Talk:Wedge strategy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mistaken Reference

Ref. #13 quotes "The objective (of the Wedge Strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate ... " and links to Darwinism: Science or Philosophy (Phillip Johnson). I don't see those words in that paper - can't find where he did say that. --BAPhilp 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was said by Johnson in an article in the April 1999 issue of Church and State Magazine, as cited by [[1], [2], [3]. I'll fix the cite. FeloniousMonk 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, those aren't Johnson's exact words... Those are the words of Rob Boston (the article's author) describing Johnson's position. An accurate description, I'm sure, but not something that can be directly attributed to Johnson himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruined Saint (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet it still is directly attributed to him and people are reverting it when it is rightfully removed. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was corrected already before your post here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Large deletions by joshuaschroeder

Large deletions should be discussed before effectuated. It is a fundraising letter that was intended for supporters. It can be misconstrued out of context. What I added was a factual statement about what the DI says about the context of the original document and about false allegations made. What the Discovery Institute says about it, and about the allegations made by others, is very relevant and important for balancing this article. There should be consensus before such massive deletions. --VorpalBlade 01:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This wasn't a large deletion, and even so removal of irrelevent or inconsequential material does not need to be discussed beforehand. We can talk about your grievances on the talkpage and I am certainly hopeful that we will come up with a solution that is a good NPOV presentation of the material. Joshuaschroeder 01:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So why do you think it is irrelevant? As noted above, I think it is. If you think I made what they said sound like fact, then we can make changes to make clear that it is their explanation. You can also add what others say about it, like B. Forrest, I think?--VorpalBlade 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think much of it was irrelevant because many of the quotes seemed to be fighting against an argument that wasn't made in the article. I will consider your new additions. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding the heading is a good solution. I left out some of the text you deleted, but adding a little more is appropriate in explaining the strategy.

One of the main problems I have with this is the the Wedge Strategy doc is not the best place to find out what the strategy is. That was a fundraising letter, but the best exposition was Johnson's book with the same name. That book explained it for all readers. The fundraising doc. assumes that the target audience is sympathetic and understands the context, the means, etc.--VorpalBlade 02:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you here. The assumption of the target audience needs to be mentioned (as we try to in the introduction), but just because the target audience isn't vetted for public consumption doesn't mean that it isn't a good source for finding out what the strategy is. To claim this would be akin to claiming that it would be better to find out about any company or country's policy from publications that they design to be released to the public rather than through internal memoranda. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main point of the strategy as Johnson lays it out is to stop the inappropriate domination of science by the a priori philosophy of naturalism. This doesn't come out in the article. This article is really about the Wedge Strategy document, not really about the strategy. --VorpalBlade 02:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it does. The philosophy of naturalism and its association with secularism seems very clear to me. Joshuaschroeder 04:11, 18 April 2005 (UTC)

Attempted reincorporation

Many of the quotes used that go on in length about the magnamity of the Discovery Institute with respect to not wanting to impose ideas are a bit of a stretch from a NPOV sense. We should stick to consistent arguments that are made rather than ones that require detailed explanation. I'm not sure how one can NPOV formulate the claim that the Discovery Institute opposes the imposition of any a priori assumption while only supporting ID projects. Joshuaschroeder 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the above contains absolutely nothing but vague personal opinion. please identify policy justifications for your edit. thank you. Ungtss 04:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not a personal opinion that the Discovery Institute sponsors only ID scientists. Joshuaschroeder 06:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not personal opinion that princeton sponsors only evolutionary scientists, either. what relevence? reverting until you provide a justification for your gutting. Ungtss 12:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current article contains about 33 lines that for the most part selectively quote from one DI document. The explanation contains 17 lines that explains the larger context and explains the DI's position with respect to the way that doc. has been interpreted. I don't see how that is unreasonable. I cut down the explanation section somewhat in response to your objection. I think the first 33 lines give way more time than this one document deserves, but I have not deleted any of this section (just edits for accuracy). I don't think you should take out more of the last section before reaching a consensus here, so we do not end up in an edit war.

By the way, I appreciate Joshua's changes to the intro to make the context clearer, and your header for organization is good. I think the article needs a good neutral summary of how Johnson explains the Wedge in his book. --VorpalBlade 14:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for this, Vorpal. We should be explicit though that it is Johnson's take on the matter we are trying to describe and we should also be clear that his agenda as one of the "founding fathers" of the ID movement is apparent. I don't think it is relevant to count lines in the article. NPOV does not mean equal time is necessary. You may feel that there are irrelevant statements -- if so, remove them or rework them. As it stands, Ungtss is simply knee-jerk reverting rather than trying to work here. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, VorpalBlade. Joshuaschroeder 14:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As usual, the above contains nothing but personal opinion. you are deleting attributed and relevent material without justification. justify your deletion. Ungtss 14:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a evolution adherent, but I am ashamed at the intro. It is COMPLETELY misleading about quote 2, which is made to sound as though it is IN the actual wedge document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.79.100 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Justified edit

Here is the version that Ungtss likes (version a):

"...It lists examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state.

"It stated that, far from trying to impose its worldview on science, one of its main aims is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy on the interpretive freedom of scientists. It "rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the practice of science, and challenges "scientific materialism--the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone." It articulates a "strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate."[4]"

Here is my version (version b):

"The Wedge strategy is claimed to be an opposition to the dominant a priori philosophy and a support of the interpretive freedom of scientists. The goal of the strategy is described as "influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate".

"The defenders of the Discovery Institute point to examples of activities that directly contradict many of the allegations made with respect to the Wedge strategy, including sponsoring a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation of church and state."

Now, first of all, the pronoun is not well-determined in version a. What is the "it"? Is it the Discovery Institute? Wedge document: so what? What is it? To say that one of the major aims of either the Discovery Institute or the Wedge strategy is to oppose the imposition of any a priori philosophy is a bit misleading because DI sponsors solely ID researchers. It is important to point out that they oppose what they see as the dominant philosophy. More than this, the bit about the critique of scientific materialism is discussed above obliquely at least, but according to the wider goals of the Wedge strategy, it is only an oblique mention anyway. Johnson may talk more about scientific materialism in his book on the subject -- if so, that should be included in that bit there. But as it stands here, the mention of materialism above should suffice and it seems extremely redundant to reinclude it in the defense of the strategy. Other than that, everything else is included in a more stylized fashion, so Ungtss' objections mystify me once again. Joshuaschroeder 16:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, Vorpalblade? Ungtss 20:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to read the above carefully, or look at all the changes, but here are some observations: 1. after a quick read, the current article doesn't look too bad to me- joshua seems to have left in a lot in the explanation; 2. he seems to be making an effort to improve the article overall, rather than just deleting whole chunks with no explanation like some others have done. I don't have time at the moment to look more carefully, but I hope to. I think Ungtss makes very good points and I have found him to be very reasonable and constructive on other pages. I don't think he is being knee jerk at all. I definitely agree more with Ungtss' comments, but need more time to look at the current details. --VorpalBlade 21:20, 18 April 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Most of this is pretty biased, in my opinion. For example, the wedge document that is the basis for the whole thing is referenced on a man's website that is clearly against all that Discovery may be about, and, from what I've seen, largely misunderstanding them. This article does not generously provide counters to suspicion of ID and Discovery. I don't have the time go through it right now, but should someone else come across this, please provide your comments as well. I'll be back for more later.

--Swmeyer 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I see your vigorous denials of the obvious in your campaign to return all ID-related articles to the Discovery Institute-approved content continues apace.

The Discovery Institutes's Steven C. Meyer has confirmed the Wedge document. Phillip E. Johnson is explicit in his statements about the Wedge strategy.

This is all in the article, and well-cited with supporting links to credible sources. The article is NPOV and factual.

You may want to reconsider your own strategy here though; going to every ID-related article with an ideological ax to grind is not contributing to wikipedia's goal, which is compiling a complete and factual encyclopedia. FeloniousMonk 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's a clearly POV statement: "First, because of the Discovery Institute’s successful public relations campaign to make "intelligent design" a household word, more people now also recognize it as the religious concept of creationism." The word 'recognize' is a success term. You can't recognize A as B unless A really is B. If it's not B, you can still perceive it as B, but you can't recognize it as B. That smuggles in an endorsement that intelligent design is the religious concept of creationism, which is just obviously false. Intelligent design is a philosophical argument that its supporters try to pass off as science and its opponents try to pass off as religious creationism. I can't see how the latter could more less immoral or deceptive than the former. Intelligent design arguments are simply classic teleological arguments for the existence of God and are not based on religious premises but are based on scientific observation. Those premises then enter into a philosophical argument that, regardless of whether it's a good argument, is simply not religious creationism but is classic philosophical argumentation. This article is clearly POV until that sort of thing is removed. You can't recognize something as religious creationism when it's demonstrably false that it's religious creationism. Parableman 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"...but are based on scientific observation" Which scientific observations would those be? do you have a source for this assertion? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no motivation to provide for you sources for things that almost the entire scientific community accepts without hesitation. No one really questions the evidence that things appear to be designed. The question is whether we should infer that they are designed. It's scientifically observable that the cosmological constants are in the very narrow range that would allow for human life. It's what you conclude from that that's controversial. Parableman 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"No one really questions the evidence that things appear to be designed." No, actually the vast majority of the scientific community has rejected that the universe appears designed; the teleological argument or the fine-tuned universe argument:The U.S. National Academy of Sciences says that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" i.e; the teleological argument, are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own:[5] The same majority of the scientific community has rejected rejected intelligent design specifically: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design, 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S. at 120,000 members firmly rejects design: [6] More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes: [7]. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism like the teleological argument: [8] The National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators views design as not science but pseudoscience: [9] Given the above evidence, I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that no one in the scientific community questions the evidence that things appear to be designed.

