Evolution as religious faith

• Darwinian evolution has assumed a semi-mystical garb for many of its adherents which prevents them from examining it dispassionately without lapsing into personal attacks. Her exposé on the persecution of Dr. Richard Sternberg for daring to publish an article on Intelligent Design in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was eye-opening. [15]

I think Coulter's point about evolution being akin to religious faith should be emphasized more. --Uncle Ed 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Her "exposé" of Sternberg's apparent professional misconduct and dishonesty while failing to follow his employer's peer-review prcedures was factually inaccurate and biased, more like. I doubt her opinion that evolution is akin to religious faith is any less biased and more accurate. Coulter's opinion on both topics is just that, opinion. FeloniousMonk 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

General rebuttal to critics of evolution

I just removed this:

The scientific community discounts the allegations, such as Coulter's, that the modern evolutionary synthesis lacks scientific rigor, is based on a tautology, is without experimental or physical proof or that it "disproves God." The claim that modern evolutionary theory lacks rigor is emphatically rejected by the United States National Academy of Sciences which says that evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in science. Coulter's assertion that evolution is based on a "tautology" is also widely considered to be baseless, as are her claims that evolution is without proof and is atheistic. The scientific community also views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Read those sources, not a single one directly relates to Coulter or Coulter's book. It's not really the purpose of Wikipedia articles to find controversial authors and find rebuttals to their arguments. If, as several of the other references do, some sources specifically refute COulter, that would be more appropriate, but these general rebuttals refute creationism and critics of evolution, and are not directly relevant to Coulter's book. Seeking out rebuttal's to a person's ideas or a book's claims is not really what we're here, only sources specifically refuting COulter (and in my opinion, specifically this book) should be included in this article. Karwynn (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. Coulter makes specific claims about science and specifically about evolution vs. intelligent design, claims the scientific community has long rejected. Coulter and the ID crowd are a minority viewpoint on the issue of science, the majority viewpoint is the scientific community. WP:NPOV says "All significant published points of view are presented" and "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better." Presenting the scientific community's viewpoint is required by policy. Additionally, the scientific community views ID as pseudoscience. WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience tells us "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." And WP:NPOVFAQ#Giving_"equal_validity" says "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory..." Clearly the passage you deleted was well-supported by policy, and so I've resorted it. FeloniousMonk 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but this article is not about the debate over creationism and evolution, it's about Coulter's book. Like I said, these sort of references would be great in creationism, intelligent design or evolution, but they don't specifically relate to Coulter's book and really shouldn't be represented here unless they do. It's not really encyclopedic to go find rebuttals to every controversial author's books unless they specifically address said book. I think it suffices to link to intelligent design, where there are (I'm guessing) plenty of representation of the majority view.

So basically, my concern is not so much over the representations of arguments, it's more about the argument's relevance to the article. The article is about the book, after all, not what it supports. Shouldn't we stick to criticisms and rebuttals that specifically target the book (there's plenty of them out there), rather than finding general counterclaims ourselves and introducing them into the article? Karwynn (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter makes a very specific endorsement of ID while making some specific criticisms of the scientific community. How the scientific community views ID couldn't be more relevant. What part of "All significant published points of view are presented" is unclear? FeloniousMonk 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The part that says every article which mentions ID has to have a full-blown rebuttal from the anti-ID point of view, that's what's unclear.

The article should just say that Coulter regards liberal support for Evolution as dogmatic, and that she marshalls arguments from the ID camp in support of her claim. No more than 2 sentences of rebuttal are needed for that; along with a link to Intelligent design, which is chock full of rebuttal. --Uncle Ed 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's arguments against evolution comprise 1/3rd of the book. I would think a complete and non-superficial article would cover her opinions on which so much of her claims hinge in rough proportion to its coverage in the book. FeloniousMonk 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What if we applied the same standard to other articles? Roughly, it would look like this (using weasel words out of convenience - pretend these opinions have valid citations):

George W. Bush supports the illegalization of abortion. Abortion is widely regarded as a basic human right by feminists, who deem that it is their choice to decide what to do with a fetus that they carry. Feminists have referred to many "pro-life" advocates as sexist, chauvinistic and dogmatic.