"I have no motivation to provide for you sources for things that almost the entire scientific community accepts without hesitation." Then there's no point in your commenting here, given that I've provided ample sources that almost the entire scientific community has severe reservations over the concept of "design." FeloniousMonk 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that everyone thinks things are designed. I'm saying everyone pretty much agrees that they appear designed. Many scientists, perhaps most, don't think there's any reason to conclude that that are designed. But they certainly think there are things out there that appear designed. Evidence that hardly anyone thinks you can prove design is just changing the subject. I'm saying that everyone believes that they appear designed, not that everyone thinks they are designed. Give me evidence against the claim I made, not the one you'd prefer me to have made. Since I never said anything about ID being science, that's also a subject change. Please deal with what I said, not what you want me to have said.Parableman 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my man-nipples look very designed. The idea of paleyism has been dismissed since Darwin, sorry. You don't see design in nature unless you really wish to.-Fatalis 10:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Charitably, Parableman's comments have some merit if applied narrowly to biology, where things do at least have the appearance of being designed. Dawkins recognizes this and coined the term "designoid" to refer to those things which have that appearance but are in fact the product of the mindless, foresightless process of evolution.

Having said that, the argument from fine-tuning does not fair nearly as well, as it's based on some very questionable assumptions regarding the independence of the constants and the physical (and even logical) possibility of there being different values. In addition, the weak anthropic principle suffices to refute the argument.

In any case, as Dawkins shows, admitting to an appearance does not entail admitting that things are as they might initially appear. Al 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All I said is that a piece of evidence is scientifically discoverable that serves as the foundation of the argument. That's true regardless of whether you choose to describe it as the appearance of design. In the cosmological constant case, the piece of observable evidence is the narrow range of constants that would allow rational life. As you say, the argument faces a difficulty when it assumes that certain probabilities apply to what constants there might have been. But that doesn't deny the point that there is a very narrow range of constants that would allow rational life, and that's the observable fact that the argument starts with. This is a philosophical argument that starts with a piece of observable scientific discovery. Whether it is a good argument is up to the philosophical literature to establish. That debate is ongoing. Some of the best peer-reviewed philosophy journals have published work on that issue. There's no question as to whether it counts as legitimate philosophy. Someone in my own Ph.D. program did a dissertation on this subject, and he's gone on to a successful career. It's a legitimate subject of study that is generally considered an open enough question to have continued work done on it. Most philosophers think the argument fails, but that doesn't mean it's a dead research area in philosophy. It certainly isn't. What's clear from that whole body of work, however, is that it's not just scientific creationism, which means that those who call it that are speaking falsely. And that means that it can't be recognized as scientific creationism, because you can't recognize something that isn't true. That, in turn, means that this entry is very much POV. Parableman 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused, what is the problem with the article? Is it the "...more people recognize it as the religious concept of creationism." bit? Do you disagree, and on what grounds? That it's not 'creationism in a cheap tuxedo'? Judge John E Jones thought so; from intelligent design: "...ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Can't recognise something that isn't true? Do you recognise Jesus as the son of god? What about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as the creator, preserver and destroyer respectively? And as for your cosmological constants? So what? Of course they're perfect for our kind of life, if they weren't we wouldn't be here to argue about them. ornis 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Goal

Currently the article states in its lead section,

This religious goal, advanced chiefly by means of the wedge strategy, seeks to establish that life was created as the result of intelligent design.

The Wedge Document on the other hand states,

However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

and

The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds.

The ultimate goal of the Wedge Strategy, is therefore to replace science. It does not state what should replace science, but probably they are thinking of a form of scholasticism. Markus Schmaus 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That simply doesn't follow. What they say is that they don't want scientific materialism as the dominant philosophical assumption. Materialism is a philosophical view. It is not science. Science is a discipline, not a view. You can do science whether you are a materialist or not. Plenty of scientists have not been materialists. Parableman 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can do science whether you are a materialist or not, but only if you work according to materialist assumptions. As soon as you step away from the (materialist) requirement for metholodical naturalism you are no longer doing science. And science is a method, not a discipline. FergusM1970 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, why are you replying to a 4 1/2 year old thread? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Negative Intro?

The first sentence currently reads: '... Discovery Institute, an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on Intelligent design...'

I propose that the introduction as it stands is overly negative, since it introduces the concept of ID being criticized in the very first sentence. A introduction written in a purely flat, factual tone would be '... Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on Intelligent design...'

Yes, criticism does indeed exist regarding the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document in particular, however this is amply covered deeper within the main article, as those who choose to read that far will soon discover. But in the opening sentence, the criticism angle doesn't feel appropriate. Comments welcome... Jgarth 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and wonder about using the term Neo-Creationist. Do any of those who wrote the wedge document, or the wedge document itself refer to themselves as Neo-Creationist or is this merely a pejorative term used by critics? If it is a perjorative term it should be removed as POV.Bagginator 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good point -- I don't think any of them do. Its just a pejorative term. Alethos Logos 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing pejorative about the term neo-creationist. Neo implies new or modern or recent, I trust everyone already knows what creationism means. Whether or not people like being recognized or identified as a neo-creationist is irrelevant. Mr Christopher 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I never saw this article (or heard of the subject) before today, but when an article leads off with "...an organization that is criticized for promoting...", the POV jumps right off the page. Why not just say "...an organization that promotes..."? (Haven't read it and don't plan to, not one of my interests) --CliffC 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't because whoever wrote it does not want to claim straight out that the DI "promotes a neo-Creationist agenda", since the institute would probably deny this? In other words, it is an attempt to avoid expressing a negative POV. I must agree that it's a bit clumsy, but it's really bending over backwards not to be negative, as it would be to come straight out and say that the organisation really does have a neo-Creationist agenda (with all the pejorative connotations of pseudoscience, religion masked as science, etc., contained in such an expression). Presumably there is some other way of saying what its agenda is that would not be controversial. Metamagician3000 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hear you. What about "...an organization that is said to promote..."? That's not quite perfect either, and a bit weasel-wordish, but maybe closer to neutral. --CliffC 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit too weasel-wordish, I think. Why not, "an American think tank that promotes the theory of intelligent design and opposes what it calls "scientific materialism"? That seems to give the picture accurately and in terminology that the DI could not object to. Metamagician3000 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design to promote. They are promoting a movement or set of conjectures, but not a theory. --Wesley R. Elsberry 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The words "the theory of" would not be necessary, but I do think we can get unnecessarily narrow about the meaning of such words as "theory". ID may well be bad science or pseudoscience - I'm as convinced as anybody that it is - but that does not mean it is not a theory in the ordinary sense. The word "theory" is an ordinary English word. Detectives, barristers, historians, philosophers, financial investors, etc., etc., all develop theories. A theory is just a body of explanatory conjecture ... which is exactly what intelligent design is; in ordinary English, "theory" does not mean "testable theory" or "well-corroborated theory" or "closely integrated body of hypotheses". In fact, there is a problem with calling evolution a theory - one that Christian fundamentalists exploit - because the word "theory" in ordinary English suggests something conjectural, which very well corroborated scientific theories such as biological evolution really are not by now.

Still, that's all idle musing. What about my wording with the suggested removal, or with some other word instead of "theory" ("idea"? "conjecture"? "notion"?)? Metamagician3000 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to avoid using an ambiguous word like "theory" to describe ID, and to use an unambiguous word like "conjecture" or "movement". --Wesley R. Elsberry 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we've moved on. What about the suggestions below? Metamagician3000 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I would like to point out that it is very important to avoid the use of the word theory, even if common usage would allow it. The simple reason is that ID attempts to position itself to appear as a valid scientific theory, and the common person honestly doesn't seem to understand the difference between a true theory and the common usage of theory. Just throwing that out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.62.68 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What if we changed this:

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on intelligent design, and is the hub of the intelligent design movement.

To this:

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, which is considered the hub of the intelligent design movement.

And then called it a day? The criticism and neo-creationist agenda of the DI is already found in the body of the article so it's not like we're removing anything from the article. Mr Christopher 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think it is necessary to use the weasel-ish "is considered". It's not really a contested fact requiring any qualification or citation. How about "is the intellectual hub"? I realise that some people may not like the word "intellectual" but the DI is where all the ideas seem to come from, as opposed to being a geographical or demographic hub, or whatever. :) Metamagician3000 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything "weasly" about using the accurate term "considered". and I would object to describing anythying DI related as "intellectual". There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design so how can they be an "intellectual hub"? Mr Christopher 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia jargon it is considered to be using "weasel words" (hence my jocular term "weasel-ish") to say in passive voice that something "is considered" or "is believed" without saying who considers or believes this. I could explain why, but perhaps it's obvious to you. I wasn't trying to offend you, just making a joke (obviously not a successful one) about that terminology. Please assume that I am on your side in the cause of producing a solid neutral article, am editing in good faith, and am even trying to be friendly rather than otherwise. My point is that if it's just a fact that would not be disputed from any point of view we don't actually have to say "is considered" or finding some other way of attributing it. I do think you are being a little on the ... um ... narrow side not wanting to use the term "intellectual". Their work is indeed a creation of the human intellect. That does not mean it is correct, well-corroborated, well-integrated, or even testable. Sheesh, I am no apologist for this mob but people with my views should be bending over backwards to be fair to them; that's the Wikipedia way. Look, why not just say "which is the hub of the intelligent design movement" and see what happens? Metamagician3000 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"In Wikipedia jargon it is considered to be using "weasel words" (hence my jocular term "weasel-ish") to say in passive voice that something "is considered" or "is believed" without saying who considers or believes this" Thanks for the most excellent reminder, I had forgotten. And I'm all for simply saying "which is the hub of the intelligent design movement". Mr Christopher 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> In fact the DI has been criticized as well as applauded for its creationist agenda. I like Mr Christopher's proposal with Metamagician3000's amendment. Here's another one that, I think, also solves the problems:

The wedge strategy is a creationist action plan authored in 1998 by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement.

• criticism is removed from the first sentence (as discussed above)
• the "creationist" connotation is kept but linked with the document instead of the DI
• social and political is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead
• weasel word "considered" is removed (as discussed above)
• duplicate/repetitive information is removed

AvB ÷ talk 15:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still a bit worried about the word "creationist". I'll make the change that seems to have the most support at the moment, and we can see how it looks. I won't be upset if people then want to play around with it a bit more. Metamagician3000 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see that this will mean cutting out quite a few words as someone has already added the bit about being the hub, blah, blah but left some other material that is really causing the "negativity" problem. Well, here goes - I'll cut out those other words and see how it looks. I'll place them here so they can easily be played with and put back. I ask fellow editors to think about it before simply reverting. We'll have the words here, so we'll have the opportunity to work on them if anyone feels the need to put some of them back. ... Okay, so here are the troublesome words as a resource: "an organization that is criticized for promoting a Neo-Creationist agenda centering on intelligent design, and is". Metamagician3000 23:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the intro

This line;

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.