George W. Bush opposes affirmative action implementation. Several proponents of affirmative action state that opposition to affirmative action constitutes racism and instigates race warfare, forcing minority racial communites to rise up against those who they claim opress them.

See, it just gets to crowded with rebuttal. If these can't be referenced to people specifically arguing about Bush, they wouldn't be relevant, right? And doesn't WP:NOR say (emphasis mine):

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.

Note that I'm not saying YOU are advancing a position by POV-pushing, but the referenced arguments advance a position. To put them up as arguments against COulter's book when the original articles you reference are not statements directly related to this book seems like an original synthesis of these arguments that is outside the scope of what they were originally intended for. It would be just as inappropriate for me to go digging up a bunch of evidence saying that ID has a whole lotta merit and putting it in there; wouldn't that be inappropriate? If so, what's the difference? Karwynn (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do believe there should be some criticism out there that specifically deals with the charges Ann Coulter levels against science in her book. If nothing else I know PZ Myers had a lot to say on it ... Cyde Weys 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but they ought to reference specifically her book though, not just a general response to intelligent design is the thing. Only problem is, I don't really know any specific COulter critics. Karwynn (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I tried to do in my 19:25 10 August version of Evolution as liberal dogma. I state Coulter's position (quoting her verbatim 4 times, as well), and follow this with a critical sub-section.

If the anti-ID crowd feel they need more space to counter Coulter's claims, I have no objection. Let them take 90% if that's what they need. But each "counter" should be to specific claims about evolution, or evolution vs. intelligent design or science itself which Coulter herself makes. --Uncle Ed 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

References

For refs included in this talk page discussion

NPOV

Guettarda, apparently you feel the changes I made [16] (to which Karwynn reverted [17]) detract from the neutrality of the article. I respect your views, and would like to see some discussion on this. I've added a {pov-section} tag linking to this section, to facilitate discussion of this Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. --Uncle Ed 16:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you read this first please, we've discussed this before. Karwynn (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it still appears you do not get what WP:NPOV calls for here. What part of "all significant published points of view are presented", "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" and "the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory" is unclear? FeloniousMonk 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did. Talk about twisting the majority viewpoint... Please stop misusing dispute tags in content disputes. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tags are for dispute contents aren't they? And why have you abandoned this discussion? I'm going to repost it if you don't reply, that's central to my (and I think Ed's) idea here. Karwynn (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, I'm not sure if you realise this, but most people have real-life concerns that preclude them from hanging round wikipedia all day long, just waiting to discuss the latest insight on Coulter's views. Additionally, would you please find me the relevant policy on "abandoning" discussions? Guess what, you won't find any because it's not an issue. •Jim62sch• 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A) They're logged on and EDITING THE ARTICLE, B) who said anything about policy? Karwynn (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You know the old saying "You can lead a horse to water..." I've pointed out the relevant policies, it's up to individuals here to apply and follow them. Afterward, when someone continues to repeatedly disregard as fundamental a policy as WP:NPOV there's little to discuss; all that's left is to enforce the policy. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't fly for me. This is a basic content dispute, those are resolved by discussion and consensus, not "I decided it was POV, and that's that". If discussion does not resume above, I'm going to keep reverting. You don't have the final say here. Karwynn (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That "doesn't fly for me"? That's OK, because your dog (the abandonment theory) don't hunt, either. One need not waste one's time trying to repeatedly explain policy to those who either cannot or will not grasp the concepts of that policy, concepts that are certainly much less complex than those of, say, evolution.

BTW, constant reverting is called "edit-warring". Is that the path you wish to take?

Also, the threats both unnecessary and unhelpful. In fact, I don't recall anyone having given you the privilege of dictating policy, or of issuing edicts and ulimata complete with verbal foot-stomping puerile posturing. •Jim62sch• 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, let's take this one thing at a time. First of all, which threats are you talking about? Karwynn (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained FM revert

In what way did my edits "whitewash" anything? Or "twist" the majority viewpoint of anything?

And please be nice to Karwynn, you might try re-reading Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks before speculationg on what other people "get" or do not get.

Review WP:CIVIL, too, the next time you're thinking of writing something like "What part of X don't you get?" We need to discuss the article, not what you imagine is going on in other people's minds. --Uncle Ed 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Ed Poor "Can we discuss the ARTICLE, not personalities?" [18] FeloniousMonk 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you have a right to scold other people for rules violations and a right to violate those same rules? With all due civility, sir, I must say that your behavior is hypocritical. Uncle Ed

Ed, do you have a justification for your edit or not? JoshuaZ 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, a few headings up there was a discussion that we had participated in about this. Felonious Monk abandoned it and Guettarda declined to participate. I assume that is the justification for his edit. Karwynn (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's simply not true. I pointed out the policy your suggestions violated, and you chose to ignore, WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV says it is "non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". You've utterly failed to show that WP:NPOV supports your edits or that it should somehow not apply. Unless you do, you can expect edits that violate it, like those removing significant viewpoints, to be reverted, if not by myself, by others. 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied, here' why (edit conflict):

Monk: Did I choose to ignore policy, or did I misjudge it? It seems like the latter is more likely if I'm editing wrongly. SAying someone is purposely ignoring policy is a pretty serious accusation. THe deal is, I've brought up some well-thought out reasons why I don't think those sources are not good for this article, and you've ignored my attempts to discuss the matter. Now you seem to be implying that you may block me if I continue. Even if not, you're essentially saying "discussion is over". THis is an important issue for me. I'll stop reverting for now, but if you don't wish to discuss the validity of these sources and their relevance to this article, would you have any objection to me filing a content-based RfC on this article in a couple weeks time, once I have a home connection? I'm sure I've seen content-based RfCs before, and that seems like my only option given your apparent (and I could be wrong) freeze on my editing of this article. Karwynn (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FM and JoshuaZ refuse to discuss the matter, even though I've restored the "scientific community" passage. [19] Oddly, I was reverted for the third time; by FM, who claimed that *he* restored the passage, although actually he only moved it up; I had already restored it. I think FM (as usual) and JoshuaZ (in this case) are obstinately refusing to discuss the article and deliberately attempting to deter everyone outside their clique from editing it. --Uncle Ed 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC) --Uncle Ed 18:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We're back to the clique shit again? I thought it was a gang. Make up your mind Ed.

You know Ed, you better than anyone should realise why the edits you and Karwynn keep making violate NPOV -- if I recall, I believe you once bragged about helping to write the policy, yes? There is, as I'm sure you know, a limit to how many ways there are of saying that the sky is blue or how something violates NPOV. Must one constantly find new ways of restating the same facts merely for the purpose of keeping a mindnumbingly meaningless discussion on life-support? Bah. •Jim62sch• 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Leave your personal disputes out of this article, Jim62sch. If you have nothing to add to the discussion of the article and have to resort to twisting Ed's words to make a point, just keep it to yourself and be civil. Karwynn (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you guys are done talking, than an RfC is in order. I wouldn't be able to participate for at least a week though. Plus, RfCs tend to get explosive, and this isn't that big of a deal. Are there any better dispute resolution venues? Karwynn (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

THis is ridiculous. We need WP:DR over a normal content dispute. I can't even believe I'm doing this. I feel like an diot because I'm not even all worked up, it's so silly a thing. WHY can't we just discuss this?? Karwynn (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why indeed -- a time for reflection, no? •Jim62sch• 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are being deliberately snide and unhelpful with these go-nowhere comments, and I'd like to ask you to stop. Karwynn (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempted compromise (which is I think consistent with NPOV)

Any thoughts/opinions/rants on my last edit? JoshuaZ 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done I think, I reworded part of it because it confused me. I think the "admittedly" should go back in though, it makes it sound both less accusatory AND more reliable. Someone defensive of Coulter might think "how do they know she has no background? They're just making that up." Admittedly shows that a) t's not just some criticism of COulter's education or whatever, she admits t herself and b)It's factual and reliable that she has no background. What do you think?