Should have a cite. After reading through the wedge document and the other linked information here I don't think this statement is accurate. Opposed to materialism and naturalism yes, but those who wrote the wedge document claim that Intelligent Design is a part of evolution. So they would not propose removing evolution from how science is conducted, that doesn't make sense, unless there is a cite for this statement? Perhaps change the word evolution to "darwinian evolution" or something a little more narrow than the very general term evolution.Bagginator 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken, ID proponents present ID as a superior alternative to evolution, not as part of evolution.[10] And just so we're clear, those are the very same ID proponents who wrote the Wedge document.

How anyone can read in the Wedge document

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. [11]

and

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [12]

and claim with a straight face it does not support

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.

all while insisting that ID is compatible with evolution is beyond me. Again, as at Talk:Intelligent design, your lack of knowledge of the subject is telling. FeloniousMonk 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, in reading the testimony from Kitzmiller, as well as from the Kansas Board of Ed hearings, it is quite clear that IDists do not support evolution.

As for the suggestion of changing the term to "Darwinian evolution", that is simply absurd -- the other form of evolution would be, what? theistic evolution? Notice that the latter requires an adjective as it is the newer form. Wow, just like neo-creationism versus creationism....there was no need to relable creationism "paleo-creationism", was there? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Lamarckion evolution? Evolution was around prior to Darwin.Bagginator 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, you are reading your POV into the Wedge Document. Could you quote the portion of the Wedge Document that mentions evolution? If there is not citation supporting the claim

'''Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.

then that claim needs to be removed as POV. So please give me a citation, any citation, demonstrating that wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to the removal of evolution from how science is conducted and taught. If you give me a citation then i'll no longer support the removal of the word evolution from that sentence.Bagginator 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That link that FeloniousMonk gives to the Discovery Institute is very instructive in this regard. They specifically preface each use of the word evolution with the word natural, or naturalistic. They make their position quite clear that they do not oppose evolution, only the materliastic or naturalistic version of evolution. Which is why the sentence is incorrect as it is currently written. Unless someone can give a citation that shows otherwise.Bagginator 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Even more instructive from the link that FeloniousMonk gives is evidence that supports my position;

This essay will examine the in principle case against the scientific status of intelligent design. It will examine several of the methodological criteria that have been advanced as means of distinguishing the scientific status of naturalistic evolutionary theories from nonnaturalistic theories such as intelligent design, special creation, progressive creation and theistic evolution

Notice here they claim to support what they call nonnaturalistc theories one of which they call theistic evolution. If you do not support changing the term to Dawinism, or Darwiniam evolution, then there should be a sentence added with this very citation that FeloniousMonk gives showing that the supporters of the Wedge Strategy believe themselves to be supporters of nonnaturalistic or nonmaterialistic form of evolution.Bagginator 01:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The most current edit represents what the proponents of the Wedge Strategy believe and I gave FeloniousMonks citation as evidence. Would could also add more citations, if you prefer, of the proponents of the Wedge Strategy talking about evolution and how they support evolution with the exception of materialistic and naturalistic versions. Also, if there are citations that have critics views which are more in line with FeloniousMonk or Jim62sch we might want to think about changing it to something else, but not before we have citations to demonstrate the position.Bagginator 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're once again failing to take into account that all ID proponents reject what they see as "unguided" evolution (IOW, the mainstream scientific view), and those that accept evolution only accept a form that incorporates their own notion of evolution that was "guided" by an intelligent designer. As long as you continue to conflate the two separate, mutually exclusive definitions of evolution, you'll continue to make this same mistake again and again. FeloniousMonk 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand how you can agree with me and yet change my edit. You agree with me that the proponents of the wedge strategy support evolution as in "a form that incorporates their own notion of evolution" so what? The point remains that they support evolution and so the current form of the article is inaccurate and gives too much weight to your view and not to the proponents view, which it is claiming to define.Bagginator 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Note the use of the word "guided". Syntactically speaking, the adjective negates the noun in this case. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

How to handle baseless objections and calls for cites

Bagginator has repeatedly objected to the passage "Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal." claiming it was uncited, unsupported and meant the single item "materialistic, naturalistic, evolution," not the three separate items that ID proponents reject. So, now the passage is supported by nine (!) cites. Despite originally being supported by the Wedge document itself and going unchallenged for years here, thanks to Bagginator the passage is now the most well supported sentence in the article. Perhaps overly supported.

Considering our recent experience with Bagginator at Talk:ID repeatedly dismissing all evidence while ceaselessly raising tendentious objections, I think we need to be polite but firm with how much nonsense in the form of pov campaigning the community needs to tolerate here. Arguing just for the sake of arguing when one has no real idea about the subject, dismissing or twisting evidence and campaigning off this page are all unacceptable and fall under the category of tendentious editing, disruption, and need not be tolerated indefinitely. Our patience has been worn thin by his behavior at Talk:ID and on dozens of user talk pages over the last few weeks.

While were on the subject of being knowledgeable, anyone who has read even only smattering of ID writings, not to mention the subject of this article, the Wedge document, would already know that ID proponents reject all three, materialism, naturalism, and evolution. They'd also know that there's no shortage of sources available in which they do this. We now have nine. How many more does Bagginator think we need before accepting the passage is accurate?

So, along with being reasonable and not tendentious, being current and well-read on the topic at hand is something every editor is expected to be if he's going to be participating at the intense level Bagginator has chosen to. FeloniousMonk 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the continued ad hominem let's take a look at your cites and the sentence as you wish it to be.

Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[3][4][5] naturalism,[4][6] and evolution,[7][8][9][10] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal

The first cite given, #7, says, "Darwinian evolution" which supports my initial idea of the change to Darwinian evolution instead of just plain old evolution. Your second cite makes my case again;

It would have been one thing if Johnson had raised doubts about Darwinism and then gestured at some ways of supplementing or reinterpreting evolutionary theory to take the materialist edge off. But Johnson was convinced that Darwinism had become a corrupt ideology that was being enforced by a dogmatic and authoritarian scientific elite, and that the proper course of treatment for Darwinism was not refurbishment or reformation but removal and replacement.

which clearly shows that they want to remove and replace Darwinism, not evolution, with their version of evolution. Here again from the cite #8 put the qualifier "naturalistic" before the word evolution

This may seem unfair and mean-spirited, but let’s admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age.

As a matter of fact not a single one of your cites support the notion that the proponents of the wedge strategy support removing evolution from how science is conducted and taught. They do however support that the proponents of the wedge strategy support the removal of Darwinian forms of evolution which they apparantly disagree with. But let's not just criticize your cites, let's look at what the proponents of the wedge strategy themselves have to say. William Dembski wrote here that;

Insofar as intelligent design is a theory of evolution, it is a theory of technological evolution, and technologies evolve by taking advantage of existing technologies.

Other cites can be found at the Discovery Institute which is where the Wedge strategy came from

The "all or nothing" character of Darwin's theory is often glossed over (if not explicitly denied) by many proponents of evolution. Yet, as Wolfson acknowledges, Charles Darwin understood this dimension of his thought all too well. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down,"

Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species.

In effect, Darwin invited a challenge to his own understanding of evolutionary theory. In recent years, that challenge has been taken up by the proponents of Intelligent Design, whose central argument is that the complexity of the cosmos cannot possibly be explained by the blind and purely accidental process Darwin described.

The proponents of the Wedge strategy do not want to remove the teaching of evolution as an explicit goal, but specifically, Darwin's version of evolution and the version of those who come at it from a materialistic or naturalistic perspective.

Or how about here

In contrast to earlier opponents to Darwin, many proponents of intelligent design accept some role for evolution--heresy to some creationists.

Written in Time magazine and reposted by the Discovery Institute. How much clearer can it get that support some role for evolution, just not Darwins version of it?

Or how about this again posted at the Discovery Institute site written by the Salt Lake Tribune;

Now comes a movement known as "intelligent design.

It was launched in the mid-1990s by a group of physicists, chemists, biologists and philosophers to challenge Darwin's view that everything in the natural world came into being by an undirected process of natural selection and random mutations. These scientists accept evolution within species, but believe that because of their highly ordered complexity, some things like human eyes or cells are best explained as a product of an intelligent intent.

I find it difficult to understand how you can accuse me of not being well read when it comes to this controversy and yet you are unaware of the position of the proponents of the Wedge strategy. To repeat in a succinct way, it is not evolution they are opposed to, it is specifically Darwin's version of it, or that of materialists/naturalists version that they are opposed to.Bagginator 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because you repeatedly insist on arguing for easily disproved factual inaccuracies and operate from assumptions that fly in the face of all evidence, and you have yet to drop an issue when you've been shown to be wrong. Not to mention your proposed "leading proponents" at Talk:ID that turned out to be utterly without merit, something for which there is wide consensus on both sides.

Now you're having a go at dismissing sources of ID proponents in their own words too? By all means, please carry on. The passage is accurate, and as I've said before, there is no shortage of evidence to support it. I have literally dozens more sources when you're done with these. FeloniousMonk 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Baggy, are you sure you don't mean the Sir Charles Lyell version ("The testacea of the ocean existed first, until some of them by gradual evolution, were improved into those inhabiting the land"), or the Herbert Spencer version of it ("Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all")? After all, they were among the first to use the word in its current context. Darwin, who put foward a full theory of evolution noted in 1859 (drawing as do all good scientists on the work that preceded him), "At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some form". Of course, there's also the comment by Edward V. Neale four years later, that, "The diversity of species has arisen by the evolution of one species out of another". So, are we talking Lyellian evolution, or Spencerian evolution, or Darwinin evolution, or Nealean evolution, or are we really just talking evolution? As I pointed out elsewhere, the need for adjectives like "theistic" or "guided" point to a very different version of evolution, not really in keeping with the scientific definition. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This don't make no sense. Darwin founded evilution, and its all his fault. God created everything, so Darwin is just an athiest. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be about the truth (that what my user =name means by the way, my pastor suggested it). Whats going on here? Alethos Logos 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the Wedge Strategy In Action

Should the Kansas evolution hearings be included in that section? Mr Christopher 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add it, I'm happy to discuss if anyone feels it is not a bi-product of the Wedge Startegy. Mr Christopher 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

POV para

I have removed the following words, but am placing them here as a resource: Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism. The statements when viewed in the light of the Wedge document show ID and the ID movement is an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief.

Before someone simply reverts them back in, please consider that it is contrary to Wikipedia's goals to express an opinion on whose views have been "validated" in respect of matters of contentious political debate. The para as it stands takes a strong point of view on who is correct in this controversy. There are some other sentences that are borderline and need some cleaning up (I may tamper with some of them in a minute), but this is the clearest example. If we really must have this para, try to rewrite it so it is less POV, or find someone else who has publicly made an assertion along these lines and attribute it to them. This and other such examples are currently marring what could be an excellent article.

And before anyone draws conclusions about my agenda, I am far from being a supporter of the Discovery Institute or its strategies. Quite the contrary - I am an admirer of Richard Dawkins and have some connection with the brights. However, I don't need this article to express my point of view; I just need it to present the facts, which really speak for themselves. Metamagician3000 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Some notes regarding recent changes

Lead

The Wedge document states:

• ... in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

This was rendered in the lead as:

• whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and to replace science with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[1]

This was not in keeping with the quoted source, so I changed it to read:

• whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by the theory of evolution, "... reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[1]

Please discuss. AvB ÷ talk 14:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

FeloniousMonk restored a paragraph deleted by User:Metamagician3000 (who is currently having a wikibreak). I can see why Metamagician found this para POV so I've added the citation needed tag. I'm not sure I support the deletion but I do think that it's mere editorializing if it does not have an acceptable source. AvB ÷ talk 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FM suppplied an acceptable source (page 26 of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). I changed it to page 29 which, I think, is a bit stronger in this context. AvB ÷ talk 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Urban legend?

FeloniousMonk reverted this edit (without giving a rationale). In my opinion, DI are clearly (see quoted web page and the So What document introduced there) not claiming that the document itself is an urban legend. Please discuss. AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like FM's edit (which goes one step further than mine). AvB ÷ talk 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Direct quotes

I've also fixed several direct quotes that were off. See edit summaries. Please do not revert without reading the actual source(s). AvB ÷ talk 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate material

I've reworked two instances where material was mentioned twice. If I've inadvertently lost anything, please say so or repair. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dogmatically is POV

I am sorry, but it is obvious that including "dogmatically" violates WP:NPOV. Now, don't get me wrong: *I* think it is TRUE that they are dogmatically opposed to materialism etc. but Wikipedia can't assert that. The NPOV policy - which I'm sure I don't have to remind you is absolutely non-negotiable - says, among other things, "none of the views [presented] should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth" and, "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves". In other words, it makes no difference whether the statement is supported by reliable references, we cannot assert that it is true that they are dogmatically opposed to materialism etc. What we can do, if the other editors insist, is say "According to [person, group, organisation] X, Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed materialism...". I, however, think it is better for the sources to speak for themselves - let the readers make up their own minds. Mikker ^(...) 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources given and the content of the Wedge Document itself support that the DI and the followers of its ID campaign pursue their agenda and hold their "scientific" opinions as a matter doctrine accepted by them as authoritative (the Bible) and not provisionally (as in science); in other words, dogmatically. Exactly how is noting that not neutral again? That they do this needs to be made clear in the article in order to make clear the distinction between how they conduct their business and how the scientific community conducts its. We can either spell it out as I have above or we can just say "dogmatically", but ignoring this fact in the article is not an option. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely - the Wedge document etc. support the claim that ID proponents and the DI hold their opinions dogmatically. But this is a truth I happen to accept from my point of view - it's an interpretation of the texts, it's an opinion. And, importantly, it is an interpretation ID proponents and the DI would dispute (they'd be wrong in my opinion, but they'd dispute it). WP:NPOV says, to repeat, "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves" and then defines "opinions" as, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." As you well know, part of DI's agenda is to further the claim that ID is a 'science' so, obviously, they'd disagree with the categorization of their beliefs as dogmatic. There *is* therefore a dispute here and it is against policy to assert their beliefs are dogmatic as a sheer matter of fact. If we can find a ref for this, we could always make it "a majority of scientists believe..." or "notable evolutionary biologists X, Y and Z believe...". What we can't' do (without violating NPOV) is assert it is a truth that their beliefs are held dogmatically. Mikker ^(...) 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [13] strikes me as the very definition of dogmaticism. Your reasoning above would be valid where it not that their own words taken from the very subject of this article say the foundation for their notions is a particular doctrine and not provisional, i.e.; dogmatic. I have literally a dozen other sources with statements in their own words that say that their beliefs are rooted Christian doctrine, and can add them if necessary. I fail to see the issue with identifying their beliefs as dogmatic when they themselves admit they are. FeloniousMonk 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the term dogma is not inherently negative - dogma is merely a descriptive word in some situations. As the Wikipedia article on dogma notes, the term is often only pejorative in a non-religious context. Given that the statement is intimately related to religion - since it refers to Christianity and the replacement of materialism with their beliefs - I think it is appropriate to consider this a religious dogma, which is therefore an acceptable neutral description. --Davril2020 19:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[Un-indent]No, "dogmatically" is definitely a term of abuse. I'm sorry, Felonious Monk, but I believe you are consistently pushing your particular point of view (which I actually happen to share) around the edges of this article. Using a word like "dogmatically" is drawing an inference, which is exactly what you try to do in your comment above. It is not up to us to draw the inference that they are being dogmatic. Given your own obvious dislike of this group with its "wedge strategy", I suggest you try bending over backwards to edit in a way that is favourable to them. The people who are disagreeing with you here are not creationists or something. I am as hardline an opponent of ID, etc., as you'll find anywhere, but I try to set that aside when editing Wikipedia. Metamagician3000 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should simply be reporting the facts. And the facts are that the very topic of this article, the Wedge document, boldly says ID proposes to replace provisional knowledge (science) with dogma: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [14] Have you even read the Wedge document? It is a manifesto for dogmaticism. By saying "Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism, naturalism, and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal." we are simply reporting the facts. Read the Wedge Document [15] and tell us how its not advocating a particular dogma. Your objection above ignores both the evidence and reasoning already given above. Until which time you address both I have no response to such a non-argument other than to say wow, ever hear of WP:NPA? FeloniousMonk 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice I did not revert your edit, but merely gave my opinion about its merits in the discussion here. Anyway, I'll leave it at that ... Metamagician3000 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see how "theistic convictions" aren't a statement of dogma. JoshuaZ 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why draw the inference? Let the reader draw it, if it's so obvious (as it may well be). I have no brief for ID or the Discovery Institute, and am totally opposed to the agenda that is being described; if this were my personal blog, I would be castigating the irrationalists, as I tend to call them. But I am merely wearing my hat as an editor, and to some extent my administrator hat in trying to help a fellow admin who seems to want to go further than is necessary. Metamagician3000 05:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that "dogmatically" is a good descriptor, technically speaking, I think Metamagician has a point. "Dogmatic" is a loaded word, if only because ID proponents themselves often use it pejoratively, to qualify the type of science they do not like. To me the use of the word here conveys a very clear, negative assertion and I think NPOV requires that we use a more neutral qualification if we can. I'm not sure we can though; I came up with "radically" and "diametrically" which are both correct and sourcable, but not as informative as "dogmatically". Ideas anyone? Pro-ID editors may want to weigh in; for all I know they may be perfectly happy with "dogmatically". AvB ÷ talk 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I have explained this poorly. To call something dogmatic in the religious sense means that something is considered to be beyond doubt, or essential. Usually it occurs when if the thing was false the entire theological edifice would fall apart. It's a means of demarcating debate. For these individuals it is dogmatically necessary for them to oppose materialism based on their theological position. It is no more pejorative to state this than it is to say that they dogmatically endorse the story of the resurrection. --Davril2020 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, their claims regarding scientific materialism/evolution are neither scientific or reasoned. They are purely based on the presumption that materialism/evolution is godless (without an intelligent designer be it space alien, time traveler or deity) and therefore bad/evil. No matter what you say to them, or how their claims are proven to be untrue, they continue to dogmatically cling to their unscientific and unreasonable presumptions. The ID pushers have no interest in how things really are or what the evidence actually supports. They have no use for evidence, they already know the truth and the truth is the Word...As soon as they change their dogmatic ways then we should change the description but until then I think dogmatic is a very accuate descriptor for which there is abundant support. Mr Christopher 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[Un-indent]It's no use getting in an edit war about such a small thing, so I'll leave it at this. For most people the word "dogmatically" does not have a theological meaning in such an expression as "arguing dogmatically"; in any such context it means something like "arguing in a way that is irrationally inflexible" or "in a way that fails to listen to reason" or even "in a way that is overbearing and and arrogant". The theological meaning may be the original one, and of course it has some application in this specific context, but the secondary or metaphorical connotations are inescapable. If I'm having an argument with someone and they accuse me of being dogmatic, they don't mean that I am relying on theological considerations: they mean I am being inflexible, unreasonable, etc. If we don't mean this, but merely mean that the DI bases its arguments on theological doctrine, then that is what we should say. I also repeat that a number of us here, including me, are hostile to the Discovery Institute. That is a reason why we should bend over backwards not to use hostile-sounding terminology and to be receptive to suggestions that some of our statements or wording express our POV, however inadvertently or unconsciously. If we are unwilling to change or remove potentially-hostile wording when it is pointed out to us, we should stop and think about whether our attitude to the DI is affecting our judgment. With that, as I said at the start, I'll leave this article for now and look at something else. I'm satisfied with my own small contribution to it. Metamagician3000 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician3000, please stick around and help improve the article, even though other editors might not agree with your idea on the dogmatic part. We've all had ideas shot down a time or two. Mr Christopher 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea; it was Mikker's. I am just supporting it. I only saw the discussion because the article is on my watch list. I did a fairly thorough revision a little while back and was fairly happy with it, and with the amount that stuck. There's nothing more I can do with this particular article right now. (Come to think of it, I suppose it's possible that I made a similar change myself back when I did that layer of revisions, among all the other little things I did, but I don't remember doing so, and that was not in my mind at all if so.) I wasn't meaning to sound passive aggressive, and I wasn't even consciously feeling irritated (but perhaps I was unconsciously, now I think about it and engage in the sort of self-scrutiny that I ask of others, and it may have shown in my wording; after all, I think this is a pretty clear-cut case and am puzzled that there is so much insistence on the word). I really just wanted to say that I am not prepared to edit war over this minor issue — even though I think Mikker is clearly correct and wanted to offer in more detail my reasons for thinking so. Cheers! :) Metamagician3000 22:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Wow. It's kind of unfortunate that the front cover of the Wedge strategy document shows a wedge being driven... between Man and God. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having spent many hours discussing ID, and debating the wedge strategy with Phillip Johnson, I must say this article does not come close to accurately reflecting what we discussed. This article's discussion of professor Johnson's ideas is decidedly biased, in violation of the NPOV policy, and warrants a complete rewrite by parties who don't have an ax to grind. It sounds painfully like a flame-war, Wikipedia style. 24.62.101.225 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe it, and who are you? I've heard this described as a way to manipulate the public into abandoning science, or something like that. After reading the actual document, it seems more like it's an attack upon the philosophy of materialism than it is upon science itself. I imagine most people in the scientific community, however, believe "materialism" to simply be a code word for "science". --Kgroover 13:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, that is an attack on science. The article is well sourced and doesn't use weasel words, and explicitly lays out the strategy. That it makes the ID movement look bad is not a violation of NPOV; just because reality makes a group look bad doesn't mean we should gloss over it. Titanium Dragon 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a conversation with anyone is not verifiable and has no standing. The Wedge Document is what it is, and if they (DI or other ID proponents) don't like it, I guess they shouldn't have published it. Of course, there's that annoying Kitzmiller decision that always seems to point out what the Intelligent design folks were attempting to do. So, I guess that means NPOV, using verified and documented sources, is exactly what is written in this article. Orangemarlin 07:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph Revision