No scientific background

The version that JoshuaZ and another are reverting to has unsourced commentary, including that she has no background in ANY scientific thought, and that she attempts to overcome it using tutors. I'm out of reverts, so to speak, but this is an obvious NPOV violation to me. THoughts? Karwynn (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The three revert rule is not to be viewed as an allowance, for one thing. It seems to me that a lack of scientific qualifications is highly relevent if the person is trying to criticise a scientific field. Jefffire 20:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WHATEVER. I didn't violate 3RR, and it was an indication of me putting a stop to reverting for the day. Thanks for assuming good faith. Karwynn (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at her biography page, she is a lawyer by training, has a BA which is not in a science. MathScinet, JSTOR and PubMed all turn up zero hits for her as an author. Having no science background seems to be pretty obvious. JoshuaZ 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) That said, a version where it just notes her lack of knowledge of Bio (which is what she specifically mentions in the book if I remember correctly) would not be unreasonable. JoshuaZ 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

She says she has no background in the science of evolution, not no background in scientific thought. YOur interpretation of her education is your original thought, so it's no good. Karwynn (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether Coulter is a scientist or not doesn't matter, unless one desperately wants to believe that it does. The essence of the "evolution" chapters in Godless is HERE. Lou Sander 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but does that apply to the specific description we're talking about with COulter having no background? Karwynn (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Her arguments stand on their own, regardless of her background. She isn't doing science here, anyway. She is pointing out that the support of the theory of evolution has so many aspects of a religion that, for practical purposes in many circumstances, it is a religion. (The little Danish boy had no background in fine couture, or in royalty, either, for that matter.) Lou Sander 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There are so many problems with these claims I don't know where to start. First, no fallacious ad hominem attack has occurred. If someone said "Coulter knows nothing about science therefore what she has said about evolution is false" that would be a fallacious ad hominem attack. If on the other hand someone said Coulter knows nothing about science, so if I'm going to learn anything that has any reasonable chance of being informed on the topic I should put her at a low priority, that would be fine. The ad hominem fallacy only occurs when an ad hominem attack is used to dismiss the validity of a specific argument. (To use a possibly more clear cut example, if a celebrity endorses a medical product, it is a valid critique to observe that the celebrity is not a doctor). Second, the idea that evolution is somehow religiously based is one of the oldest and most debunked of tired creationist arguments. Third, the analogy to the emperor's new clothes is deeply flawed; people have been attacking evolution for 150 years now. If it didn't have any clothing, it would have been given up long ago. This is much more akin to many little children shouting "the emperor has no clothes" and all the adults just ignoring them because they all can see the clothing. JoshuaZ 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, as I've said before, you have no source saying that COulter has no background in scientific thought whatsoever. THat's different from saying she has none in the science of evolution. Additionally, your thoughts on the validity of COulter's arguments are as irrelevant as my own. That's what I've been saying all this time: we're not here to make original comparisons and bring outside viewpoints into the article. THat's original research as defined by WP:NOR. If her claims are that outrageous, it should be easier to find sources directly targetting her book, rather than those refuting intelligent design in general. I've said this several times and gotten no response. Karwynn (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

reduce indent You mean Coulter's admission that she didn't know squat about evolution and had to rely on Dembskiites to school her so she could write her book doesn't matter? Her own comments belie any knowledge of science -- unless it's all just a big façade and she's only in it for the money. •Jim62sch• 00:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a background in science to write about science for laymen, any more than you need a background in science (or encyclopedia editing) to edit science-related articles in free encyclopedias. Is evolution science cool and above board? Two words: Peer Review. Two more (or is it 2.5?): Hwang Woo-suk.

Lou Sander 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lou, your above comment seems to be a non-sequitor, what does peer review have to do with writing for laymen? Furthermore, if anything people who write for laymen need to have a better understanding of an area because they need to not only understand the area but be able to explain it well and make judgements about when to sacrifice accuracy for clarity. In any event, this is all wildly OT. Can we please stick to what the talk page is for please? JoshuaZ 02:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only person who thought that. •Jim62sch• 13:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Characterization of Coulter's attacks

The "Science and Intelligent Design" section begins with a piece that appears to be erroneous:

Coulter, who has no formal scientific background, nevertheless devotes approximately one-third of the book to attacks on science and evolution, which, in keeping with the religious right, Coulter terms "Darwinism."