One paragraph in particular seems like it could use some changes. specifically, the paragraph:

Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism. The statements when viewed in the light of the Wedge document show ID and the ID movement is an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief.

I think this could be better said:

Johnson's Wedge Strategy focuses on distancing creationist arguments from religious content, in an attempt to appeal to the those who agree with the idea of theistic evolution. Specifically, Johnson asserts that evolution is not substantiated by evidence, and that evolution is supported solely because it is part of the secular materialist world view. Secondarily, the removal of religious content functions as as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism, allowing it to be taught in public schools.

This avoid the overtones I see in the previous one, while still providing what I believe to be an accurate description of the wedge strategy backed by the quotes in the article. I have not completely examined the sources, but I would welcome revisions to this if the sources do not support this. I'm especially not sure about the last sentence, it implies intent, and I do not believe that we can ascribe intent to a person unless that person expresses their intent directly.

given that I'm new and that Metamagician3000 previously discussed removing this, I'm going to leave this up for a bit for people to revise or refute. Cygnus Alpha 06:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposed revision strikes me as weasely and white washing the facts. I don't support it, and I don't think many of the regulars here will as well. The original paragraph is both accurate and supported by reliable sources.

The proposed change is wildly misleading. Phillip E. Johnson and the "intelligent design" creationism movement have no use for "theistic evolution", and are not proposing to "appeal" to theistic evolutionists. The Edwards v. Aguillard decision warned of shams where religious content is passed off as science; IDC is just one such sham. Here is Johnson on theistic evolution; see if you think that he is promoting that view:

"Perhaps the contradiction is hard to see when it is stated at an abstract level, so I will give a more concrete example. Persons who advocate the compromise position called "theistic evolution" are in my experience always vague about what they mean by "evolution." They have good reason to be vague. As we have seen, Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction. To Darwinists evolution guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is to say it is not evolution at all. To repeat, this understanding goes to the very heart of Darwinist thinking. Allow a preexisting supernatural intelligence to guide evolution, and this omnipotent being can do a whole lot more than that.

Of course, theists can think of evolution as God-guided whether naturalistic Darwinists like it or not. The trouble with having a private definition for theists, however, is that the scientific naturalists have the power to decide what that term "evolution" means in public discourse, including the science classes in the public schools. If theistic evolutionists broadcast the message that evolution as they understand it is harmless to theistic religion, they are misleading their constituents unless they add a clear warning that the version of evolution advocated by the entire body of mainstream science is something else altogether. That warning is never clearly delivered, however, because the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism." (Source)

I didn't think so. --Wesley R. Elsberry 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Wes and odd nature are right, the proposal is biased and will never fly here. I don't support any change along these lines to the section in question. FeloniousMonk 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions

A couple of tips from a reader who skimmed over this article and couldn't find the information he was looking for quickly: - Why is it called the "wedge" - What does the strategy consist of exactly (rather than just its goals)? How does it achieve them? - What's the timeframe - when did this start, how long has it been going, when are the goals supposed to be achieved?

If the information is already in there perhaps it could be moved closer to the start. Stevage 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. More of the Wedge Document itself would be great. There are 5 and 20 year goals, why not list them in the article? There is also a 5 year objectives. Why not list that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why a "wedge" strategy?

I read through a lot of the article, and I still can't see why the strategy ever got the name "wedge", which seems to be pretty important information for this article. Even if it's in there somewhere, it's not prominently placed up front where it should be. Is the reason it was called a "wedge" strategy because it's trying to slowly "wedge in" opposing ideas, and gradually get larger? Or is it someone's name? MrVoluntarist (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have included a sentence in the lead explaining the wedge metaphor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Kind of frustrating how it wasn't explained... MrVoluntarist (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design is bogus. Science will prevail.

-Reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.193.174 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It was probably called "Wedge" because it's a metaphore for slipping under a protective cover -- as in when bank vaults and safety boxes are "peeled" using wedges and hammers, when Knights wearing metalic protection were pried out of their clothes, and other acts of slipping the narrow edge of a wedge to crack something open. Wedges are inclined planes -- which is another good reason to use the metaphore inasmuch as the so-called "slippery slope" phenomena takes effect. Allow a Creationist cult to have three inches and they will not only take all 9 yards, they will encourage other Creationist cultists to emulate the crime.

All my opinions only and only my opinions, as always. Fredric Rice (talk)

The meaning of the term "materialism"

There seems to be some confusion about what is meant by the term materialism, insisting that one is against materialism does not automatically equate to being religious as is being claimed. I would like more justification for the notion that the following quote denotes a religious agenda:

"We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it. We further want to reverse the influence of such materialistic thinking on our culture."

An unsigned comment from 65.102.115.174

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

[16][My emphasis] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

65.102.115.174, you're using selective quotes. The original writing your quote was drawn from says in full context:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as...

...Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

...We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Clearly they are promoting a religious agenda. The Dover ruling concluded they were. The New York Times and Time Magazine say they are. That they are trying to cover their now exposed agenda up with that fig leaf is only evidence that they are duplicitous, not that they are not pursuing a religous agenda. Apparently they've gained little ethically from their withdrawal from materialism. Odd nature (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing there seems to have much (if anything) to do with a religious agenda, all it shows is that they had a predestined attempt to reduce any conflictions between science and religion. You may as well level similar criticisms against Ken Miller.65.102.115.174 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked Ken Miller never claimed that a scientific explanation of the origin of life's diversity should encompass "moral and spiritual" dimensions -- the juxtaposition of which is generally taken to be indicative of a religious perspective. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tax Exemption Violations

I get the impression that this article could conceivably benefit from referencing some of the public appeals to the IRS that such incidents wherein a tax exempt "charity" or religion which is caught deliberately attempting to violate the U. S. Constitution should forefit their exemption status. Such discussions about punishments for such deliberate crimes could conceivably act as a deterrant to other Creationist cultists from doing likewise.

What I'm trying to say (and probably not doing it so well) is that the article should contain something of the consequences and lack of consequences of individuals and organizations engaging in such behavior.

It is unfortunate that the Department of Justice abdicates its responsibilities in matters such as these and that the IRS Criminal Investigations Division likewise adopts an apathetic position. Because of apathy and lack of political will, politicians and law enforcement tend to ignore efforts to undermine the rule of law so the actual consequences of such "Wedge Strategies" (in a broad sense) are virtually non-existant.

The article would benefit from underscoring the fact that nobody was indicted for this with commentary about the socio-political environment and the economic environment which allows such violations of our Constitution to remain unpunished.

But that's just my opinions only and only my opinions, as always. Fredric Rice (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

I'm no lawyer but I believe that a criminal violation for falsely claiming tax exempt status as a religious body (church, etc) occurs only when said exemption is claimed for fraudulent purposes (i.e. tax evasion). The Supreme Court has so loosened the definition of what a religious organization is that clear scams and cults such as Scientology are now given First Amendment protection. (The IRS, after all, pursued the late L. Ron Hubbard--if he really is dead--and his "church" for many years before the Supreme Court said, "Un 'uh." Sometimes I wonder if the justices have given themselves a secret exemption from the laws against hallucinogens...)

Even if the IRS were to determine that the Discovery Institute did not mean the criteria for tax exemption, I seriously doubt any criminal prosecution(s) would result. Probably just a gi-normous tax bill. I'm not really sure one can attribute any lack of action to politics; after all, the very Left/Liberal Clinton Administration did nothing along the lines suggested above.

Politics have clearly played a roll regarding the charitable status of some organization. Federal law states that if a charity is de-certified by one state, then it must, perforce, lose its Federal exemption. Jessie Jackson's Monochrome Coalition was de-certified by the state of Ohio some years back and the Feds did nothing.

Additionally, there has been a long debate since the Founding, about what exactly the Founders intended by the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." with some scholars arguing that this clause really refers to Congress creating an "official" or "national" church such as the Church of England, or the Catholic Church in Italy or the Russian Orthodox Church in the Russian Federation.

• (the only "religion" I know of that was founded on a $20 bet during a poker game; I wonder if Hubbard ever collected on the bet?).

PainMan (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just ran across this in The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court a quote from which in on point Fred's post:

In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Court held "Under the so-called belief-action doctrine that the Reynolds' court articulated...[the] government [cannot] punish a person for his or her religious beliefs but has full authority to regulate religiously motivate actions so long as it has a rational basis for doing so."

So you can believe that "heretics" should be killed, you just can't kill them. (It's unfortunate that the founders of Christianity never enacted such a law!).

PainMan (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Open Letter by SMU Faculty members discrediting so-called "creationism"

More than 20 faculty members of Southern Methodist University's Dedman College (hardly a hot-bed a PC radicalism!) published an open letter in the Dallas Morning News demolishing "creationism" ("intelligent design," etc) as anti-science. Unfortunately, it's too long to quote verbatim, so I inserted a reference to it in a footnote.

Open Letter on "Creationism"

PainMan (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ameliorating POV from paragraph

There's a lot of POV in this article--much of it I agree with wholeheartedly as I am Reagan Conservative who completely rejects the so-called "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" movements when they attempt to masquerade as science. Our kids almost always score dead last or close to dead last in standardized tests among their peers in the industrialized World. It's ludicrous to me to start teaching mythology in science class when the science content is already so poorly taught!!

However, just because we agree with POV doesn't mean it should be allowed to stand. Therefore, I have rewritten (and expanded with a footnote giving some important background that doesn't necessarily belong in the text proper) the paragraph in question. The entire article needs this kind of scrutiny, however, I don't, at the moment, have the time to do so. Nor do I really want to be the POV Police.

Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding First Amendment prohibitions on the teaching of creationism. The statements when viewed in the light of the Wedge document show ID and the ID movement is an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief./quote

to the following:

Critics claim that Johnson's statements validate claims leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping religious content from their anti-evolution, creationist assertions as a means of avoiding lower Federal court as well as the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, in Abington School District v. Schempp and its progeny as prohibiting the inculcation of religion in public schools. The statements, when viewed in the light of the Wedge document and the US District Court's Kitzmiller decision, show ID and the ID movement is an attempt to put a gloss of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief.

I have toned the POV, again much as I agree with it!, as well as, I believe, improved the paragraph.

Am interested to hear, on my Talk Page, if anyone disagrees and why.

References

PainMan (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally Biased

This is the most biased article I have ever read on the wiki, on any topic, religious or political. The existence of the article is somewhat questionable, but it works very hard to make the claim that the Discovery Institute is some kind of thenomic or "come to Jesus" movement. In reality it is part of a broad coalition of non-Atheistic cultural forces.74.215.255.82 (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As you provide no evidence for your assertion about either the article or the DI, this discussion is going exactly nowhere. If you would like to talk specifics, and present evidence in support of them, we can have a constructive discussion on how to improve the article. Please read WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnson "quote"

This "quote" is actually originally a paraphrase, apparently first made in this piece, that has mistakenly been turned "back" into a "quote" on the mistaken assumption that the words were Johnson's own. Unfortunately, I can find no evidence that it is even an accurate paraphrase, as the only version of Johnson's speech that I can find (here) bears no resemblance to it. I would therefore suggest not employing it in this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is attributed and presented as a paraphrase it's notable enough on it's face. The original source is here: Missionary Man Church & State, April 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.4.140 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the paraphrase seems to bear no relationship to the original, I do not see how it can be considered to be reliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a quote, it's a summary by a journalist of Johnson's strategy. I'm going to wordsmith it to make that clear and restore it. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I've kept the source but deleted the summary of Johnson's strategy as a compromise. Readers will be able to figure it out by simply reading the source. We're done with this issue now. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning was that the primary source is always the most reliable source for the question of what is contained in that primary source. Boston appears to be making claims about, and taking quotes from, Johnson's address that are not contained in that address. I'm still not entirely happy taking this view, as there're very few situations where I'd consider Johnson a more reliable source than Boston. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

suitability of reference provided for 'Religious Belief' statement

Hi all, first time on.

Reference the 3rd paragraph it states Intelligent design is the religious[6] belief that........ The citation [6] links to an article from an Open Letter published in the Dallas Morning News. I have some concerns about this citation being supported by such a reference. Notwithstanding the right of the scientists to consider ID a 'religious belief' I don't think the cause of wikipedia is strengthened by suggesting that what a global audience (through the internet) should read can be based on the personal opinions of 20-25 academics from one university. It would be presumptuous in the extreme for a small group of people to speak on behalf of everybody and I'm sure the scientists in the article would not want their views to speak on behalf of everybody as is implied.

You will also note that if you follow the link to the page provided by the words preceding words Intelligent Design that the ID page itself does not say 'religious belief' instead it says Intelligent Design is the assertion 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. Clearly the two definitions about the same thing (ID) are inconsistent and for the sake of consistency the term 'religious belief' statement should be removed. It's personal opinion only and is hardly justifiable for use in wikipedia, nor is it justified on the basis that the term 'religious' does not have a generally accepted 'global' definition.

The only justification for leaving the statement as is would be to qualify it by changing it to something like it is the belief of approx 20-25 scientists from Departments of Anthropology, Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Geological Sciences and Physics at Southern Methodist University, that Intelligent Design is a religious belief that....... Tosh77 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Having just noted the MO of wikipedia I amended the page based on the specific reasons provided above.

That ID is a religious belief is also verified by the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and I would suspect dozens of other WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Notwithstanding your point I submit a person would have to hold an ethnocentric view such that a particular court ruling in the one state of the U.S. should dictate on the issue to the rest of the world. Additionally the appropriateness for these matters to be decided upon by the judiciary (in any country) is questionable. It also would appear to presume that all proponents of ID are 'religious' folk and this would also not be genuine to assert, despite how rhetorically tempting it is to do so. Finally the point still stands of consistency between the two definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.48 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

1. ID is mainly a US phenomenon.
2. Due to constitutional issues, the question of whether ID is religious is only really an issue in the US.
3. KvD is the most prominent court case on the issue, and received expert testimony from a number of acknowledged experts on both sides of the issue. The only theologian to testify, John Haught, made it very clear that ID is religious.
4. All prominent proponents of ID are "'religious' folk" -- mostly conservative Protestants and Catholics.
5. I see no consistency issue.

Additionally, I would point out that ID advocates themselves have admitted, on numerous occasions, that ID is religious -- so this is not a matter of legitimate dispute.

I have provided a WP:RS stating that ID is religious. If you wish to dispute this, then you will need to find sources of equal or better reliability to dispute this statement. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute is the hub of the IDM

• NPR: [17]
• Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction, Eugenie Scott & Niles Eldredge, p125

I think that's sufficient substantiation for calling it the "hub". Can anybody come up with any contervailing evidence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference error or change?

Under the topic Examples of the wedge strategy in action, the link for "The Discovery Institute's Smithsonian donation controversy" points to an ID article instead, an article which makes no mention of the Smithsonian.

Does anyone know what link was supposed to be there?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the link to point to another mention of the incident. I do however think that the entire section is WP:OR -- and needs to be either sourced to commentators explicitly linking these incidents to the wedge strategy, or to be removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag (first)

Almost this entire article clearly violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. The discussion concerning the topic on this page alone is enough to substantiate a claim of bias. It needs a complete rewrite to develop a neutral point of view that is not based on personal assumptions and proclivities. The NPOV tag should remain until this is done, but it will take a lot of work to strip the editorializing. I would recommend that anyone who disagrees so vehemently with the stances of an organization like the Discovery Institute not attempt to write an unbiased Wikipedia article about them or their internal documents. Not to say that your perspective cannot help maintain a NPOV, but that you can pretty much assume that you will be incapable of presenting one yourself. --Laynerogers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Do you have any specific complaints or sources to bring up? As it says at {{POV}}, the template is not a badge of shame, it requires substantiation of your points in reliable sources.

Keep in mind that if your suggestion were followed, you would be barred from writing the page as it's not fair to only one perspective from a page. The reason we don't take this approach is because we don't need to - we must represent what is found in reliable sources, to the proportion of the strength of their views. The views of the relevant experts is that the DI and it's wedge strategy is primarily religion masquerading as science to score rhetorical points.

But whatever. Please raise specific points, about specific text, substantiated with reliable sources, before using the POV tag. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple undocumented reverts

Happy to oblige Farsight! My comment on the edit summary was purely in light of zero information being provided for multiple reverts. What do you think is problematic with my edits? MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You say you are happy to oblige, but have not done so. You made bold edits. You were reverted. It then falls to you to justify/defend the edits you had made, not to me or to the original reverter to explain why they were removed.Farsight001 (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well let's not get hung up on it. Perhaps one thing at a time? There is a section that I removed which has had a tag since Oct 2009 intimating WP:OR and which contains no references. In what way do you disagree with that? MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I ain't playing this game. Justify your edits. Quit trying to make the reverter justify theirs. That is not how it works and you know it, so cut the crap.Farsight001 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is WP, it's not a game, and I am not writing crap. I have justified one of the edits that you reverted. I don't know if you are familiar with the way WP works, but discussion is key to its success. So I've justified an edit, now it's your turn to explain why you disagree with that explanation. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• cough*bullshit*cough*. You've been posting and causing problems for a while now. I've been watching you over on the intelligent design article. You are, as is painstakingly obvious to everyone but you, the one who is unfamiliar with the way wikipedia works. That's why you keep editing against consensus, going back to your edits while the discussion continues, and generally ignoring policies and other users to insert your pov into articles. Don't try and lay your responsibility on me. It ain't going to happen. Actually DISCUSS your edits.Farsight001 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you even understand what discuss means? I have explained one of my edits. You have reverted it. Why? If you're not going to take part in the discussion then we're not going to get very far. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the descriptor religious is being removed. Intelligent design is by definition religious. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Falcon, I removed it to bring it into line with the ID article. I think 'religious' is a contentious adjective for ID, and given there is consensus over there for it to be described as a proposition, I thought it less POV to mirror that decision here. Does that seem reasonable? MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's consistent with the consensus on the main article, then I don't care. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OK MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What consensus? The lead of Intelligent design discusses the religious nature of ID at a number of points ("All of its leading proponents ... believe the designer to be the Christian God" "ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science." "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon further examination, I think the original version describing as religious should remain. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you care to elaborate why Falcon? MissionNPOVible (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Spurious and disruptive tagging

1. Placing a {{POV}} tag without an explanation or attempt at discussion on talk is never acceptable.
2. Placing a {{citation needed}} tag on material that already has a citation is blatantly WP:POINT.