Firstly, the way I understand it, they aren't attacks on science, they're a defense of scientific rigor against what she believes is not science. If she attacks science in general or even in particular, it ought to be documented here in the article.

Likewise with evolution. Evidence from the book ought to be provided that she attacks evolution in general rather than Darwin's presentation of evolutionary theory, or the reasoning of particular kinds of evolutionists.

Next, there is no evidence from the book presented here that Coulter uses "science and evolution" as a synonym for Darwinism, and given the claim that Coulter's goal is to attack science when it appears to be the opposite, there is grounds for skepticism for such a claim of synonymal usage. Darwinism often refers to the theory of evolution as it was first promulgated by Darwin as well as the philosophical baggage attached to those with a committed belief in the theory.

Coulter seems to be arguing that Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis in the 19th century and its philosophical projections into the nature of the known universe was based on shaky evidentiary grounds, and yet persons of particular philosophical persuasions clung to it with a religious zeal--and that the same process is happening today with what she believes is a theory (and through it an accompanying philosophy) that remains lacking in rigor. I may be wrong and her argument may be more anti-science than what I have stated. But there is no evidence from the book presented here that shows otherwise.

Finally, the lead sentence of the section claims that the said synonymal usage of "science and evolution" with "Darwinism" is "in keeping with the religious right", is in effect a promotion of a stereotype in the writer's mind that conservative religious persons scorn science.

For these four reasons I am rewriting the lead sentence and awaiting documentation to verify the claims that it formerly made. 64.154.26.251 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

American liberalism

There seems to be a pro-Coulter bias in the begining of the article, which is strange considering how often the book has been attacked by all sorts of people. There was even an interesting discussion of it on Fox 'News' of all places, as recapped at the following right-wing website:

http://newsbusters.org/node/5806

Maybe it would be too much too include criticisms in the first bit, but it is too generous to Coulter to say that the book is a jeremiad against American liberalism. Coulter's use of the word liberalism is hardly standard, and as such it would be NPOV to say it is an attack on what she calls liberalism. Take a look at the following review, for instance, which argues that there is no such thing as 'liberalism,' in the sense of the word that Coulter uses it:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic

Age of the Earth

Are there any statements in the book or elsewhere that indicate whether Ann is young or old earth? That would be as relevant as much of the info here. Tim Long 05:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Probably young earth, because she associates with YEC activists Zobango (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design as a Philosophy

While I cannot find reference to this, should not mention be made (in the section describing it as junk science) that intelligent design can legitimately be taught in public schools as a philosophy? I admit the notion makes me rather ill that any adult could find it valid, but the point of studying philosophies is to expand one's horizons, n'est pas?--Wikidelphia 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a book about intelligent design. It's a book demonstrating the religious nature of American "liberalism." Hits a nerve, doesn't it? Lou Sander 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I know, but it does discuss ID as a central issue of the book. Perhaps this is misplaced; I shall reconsider --Wikidelphia 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Accusations of plagiarism, distortions and falsehoods" should be removed

Not only does this section not describe any actual plagerism, but the citations do not meet wiki standards. Everything is biased right down to the existence of the section. I think that we should follow the example of Ann Coulter's bio article and remove this section.

Why? Just because you happen to like what Coulter writes does not mean that she should be immune from criticism. I would hardly expect an article about another book to remove prominent criticism, so it shouldn't happen here.--NeoNerd 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, because the "accusations" are trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. They DO, however advance a certain point of view, so some editors and administrators are reluctant to see them removed. Lou Sander 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to be drawn into a conflict here, but as far as I can see, the article mentions the criticism, but also the response of Coulters publisher. The article already states that Coulter's publisher considers the accusations trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. Feel free to expand the section on Coulter's response, but entirely removing the section creates the false impression that there have never been allegations about the book's orignality.--NeoNerd 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Lou Sander 02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)