I would suggest that Missi_onNPOV_ible cease and desist these disruptive tactics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, but making multiple reverts with no explanation is always ok? I think you'll find that I have called for people to discuss my edits, but nobody (except Falcon) has responded, and Falcon agreed with at least one of my changes, and presumably others. So it's a little disingenuous to suggest that I have not provided an explanation (the tag is self-explanatory), and the tag on the citation is because the reference does not adequately address the thing it claims to address. Last, for you to suggest my improvements of flow and typos is disruptive is at the very least strange, and probably suggestive of either WP:OWN or a failure of WP:AGF. MissionNPOVible (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(i) Nobody is "making multiple reverts with no explanation". (ii) Nobody is stating that such is "always ok". (iii) The onus is generally on the reverted editor to make the case for their proposed change on article talk. (iv) None of this justifies your disruptive behaviour. Don't place a {{POV}} tag unless you have initiated a discussion on your NPOV problem on talk and don't tag material that cites a source with {{citation needed}}. Do either and you will be reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, an edit-summary comment is generally considered sufficient for a revert to the the status quo, an explanation on talk, and then a WP:CONSENSUS is generally required to further an attempt to change that status quo if it has been challenged by a revert. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So you do know how it works! Though I missed where it says in your second summary that WP:AGF isn't necessary...? I'm quite happy to discuss my changes, which would you like to start with? MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[Response omitted as the respondent accepts insufficient of the premise on which the question was based for meaningful response to be possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC) ]

WP:OR since Oct 2009

I think the Examples section is pretty clearly OR, and if no sources have been found for nearly 2 years then it should be removed. If nobody objects I'll remove it. MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles linked in that section make reference that they are wedge strategies, so I think it's valid. They are cited as well. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless they're mentioned in RS's themselves as wedge strategies they can't be plonked into the article in that way, perhaps it is more appropriate that they go into the See Also section rather than being presented as a block of links. MissionNPOVible (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Religious statement

Obvious WP:DEADHORSE, not conducive to improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some editors have objected to removing the definitive statement that ID is a religious belief and replacing it with the text from the ID article which states that ID is a proposition that... I think this is an undesirable arrangement, and given the statement is a contentious one, I think the ID article is better. I also think that this contributes to the POV nature of this article, so if editors insist on sticking with the current version I would like to call for an RFC about adding a POV tag. MissionNPOVible (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC) There is no need for an RFC. It's very simple: if you want to make changes, you have to back them up with solid reliable secondary sources and convince your fellow editors that they apply to the changes you have in mind. Hrafn is a superb editor, an expert on this topic, and knows WP policies on sourcing inside out. I've learned a great deal by observing him, and suggest you do, likewise. Your sources should be good enough to satisfy highly competent editors like him. Up to know, you have demonstrated little competency with the policies in question, and have consistently failed to provide high-quality reliable secondary sources even though you've been asked to do so many, many times. Without adequate sourcing, your contributions will not be taken seriously. On the other hand, it's hard to argue with high quality reliable secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Which bit of your response is a non-ad hominem comment on my specific argument? You seem content with "ID is a proposition" on the ID page, so it strikes me as inconsistent to argue otherwise here. MissionNPOVible (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC) It seems ignoring arguments is one of the things you have learned from Hrafn. I suspect you used "superb" in a non-standard way. Seeing as there are no objections being raised I'll put the tag back and we can start addressing the POV issues - no. 1 of which can be the "religious" adjective. MissionNPOVible (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you MissionNPOVible for that vacuous personal attack. As you have failed to articulate any substantive NPOV issue, I have removed your WP:POINT tag. As to the "religious" nature of ID, I will provide some sources below. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) sources verifying that ID is religious "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -- William Dembski, Touchstone magazine. "...referring to an intelligent designer was merely a 'politically correct way to refer to God.'" -- ID advocate quoted in The Creationists p380. "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." -- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Decision. "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." -- Opening sentence of the Wedge Document. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC) You seem to be confusing the existence of sources supporting the statement with the idea that there are no sources against the statement. What I am saying is that it is a controversial point - one that I presume has been hammered out at length on the ID page - so making the definitive statement that ID is the religious belief that... on the basis of only one side of the story is inappropriate in WP, and evidence of the very reason I put the POV tag on the article, which I am now reinstating until these matters are sorted out. MissionNPOVible (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Oh BTW your secondary sources do not say that ID is a religious belief, and I haven't bothered to check the primary ones because your WP:SYNTHESIS is doubly inappropriate given the POV nature of the claim. Just another example of superb editing I guess. MissionNPOVible (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Your snark isn't going to get your editing goals accomplished. As you appear to be the only one disputing the identifier, I suggest taking it to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Falcon8765 (TALK) 03:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC) MissionNPOVible-over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-and over-again, you seem to be confusing me with somebody who gives a damn about your vacuous argumentum ad nauseum. I don't. The claim is very well sourced, to a number of prominent sources. If you really think that this is illegitimate WP:Synthesis, then you are welcome to make your case at WP:ORN. For myself, it seems to be a perfectly unexceptionable summary of a common thread running through these sources. Regardless, this single word does not rise to the level of a substantive NPOV dispute. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Nagel and Monton are two sources which explicitly state that ID can be considered scientific. The DI and other ID advocates make claims about its scientific status. So while your WP:SYN seems unexceptional to you, you are still synthesising information in a manner neither contained in secondary sources, and at the heart of an ongoing dispute between participants of the debate. This may seem trivial to you, but it is a fundamental breach of WP:NPOV. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC) That the Moon "can be considered" to be green cheese does not alter the fact that it is widely considered (including by those who have been there) to be rocks and dust. The DI has a long and well-documented history of speaking out of both sides of its face on this (see Dembski quote above) -- so has no credibility. If you think you have a case, then take it to WP:ORN -- I've wasted more than enough time on your endless POV-pushing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC) WP isn't here to correct the woes you perceive to exist in the world pertaining to the dealings of organisations you consider to be dishonest. All you need to do to preserve your assertion that ID is a religious belief is to show where Nagel, Monton, and the DI agree with you. I know for a fact that they don't, because I've read WP:RS's that show they disagree with your claim. If you think I've misread them, please point me to where they state that ID is a religious belief. Otherwise you are wrong, and the article should be corrected to reflect a NPOV. MissionNPOVible (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Get a clue -- Wikipedia most certainly is here to evaluate which sources are reliable -- which includes making judgements about their credibility. I do not need to demonstrate that a philosopher of mind, a thoroughly non-prominent philosopher of physics and a completely unreliable source agree with me. The fact that the most prominent historian of creationism, most prominent ID-related court case and one of the most prominent ID advocates (in an unguarded moment) do is sufficient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC) You are both edit warring, which isn't very constructive. However, the impetus is on the editor challenging existing material in the article to gain consensus to change it. The pre-dispute version generally remains until then. I personally have found missionNPOVible's arguments to be unconvincing, and as you two will likely never come to an agreement, the opinion of uninvolved editors should be consulted. Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I've already posted the issue to WP:FTN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Interesting that you think you've done something constructive with your characterisation of this discussion on WP:FTN. How about an RFC from editors who aren't involved? MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC) How about some reliable secondary sources to back up your edits? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Nagel, Monton, Dembski etc. These all clearly illustrate that it is a contentious area, so we cannot definitively state that it is a religious belief without being POV. I was opting for the version on the ID page, but I would also accept wording that explains the disagreement. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) You are aware that Nagel specifically states that ID is a religious argument? And that Monton is fringe and not notable? And that the DI is NOT a reliable source? You have been told time and time again that these sources are unacceptable according to WP policies, yet you continue to trot them out. Find other sources if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Yeah, you definitely wouldn't be able to use anyone from the DI, as their entire goal is to use political clout to introduce the Christian creation myth into science classes. They are fringe and recognized by professionals, professional organizations, and the courts to be creationists. Nagel, as Dominus stated recently, accepts that ID is a test of God's existence and is therefore religious in nature. This source doesn't help your claim. I'm not sure if Monton exactly agrees, but I know that his work challenges the a priori criterion of methodological naturalism. This at least makes it clear that he's talking about the supernatural, and that almost always means a powerful, supernatural being (i.e. God). I don't have the source, but the title of Monton's book, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, is quite indicative that he also accepts that ID is a test of God's existence (instead of supernatural phenomena in general) and is therefore religious in nature. And this says nothing of the issues of notability to which other editors have referred. That said, I think that paragraph could be worded better. The first sentence starts, "Intelligent design is [...]," but at this point in the lead, I don't understand why ID has anything to do with the Wedge Document other than they are both affiliated with the DI. It's only in the "Overview" section where I'm first told that ID is a mechanism to achieve the goals set out in the Wedge Document. I think it would be beneficial to introduce ID that way in the lead. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I look forward to seeing the quote from Nagel where he states that ID is a religion, and how that sits with what he did write regarding ID and Evolution that "Either both of them are science, or neither of them is". The publications of the DI proponents is what I was referring to in shorthand, but I'm not sure the DI isn't a RS (but that's beside the point). You don't seem to have dismissed Monton who, despite bizarre assertions to the contrary, is a RS - he is a tenured academic and his book was published by Broadview Press, so it is utterly ludicrous to suggest he is neither relevant nor reliable. And per force your own argument, if DI is not reliable, then why does this article even exist since they are the author of the "Wedge Document"?!? MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Clearly there's no consensus here for removal of properly sourced info about the religious aspects of ID, so I've undone MissionNPOVible's disruptive repeat of earlier removals: please discuss until there's clear consensus to remove, don't edit war. As for MissionNPOVible's specious arguments above, the article exists because reliable sources (not the DI) discuss the significance of the wedge strategy. If anyone writes regarding ID and Evolution that "Either both of them are science, or neither of them is", then they're promoting an extremely fringe view or making a rhetorical argument. Doesn't look to be a significant view, further clarification needed. . dave souza, talk 11:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) e/c Significance is not the issue, it is whether it is a disputed claim. There are many RS's, of which Nagel is one, that indicate that it is a contentious issue. This is enough to limit our ability to make a statement of fact that is disputed by reputable, notable, reliable sources. The very most you could say is that it is commonly considered a religious belief - you can't say it is a religious belief. Also I hadn't intended to replace the relevant bit in the article, I hadn't realised it was caught up in the other edit I was meaning to reinstate. I've fixed that. MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC) The DI and its leading proponents aren't reliable sources because they've intentionally manufactured a "controversy" where none exists. They deny that ID is religion because the whole purpose of ID is to skirt legislation that prevents teaching religion in science classes. They try to pass ID off as science (a fringe view), and this fact is already addressed in the lead, making another mention of their insistence that ID is science not only redundant but unindicative of any actual dispute among professionals and professional organizations (emphasis added): “ [The Wedge Document describes an agenda] whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ” Philosophers like to play with ideas and twist them into logical congruencies. Both Nagel and Monton argue against a priori methodological naturalism and ID, as defined by the DI, is a case where such a criterion could make a difference (but actually doesn't). Unfortunately, neither philosopher accounts for the practical application of ID by the DI, which conclusively shows it to be creationism, a religious belief: “ [...] we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. ” “ Creationism, though very popular in its young-earth version, has failed as a strategy for introducing religious beliefs into the science curriculum. Enter neocreationism, or intelligent design. Not as obviously a religious conceit as creationism, intelligent-design creationism has made a case that, to the public, appears much stronger. ” “ Neocreationism refers to the post-Edwards repackaging of creation science largely to avoid its legal problems (Scott 1997). It includes proposing alleged "alternative scientific explanations" to evolution, such as Intelligent Design (ID), and/or proposing to counter evolution not with an alternative science but by alleged evidence against evolution. ” “ Despite denials by proponents of intelligent design (ID) that ID is creationism, critical analysis by scientists and scholars, as well as statements by the proponents of ID themselves, has established beyond any doubt ID's true identity as neo-creationism. ” Nagel doesn't specifically say that ID is a religion. As I said before, he states that it is a test of God's existence and that considering this possibility is religious in nature (emphasis added): “ It has to be admitted that, by suggesting that the existence of God is a possibility, and that if there is a god he might have played a role in the development of life, it would have such an effect. That might be too much religion by current standards. By the same token, such teaching would also advance atheism, by suggesting that the nonexistence of God was a serious possibility, so it might lose from both directions. Perhaps silence on the subject of the relation between evolutionary theory and religious belief is the only course compatible with the Establishment Clause. ” Monton sees the supernatural aspect of ID and argues against a priori methodological naturalism, upon which ID's status as science is not contingent. ID has been determined to be creationism because of an a posteriori analysis of it: its proponents have no research program for conducting science, only a concerted political campaign to cast doubt on an extremely well-established theory, which Monton seems to recognize and ignore (emphasis added): “ I maintain that science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism. Our successful scientific theories are naturalistic simply because this is the way the evidence points; this leaves open the possibility that, on the basis of new evidence, there could be supernatural scientific theories. I conclude that ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn't there. ” Nagel, too, recognizes the lack of any evidential support for ID (emphasis added): “ I agree with Philip Kitcher that the response of evolutionists to creation science and intelligent design should not be to rule them out as "not science." He argues that the objection should rather be that they are bad science, or dead science: scientific claims that have been decisively refuted by the evidence. ” You can clearly see by their writing that both Nagel and Monton acknowledge ID's supernatural/religious leanings, but continue to argue that testing this concept shouldn't be categorically excluded from science (i.e. methodological naturalism should not be an a priori criterion of science), which is not the case. They also clearly acknowledge that ID has no evidence to support their "theory," which, when combined with the fact that they have no research program and focus all energy into political power, leads the experts to conclusively state that ID is a religious belief. Hopefully that clears things up. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC) That's a lot to respond to MrD, so I'll try to be concise. DV said above "You are aware that Nagel specifically states that ID is a religious argument?". You agree this is untrue. The proponents are WP:RS - so whatever you might think of their views, they have been published by independent, reputable publishing houses - and they already have WP articles on them, so they are WP:RS. That's all that matters, not what they say, how they say it, what others think about it, what you or I think about it - just that they are WP:RS's. The same goes for Nagel and Monton, and they both assert that ID is/may be scientific. Based on this there is a prima facie case that it is contentious to claim ID is a religious belief, so we either shouldn't be doing so at all, or at least not without caveats. I don't see how such a basic NPOV concept has been swept under the carpet here when it seems to have been satisfactorily dealt with on the ID page already. MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC) The musings of Nagel and Monton do not create a "prima facie" case that it is contentious to claim ID is a religious belief. MisterDub is correct as to the sources: "They also clearly acknowledge that ID has no evidence to support their "theory," which, when combined with the fact that they have no research program and focus all energy into political power, leads the experts to conclusively state that ID is a religious belief." - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC) WP:WEIGHT, MissionNPOVible... WP:WEIGHT. There is absolutely no contention within the scientific community, and that's what I was trying to explain with all that information. -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Since when did the scientific community decide on whether something is religious or not? This is not a scientific article, it isn't even a religious one, it is a political or sociological one so it is utter nonsense to invoke scientific WP:WEIGHT issues here. The only people who's "musings" don't count here are those of us editors. Nagel and Monton's musings got published and so their so-called "musings" do count. That's what WP:RS is all about and it is quite misguided to think that we should dump RS's just because they don't correspond with our own views. There are some very dubious claims and sources already in the article that are of far less quality than Nagel and Monton, so if you are wanting to get picky about these things then have a closer look at what is already passing for acceptable and compare it to Nagel and Monton (e.g. a letter to newspaper, testimony in a civil trial, blog-esque posts etc.). Incidentally non-scientific does not mean religious, so even by your own argument ID is not a religious belief, it is simply not a scientific belief. You'll need a much higher standard of evidence to demonstrate it is a) not contentious and b) religious. MissionNPOVible (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC) It's been explained to you time and time again why Nagel and Monton are unacceptable according to policy. Plugging your ears and singing "Lala la lala" isn't going to change that. Since you seem unable to produce any reliable secondary sources to establish the notablility of those papers in spite of THREE WEEKS of repeated requests, I'm closing this discussion according to WP:DEADHORSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another WP:DEADHORSE

Drop the stick and back slowly away, MissionNPOVible
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well that's very good of you to unilaterally decide on the matter DV. If hiding your error is the best way you can deal with this then I would suggest you are too emotionally involved and should perhaps recuse yourself and allow others to discuss it in a sensible fashion. This intolerance of dissent is a troubling pattern amongst some editors on this topic. The fact that you have made up your mind is one thing, but shutting down discussion is quite another. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

World Magazine quote

Why are we quoting World Magazine without even WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Why are we relying on them at all? They're highly partisan, so a WP:QS at best. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that if you remove or cast aspersions on all of the views of one side of a debate you end up with POV, right? If they're so partisan it will be obvious to readers, that's the whole point of using RS's rather than our own analysis. You can seem overly sensitive to providing balanced coverage and allowing readers to use their brains. All that achieves is reducing the credibility of WP. MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

World magazine isn't a reliable source and should not be treated as such. Adding a POV source does not help in providing balanced coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the publication, but if you can point out how it violates WP:RS I would appreciate it. Thanks. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how World Magazine is regarded as "highly partisan" and a questionable source. Somehow I missed Hrafn complaining about opinion magazines The New Republic (presented on a Richard Dawkins website) and The American Prospect, churchofvirus.org, and the alternative newspaper Seattle Weekly. How about actually taking the question to WP:RSN instead of just making a unilateral declaration? Drrll (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably because I missed any indication that they are "widely acknowledged as extremist" (a description that does appear to apply to World Magazine). Raising the question on talk, and then only taking action when there appears to be a consensus, is hardly unilateral. If you consider World Magazine to be reliable, then you're welcome to take the issue up on WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And what reliable sources indicate that they are "widely acknowledged as extremist"? Do you even have a single reliable source that by itself calls them "extremist" or the like? I said that your declaration was unilateral, as opposed to a consensus on RSN, which is the way that sources are supposed to be determined as reliable or not. I wouldn't call two editors' opinions here a consensus, especially when another editor's question about how it violates WP:RS went unanswered. Drrll (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my opinion on the matter, but I'm unfamiliar with this article and the claim/source in question. Could someone please point me to the statement made and its source? If it's the one currently in the article (sourcing the claim that Phillip Johnson was instrumental in the movement), I see no issue with it. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnson established a "cadre of intelligent design (ID) proponents for whom Mr. Johnson acted as an early fulcrum... he made contact, exchanged flurries of e-mail, and arranged personal meetings. Johnson framed these alliances as a 'wedge strategy,' with himself as lead blocker and ID scientists carrying the ball behind him."<ref>[http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=3565 Science vs. science] Lynn Vincent. WORLD Magazine, February 26, 2000, Vol. 15, No. 8.</ref>

• WP:RSN discussion of this source here & here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the claim is benign enough that the reference seems acceptable to me; however, the RSN clearly warns about using this source due to their bias in conservative, evangelical Protestantism. Seeing as how ID is a religious belief (specifically, a dominantly American conservative Christian belief), quite obviously warm to ID (they requested four ID proponents write articles as if they lived in the year 2025 and, by this time, ID had successfully overthrown the modern evolutionary synthesis), and other sources about ID's history are available, I'd have to agree that we not use this as a RS. If someone wants more details about Johnson's role as "an early fulcrum," other sources could, and should, be used. An extremely brief search for Johnson and ID led to the following ([18]):

“ I thought of it this way with Darwinism. I thought my job is to be the sharp edge [of the wedge], to use my academic credentials and legal abilities to get some hearing for the proposition that there really is something fundamentally wrong with the Darwinian story. ”

This suggests to me that other, better sources for these claims exist. Use these sources, not World. -- MisterDub (talk &#149; contribs) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempted censorship?

• Well that's very good of you to unilaterally decide on the matter DV. If hiding your error is the best way you can deal with this then I would suggest you are too emotionally involved and should perhaps recuse yourself and allow others to discuss it in a sensible fashion. This intolerance of dissent is a troubling pattern amongst some editors on this topic. The fact that you have made up your mind is one thing, but shutting down discussion is quite another. MissionNPOVible (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is my comment above unsuitable for public view? How can it be a dead horse issue when it has only just been posted with no reply as yet? I thought WP was about discussing how to improve articles, not shutting down that discussion. Are there serious WP:OWN issues here? MissionNPOVible (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)